General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (DainBramaged) on Thu Jul 18, 2013, 05:02 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Fuckers, all of them.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2013, 02:37 PM - Edit history (1)
"""The idea that HFCS is different in its effects on the body compared to table sugar (sucrose) has been soundly debunked """
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)Try to avoid the processed stuff at all costs here.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)Like this.
KnR.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I am sure there are critics of most studies that fault the powerful food industry, but my GUT says HFCS are bad for us. I remember when they told us antibiotics in our food supply were good for us.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)But I disagree they are solely responsible for the obesity epidemic.
Best quote from one of the articles I just read:
Still, the author of that Washington Post blog offered this bottom line:
Drinks sweetened by sugar or HFCS contain calories, and consuming too many calories can make you fat.
Lab rats don't get to choose what they eat and drink. But people do.
And I say that as someone who has lost 25+ lbs from watching what I put in my mouth and exercising everyday. That said, I do not have health issues etc. There are many factors that contribute to obesity.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)A recliner you can sink into, a remote, and an addiction to Wheel of Fortune is another.
SunSeeker
(58,245 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
ananda
(35,080 posts)I eventually had to cut just about all grains and ice cream.
Cutting ice cream really hurt, but it's been worth it.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I cut out beef ages ago, I still eat fish and some chicken, but a LOT of grains, pasta, rice, cereals.
digonswine
(1,487 posts)my mother claims to be free of intestinal ailments(read-loose stool) after cutting it out.
She says she does not want to be "one of those people" but has had success. I speak as a male who considers constipation a dream condition.
My problem is--I really like beer. I don't need gluten in my life, but it sure comes in handy at times.
I would like to try the gluten-free lifestyle, but my other life-styles get in the way.
Gluten-free beer is expensive!
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Basically a low carb diet.
And, the only sweetener I use, is maybe, just maybe sometimes two packets of stevia a week. I don't trust any artificial sweeteners. Especially Sucralose, when I put some into iced tea, and my tongue swelled up to more than double it's normal size.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)on my cereal, oatmeal, in my tea, great stuff.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)The study is inconclusive at best. If you read the OP, it specifically mentions "male rats" and conveniently leaves out the fact that female rats showed no difference. The difference in male rats was also not very significant. Rat studies are to be taken with a grain of salt anyway because the metabolic systems of rats and humans are not identical.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Seriously, do the taste test
If anything, it will show you how much better sugar tastes
Orrex
(67,083 posts)YMMV.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And I do roll on shabbos
(btw...Kosher Coke only comes out around Jewish holidays, and you can tell it by the yellow cap. Real sugar, yum!)
jmowreader
(53,166 posts)DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)(rim shot)
LisaLynne
(14,554 posts)
alittlelark
(19,138 posts)$18.99 a case at Costco !
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And I think it is actually cheaper at $17.99 a case or something like that.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)and the difference in taste isn't sufficient to justify the additional expense.
I can taste the difference easily, but HFCS isn't so objectionable that I clutch my throat and roll around the floor when I ingest it.
YMMV!
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
Just look for the yellow cap around Passover time
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Orrex
(67,083 posts)Pepsi generally tastes like flat Coke, so . . .
But, throwback Pepsi is much better than the standard stuff.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)HUGE flavor difference.
I cut the HFCS because I was having blood sugar spikes while I was on the synthetic thyroid meds and ditching the HFCS helped a lot, but I've stayed off it because everything tastes better now.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)The distinction is unmistakable, but it's not such a big deal that I can get all worked up about it.
I've heard about people having HFCS epiphanies who thereafter enjoy an improved quality of life etc., but for me the difference simply doesn't rise to that level.
If Coke switched to all-sucrose tomorrow, I wouldn't bat an eye. If they don't, I won't bat an eye about that either.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)so maybe my tastebuds are just more sensitive to it than yours. To me the difference is enormous- I noticed it in 80s as soon as they made the switch, and it made the drink taste nasty. I stopped drinking Coke in favor of Dr. Pepper or Mountain Dew, which have always been over-sweetened & syrupy anyway so it wasn't quite as noticeable, and then went to diet when even that got to be too much.
When I do drink a random soda these days, it's a Mexican Coke. Lucky for me, a lot of places have started carrying them now, including restaurants.
Orrex
(67,083 posts)Up here in PA, Mexican Coke is a niche item, so they wind up pricing themselves out of my market!
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I live in Utah now.
ETA and they average about a buck a bottle here.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Comparison of the effects of glucose, fructose, sucrose, and HFCS beverages within the same male subjects demonstrated that postprandial glucose and insulin responses were intermediate between the lower responses induced by pure fructose and the larger responses induced by pure glucose. Unexpectedly, the effects of short-term consumption of HFCS and sucrose on postprandial TG levels were not intermediate to those of fructose and glucose but comparable to fructose alone. Studies to determine whether these high postprandial TG levels are sustained during long-term consumption of sucrose and HFCS are needed. Additional studies in women and in subjects with and without components of the metabolic syndrome, as well as dose-response studies, are needed to more fully understand the metabolic effects of fructose-containing sugars.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1194.full
HFCS has about 10% more fructose than cane sugar, but it is not enough to matter, compared with the amount of sugar consumed as a principle cause of obesity.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There are posters on DU that argue in favor of high fructose corn syrup? They actually choose that hill to die on?
I completely missed that.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)The idea that HFCS is different in its effects on the body compared to table sugar (sucrose) has been soundly debunked
THAT is a quote for the poster
WovenGems
(776 posts)The fact is sugar is sweeter thus less is needed to sweeten a dish. HFCS are equal in calories and carbs but.........
And a good Rum and Coke is now available only in Kosher mode. Sad.
meegbear
(25,438 posts)Ain't nobody got time for that.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)... of rather cruel fat-shamers who will say anything and deny all evidence that doesn't fit their preconceived notions so they can jump up and down on the overweight. Liberally of course.
Regarding HFCS and some of the other ingredients in our processed food that were not so ubiquitous in the 1950s and 1960s, I think our food supply has been poisoned.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)as much as it is the environment with its endocrine disrupting chemicals that are causing issues. There was a documentary on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting corp) about this. It had how babies are being born bigger, even when controlling for the mother's weight in studies. The hypothesis is that there are an overabundance of endocrine disruptors in our environment and that is causing people to gain weight. The 2 scientists in the documentary noticed that even the tiniest amounts of endocrine disruptors in the rat's feed caused them to become super obese on the same amount of calories as the control group. It was a really compelling show (I haven't been able to find the show on youtube, just the promo - it's called "The Nature of Things" with David Suzuki "Programmed to be Fat" .
That said - our food supply has been altered. Even our vegetables are orders of magnitude sweeter than what our hunter/gatherer ancestors ate, with most of the breeding for sweetness happening in the last 100 years. Then there's all the processed crap we eat now, that tastes crappy, so our bodies crave more and more of it to get the same satiety. Add in HFCS, MSG and other additives that we don't really know WHAT they do.... Anyway, there are many factors, and I'd say 90% of them are not related to people being 'lazy'. I know what you mean about cruel-fat shamers here on DU. It's been really disappointing to see that here of all places.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)But when practically the entire country has become overweight-to-obese in a generation, even those not afflicted should be able to come up with something more relevant than "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, just put down your fork and push away from the table, you weak-willed tub of lard." Especially at a liberal website.
It's really complicated.
Take that stuff in plastic that is an estrogen-mimic. Good luck avoiding it, even in plastic baby bottles and their liners. A few years ago I opened up a can of stewed tomatoes, so healthy for you with the vitamins C and A, so cheap and easy to cook with for a homemade marinara sauce -- and found a white plastic coating in the can. Seems the bright boys in the lab finally found a way to eliminate the slight taste of tin that never bothered me in the first place. The plastic, however, turned out to have other unwanted side effects, but you don't know until you open the can whether or not it has been so treated.
Anyway, I may be using the term "poisoned" pretty loosely, but this is what I mean. We can no longer trust our own food chain, but we do have to eat.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Did you know it's even on the coating of your store receipts? And even things that are BPA free just have some other endocrine disrupting chemical instead. Don't even get me started about the chemicals in our drinking water supply.
As for food - seems like our only option is to grow our own food with organic heirloom seeds. Like my grandparents did.
I've started but only have a very small yard, there's no way I can provide for my entire family on it. It's discouraging isn't it?
SalviaBlue
(3,108 posts)He always defended the use of HFCS... that was his thing. He is gone (under that name).
Hekate
(100,133 posts)And I'll bet he's back. 
MrScorpio
(73,772 posts)ananda
(35,080 posts)I can drink the Knudsen's sweetened with stevia,
and the Reed's Ginger Ale.
I also drink all natural, organic cherry, grape, or pineapple juice.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Body type is not a disease.
Take your bigotry somewhere else. That's what it comes down to.
Amazing people will point to a "study" which doesn't prove anything but tries to justify hatred toward others on the basis of looks.
You are so blinded by it you don't see it.
I'll bet you are not beefcake material, by the way.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
This isn't about WEIGHT it's about the shit they put in OUR food, wake up.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)insult? And you call the OP bigoted? What difference does it make it he/she is "beefcake material"? Is "beefcake material" good and "not beefcake material" bad?
Your post sounds like projection.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I was 182 7 years ago before my last surgery, I've written about it many times. Thanks to steroids and medications, I'm a 42 waist and have NO hope of losing any more weight. I peaked at 280 but by eliminating HFCS I saw a dramatic 15 lbs loss over a few weeks.
They can spew all they want, I've posted weight supportive OPs before.
This is simply about what the food industry is doing to us our children and grandchildren, it isn't about being a tent pole.
Thanks for your comments
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I could easily give you a hundred more links, but I don't get paid by the word.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I remember
Rex
(65,616 posts)was all a lie perpetuated by the sugar industry. He/she was a real piece of work. I remember having many posts deleted on DU2 when we would fight.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)having soething to do with animal poo.....
Rex
(65,616 posts)Should call them the Pink Meat Brigade.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)YUK YUK YUK
I bet they would defend that too
Rex
(65,616 posts)Someone will step up to defend it! Looks like a pink python and probably tastes 100 times worse.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)I don't care what crap the industry puts out there insisting it's the same as sugar, it's not. The body gets confused when metabolizing because it's not a naturally occurring substance. HFCS consumption on occasion isn't a big deal, but we are inundated with it. Consuming products with HFCS every day, over and over and over for years will have an an adverse effect on metabolism.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)If you've ever eaten corn on the cob made from feed corn, you'll have noticed that it does not taste very good. On the flip side, if you ever eat regular corn on the cob with no seasonings whatsoever, you will find that it tastes rather, well ... sweet.
Sweet corn does not have to be altered to taste sweet. I believe they pretty much just extract that portion of the corn while extracting other chemicals for ethanol, etc. But I don't know for certain if sweet corn is used in production of corn syrup.
Does it taste the same? No. It's fructose, not sucrose. Is fructose more fattening? It appears so.
I do know that I much prefer the taste of Throwback Pepsi or soda made in Mexico (including American brands such as Pepsi or Coca-Cola). Though when Throwback first came out, I had to drink a couple to get used to it. I had grown accustomed to the syrupy version so that sugary version tasted odd to me at first.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)HFCS is produced from corn. The corn grain undergoes several unit processes starting with steeping to soften the hard corn kernel followed by wet milling and physical separation into corn starch (from the endosperm); corn hull (bran) and protein and oil (from the germ). Corn starch composed of glucose molecules of infinite length, consists of amylose and amylopectin and requires heat,
caustic soda and/or hydrochloric acid plus the activity of three different enzymes to break it down into the simple sugars glucose and fructose present in HFCS. An industrial enzyme, -amylase produced from Bacillus spp., hydrolyzes corn starch to short chain dextrins and oligosaccharides. A second enzyme, glucoamylase (also called amyloglucosidase), produced from fungi such as Apergillus, breaks dextrins and oligosaccharides to the simple sugar glucose. The product of these two enzymes is corn syrup also called glucose syrup.
The third and relatively expensive enzyme used in the process is glucose isomerase (also called D-glucose ketoisomerase or D-xylose ketolisomerase), that converts glucose to fructose.
While -amylase and glucoamylase are added directly to the processing slurry, pricey glucose isomerase is immobilized by package into columns where the glucose syrup is passed over in a liquid chromatography step that isomerizes glucose to a mixture of 90% fructose and 10% glucose (HFCS-90). Whereas inexpensive -amylase and glucoamylase are used only once, glucose isomerase isre used until it loses most of its enzymatic activity. The amylase and glucoamylase used in HFCS processing have been genetically modified to improve their heat stability for the production of HFCS.
In the US, four companies control 85% of the $2.6 billion HFCS business—Archer Daniels Midland, Cargill, Staley Manufacturing Co, and CPC International. With clarification and removal of impurities, HFCS-90 is blended with glucose syrup to produce HFCS-55 (55%
fructose) and HFCS-42 (42% fructose). Both HFCS-55 and HFCS-42 have several functional advantages in common, but each has unique properties that make them attractive to specific food manufacturers. Because of its higher fructose content, HFCS-55 is sweeter than sucrose and is thus used extensively as sweetener in soft, juice, and carbonated drinks. HFCS-42 has a mild
sweetness and does not mask the natural flavors of food. Thus it is used extensively in canned fruits, sauces, soups, condiments, baked goods, and many other processed foods. It is also used heavily by the dairy industry in yogurt, eggnog, flavored milks, ice cream, and other frozen desserts. The use of HFCS has increased since its introduction as a sweetener (Figure 2). Although,
its use peaked in 1999, it rivals sucrose as the major sweetener in processed foods. The US is the major user of HFCS in the world, but HFCS is manufactured and used in many countries around the world (Vuilleumier,1993).
http://www.academicjournals.org/bmbr/PDF/Pdf2010/Dec/Parker%20et%20al.pdf
I recommend reading the entire article at the link.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Regular cane sugar, or not, several doctors and researchers testified that while the body needs a certain amount of water to effectively rid itself of the waste generated by eating sugar, two and a half times as much water is needed to do that same function if instead of sugar, it is corn syrup that the body is processing.
Since even sugar requires significant amount of water per unit of sugar, it becomes impossible to drink as much water as needed if the individual is instead consuming corn syrup.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)HFCS is produced by enzymes, which is the same way your body "CHEMICALLY" alters substances. Basic corn syrup is mostly glucose and is produced by taking corn starch (a more complex carbohydrate) and altering via enzymatic process. They use other enzymatic processes to convert some of the glucose to fructose.
Your brain can only use glucose. So your body must convert other forms of carbohydrates to glucose. So in order for you to write the message you posted, your body had to convert carbohydrates to different forms via enzymatic processes.
With few exceptions like water, everything you consume must be chemically altered in one way or another, either by the plant or animal that produced it, by your own body, or by external processes.
Avalux
(35,015 posts)Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)
trublu992
(489 posts)We've eaten cane sugar with the same molecular structure for decades and then HCFS hits the food industry and
obesity rates soar. Somehow corn syrup that goes to a lab to have its molecular structure changed so it can be
umpteen times sweeter than cane sugar that's the same as cane sugar! 
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)
get the red out
(14,031 posts)I don't need that stuff, gross. I don't consume HFCS no matter how many people try to tell me it's great!
Thanks for the article. 
Always good to have more ammunition.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)...the work is never done...
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)These are large corporate brands. The corn refiners associations must be pissed.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)they make way more money on that
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The United States Food and Drug Administration has rejected a request from the Corn Refiners Association to change the name of high-fructose corn syrup.
The association, which represents the companies that make the syrup, had petitioned the F.D.A. in September 2010 to begin calling the much-maligned sweetener “corn sugar.” The request came on the heels of a national advertising campaign promoting the syrup as a natural ingredient made from corn.
But in a letter, Michael M. Landa, director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the F.D.A., denied the petition, saying that the term “sugar” is used only for food “that is solid, dried and crystallized.”
“HFCS is an aqueous solution sweetener derived from corn after enzymatic hydrolysis of cornstarch, followed by enzymatic conversion of glucose (dextrose) to fructose,” the letter stated. “Thus, the use of the term ‘sugar’ to describe HFCS, a product that is a syrup, would not accurately identify or describe the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties.”
In addition, the F.D.A. concluded that the term “corn sugar” has been used to describe the sweetener dextrose and therefore should not be used to describe high-fructose corn syrup. The agency also said the term “corn sugar” could pose a risk to consumers who have been advised to avoid fructose because of a hereditary fructose intolerance or fructose malabsorption.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/no-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/
lunasun
(21,646 posts)Go for the profit - the only language they care to speak . Don't buy anything with tHFCS and GMO'S too. We Will not buy big boxes of corn flakes that are GMO either. You see now big corps offer an alternative when they lose a portion of profit
enki23
(7,795 posts)Short term (eight week) study: 4 treatment groups
1. chow only
2. chow plus 12hr access to sucrose solution
3. chow plus 12hr access to HFCS solution
4. chow plus 24hr access to HFCS soolution
Groups 1,2 and 4 were statistically indistinguishable. Having 24 hour access to HFCS had no statistically significant effect on weight gain in the rats. Group 3, however, appeared to have a statistically significant weight gain.
Problems:
*What possible mechanism is there to explain why the 12hr access to HFCS caused significantly increased weight gain that would not affect the group with 24hr access?
*The study could just as easily be read as "24 hour access to HFCS has NO EFFECT on weight gain in rats in an 8 week study.
*The result for group 3 is, in fact, *not* statistically significant when a reasonable multiple comparisons correction is applied. Stats 101 may not cover this, but stats 102 sure as hell should.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=19
Taken together, these problems give absolutely no valid, evidence-based reason to attribute the 12hr HFCS groups weight value as due to anything but chance.
Long term/chronic (six month) rodent study: 2 treatment groups.
1. chow only
2. chow plus HFCS solution
The group with access to the HFCS solution gained significantly more weight than the chow only group. For this study, there are no multiple-comparisons problems to deal with. They really did gain more weight.
Problems:
*There was absolutely no sucrose solution control. Why? Because, according to the researchers, the *first* study already showed that HFCS was the only group that showed a significant weight gain at eight weeks.
The entire premise of leaving out the sucrose control is based on a completely erroneous assumption from the first study. This was completely wrong, and compounded by the fact that studies conducted elsewhere have (inconveniently, for the alarmists) found no difference between HFCS and sucrose with respect to weight gain.
As it was conducted, all this study proves is that a rats with six month access to a sugar solution will gain more weight than rats with no sugar solution access
Actual conclusions:
Eight-week study
1.Over an eight week period, there is no statistically significant difference in weight gain in rats exposed to the various treatments of sucrose and HFCS solution, relative to each other or relative to rats eating chow only.
2. Eight weeks is probably too short to adequately measure effects of sucrose and HFCS on weight gain in rats, under these conditions.
Six-month study
1. Rats that have access to sugar water will gain more weight, over a six-month period, than rats without access to sugar water.
2. That's it. Nothing about HFCS vs sucrose vs other calorie sources. Nada. Zip. Zilch. This was a useless study.
EDIT:
I found they also conducted a seven-month study with similar treatment groups to the eight-week study. In it, they found that 24hr access to HFCS led to slightly more weight gain than 12hr access to HFCS, or 12hr access to sucrose (there was no 24hr access to sucrose group!).
Problems:
*No 24hr sucrose access group to compare to.
*Opposite results from the first study.
*Once again, the results go up in smoke when you apply a multiple-comparisons correction.
Conclusion: Yeah. Nothing there. This is a useful conclusion. It's just not the one they wanted, apparently. I honestly don't know why they didn't just draw the "no difference" conclusion which is strongly justified by their results. I have no problem, however, understanding that certain science-ignorant sectors of the public would latch onto these contradictory, uncontrolled false positives regardless. Sadly enough.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts) 
enki23
(7,795 posts)I'm a PhD candidate in toxicology. My research is in fish, not rodents, and biased toward data-rich metabolism studies in single large animals. But working in the tox world absolutely demands, whether you like it or not, that you see your fair share of rodent data. I also have a passing familiarity with study design and statistics, even though my data tends to be analyzed by compartmental modeling rather than simple statistical treatment like these studies (lord, I wish my data were as easy to analyze as this).
In this subject area, my expertise actually matters. Note that I didn't bring it up initially, because what I have to say is more interesting than my personal reasons for saying it. But, since you ignored it and tried to be cute, I have to assume you are *unable* to respond to it substantively.
TLDR: You're hiding behind the "Princeton" thing because, presumably, the Princeton researchers have to the tools to design and analyze these studies. But science is an open process, and peer review never ends. Like a few other people out there, I too have the tools to analyze these studies. The Princeton researchers failed. It happens. No, what do *you* have?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 12:07 AM - Edit history (1)
Thanks for the info, I'll be sure to contact you when I need a large animal examined....
"I'm a PhD candidate in toxicology" I collect urine samples for drug testing is the translation....
It's sad you think that my worry about what the consequence of HFCS consumption are is not worthy. I don't flood my posts with dozens of links, I assume the good people of DU are smart enough to draw their own conclusions, and not compare penis size by telling us how important they are and everybody else's opinion, even Princeton's, is crap.
Have a wonderful day, and watch out for those big animals, they make big poo....
enki23
(7,795 posts)Dude
Professing how smart you are doesn't make you better than me
I didn't say anything about you. I noted some expertise that I very much do have, in order to try to get you to actually engage with what I wrote. Clearly, you can't, or won't do that.
It makes me laugh.
I doubt that
I appreciate your attempts to discredit me, but the fact remains, HFCS is not something we should be ingesting, and when we at the shelter find it in dog/cat food, we won't fed it to the dogs and cats.
It should be clear that I didn't make any attempt discredit you. I noted some very serious problems with this series of studies. You are either unable, or unwilling to actually respond to what I wrote, for some reason. If that's because you aren't equipped to do so, that's alright. Admit that. Your responses have been silly and childish. As was this private message
PS, I have two degrees, obtained long before computers werte available to enhance studies, don't think you have any greater qualifications to post than I do.
What has that to do with anything? I was noting a relevant expertise, and only did so when it became clear you were, again, unwilling or unable to address what I wrote. I note my qualifications in order to show that I have real reason, and real expertise in the area that is worthy of consideration, rather than your silly dismissals, and the childish "are you smarter than PRINCETON?" responses.
Be well we shall disagree once again
Do people actually think that after a bout of silly, unearned rudeness, they can fix it with some generic "be well" bullshit? That's like saying "I'll pray for you." The most accurate translation of the phrase begins with the letter "F". So why pretend?
####
Name redacted
Response to enki23 (Reply #118)
Post removed
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Go fuck yourself
Just sayin'
Rex
(65,616 posts)NEXT.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)So why do they even bother publishing the data?
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning. (emphasis mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)You wonder who their corporate masters really are and WHY they try so so hard to change the dialog.
"Oh no there's no proof sugar is better than HFCS, there's no proof it's any different or bad for you , yadda, yadda, yadda".
The harder they argue, the more they lose creditability.
Be well.
Rex
(65,616 posts)that there is a link between stupidity and stubbornness? Naturally I dismissed the study immediately as we all know John Hopkins is just a front group for the Cato institute. 
Plus I have google search...so that makes me right and a billion dollar facility chalk full of dumdums wrong.
enki23
(7,795 posts).
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)You aren't worth a warm can of beer on a cold day to discuss anything with
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)where else would someone pay attention to him/her/it?
His exact quote:
"because what I have to say is more interesting than my personal reasons for saying it"
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)The FDA recommends no more than 40g of supplemental sugar per day. The average American consumes 153g which is far more than they did 50 years ago. The average calorie consumption also greatly increased while activity has decreased.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)A member of the Princeton faculty since 1963, Hoebel's interest in understanding how the brain rewards behavior encompassed a breadth of research and led to discoveries in the areas of eating disorders and obesity, addiction, alcohol consumption and depression. He pioneered studies into the mental rewards of eating, and his research on sugar addiction in rats generated worldwide attention for its possible public health applications.
"His studies on food addiction led to the development of a new subfield and a novel approach to studying the obesity epidemic," said Nicole Avena, a visiting assistant professor of psychology at Princeton and a research assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Florida.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S30/80/58G73/
It is not unusual for eminent scientists to go a bit off the rails at the end of their careers.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)are different. Give one group access to a sucrose drink for 12 hours and another access to HFCS for 24 hours? wtf?
And that's far from the only problem.
It's just a mess.
I noticed many of the posters noted that they drink Mexican coke. You might want to consider that Mexico is now the fattest country in the world but HFCS is not nearly as pervasive a food additive in Mexico as in the US (and until fairly recently was even less so).
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Researchers from USC and the University of Oxford say they have found an association between countries that have more high fructose corn syrup in their food supply and those that have higher rates of diabetes.
Countries with higher use of HFCS had an average prevalence of Type 2 diabetes of 8%, compared with 6.7% in countries that don’t use it, according to the research published Tuesday in the journal Global Public Health. Those differences held, the researchers said, after adjustments for body mass index, population and gross domestic product.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Next thing I know, you will be telling me it is a place of higher learning... 
Rex
(65,616 posts)HFCS...was a royal pain in the ass, glad they finally got the tombstone.
otohara
(24,135 posts)yesterday 
Weber if anyone is interested.
I don't recall seeing DU'ers who defend HFCS...
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-sugar-princeton-study.html
"I'm skeptical," leading food policy scholar Marion Nestle writes in a blog post. "I don't think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats."
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25/corn.syrup.sugar/index.html
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)are often carrying around a large plastic bottle of Coke or Pepsi, the kind sweetened by HFCS. They will often say, "I hate water." Seriously.
My observations are highly scientific.
I tried the Coke sweetened by cane sugar instead of the usual HFCS. It is far superior in flavor.
There are many paid corporate spokespersons on the DU.
Why not enact a small tax on soft drinks? Why is this industry a sacred cow?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)I saw a commercial on tv saying that and it almost made me 
.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)Not only is this idea nutty and unsubstantiated, it's reckless bad advice for those who already have health and weight problems associated with high sugar intake.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)elite, egg-headed, academic, libruls.. Everybody knows that the people who make/sell/promote our food only have our best interests at heart
...just in case
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3280020
What's sad is their continued attempts to defend HFCS and discredit any study to the contrary
closeupready
(29,503 posts)in the oreo thread, you called me and others who failed to lament the smaller package sizes "food snobs" or "puritans" - yet, here you are, doing that exact same thing, not just even two months later.
maddezmom
(135,060 posts)Kinda of weird since Oreos contain HFCS.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I guess at some point, I should just shrug and say whatever, but I was puzzled in that other thread, because I meant no malice whatsoever, but ... anyway.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)HFCS has been shown to be terrible for you for years just like aspartame.
I avoid both like the plague and am much healthier for it.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)The debate is whether it's worse for you than sucrose. As yet the evidence to support this is quite lacking.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)There have been several studies out of Europe that have found that sucrose is less bad for you than HFCS.
Major Nikon
(36,925 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)This Princeton Study is probably more recent.
hankthecrank
(653 posts)Really glad you flushed some more HFCs nuts out of the wood work!
I'm getting to old to argue with idiots I just put them on full ignore
Will not put up crap now
If smells like crap and looks like crap guess what it's crap(HFCs)
If it taste like crap then it's HFCs
Hfcs nuts can just keep repeating its the same but its not
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
- We keep sayin' it, but nothing ever happens after that.....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
A report from Princeton University on HFCS says....
K&R
MisterP
(23,730 posts)I don't think the Iowa Board (or whatever) realized how many people they turned off with that freakshow of an ad campaign
that whole "without chemicals, life itself would be impossible" era is quite dead: there's a few 60s holdouts trying to resurrect it by bellowing "Mars is the Destiny of Man on our Staircase to Godhood," but nobody seems entirely convinced