Re: How much was she paid to WRITE THIS CARP??? HFCS

[Guest guest]

On 6/13/08, Mrs Bernstein <mrsdanielbernstein@...> wrote:

> UGH!

> THIS lovely 'article' was on the front page of this afternoon.

>

http://health./experts/nutrition/12836/the-high-fructose-corn-syrup-myt\

h/

The article seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't think HFCS is

likely to be much worse than sugar, other than the fact that people

consume more of it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> UGH!

> THIS lovely 'article' was on the front page of this afternoon.

>

http://health./experts/nutrition/12836/the-high-fructose-corn-syrup-myt\

h/

> Mrs Bernstein (Avery)

As far as mass-market journalism goes, it's better than average. It

makes a really good point, that highly refined corn syrup is no better

or worse than highly refined cane syrup ( " white sugar " ). Of course,

she misses the larger point that any food with either ingredient is

inherently and deeply problematic for any number of reasons.

Mike

[Guest guest]

Corn syrup is hard on the liver. Mine is in turn hard on me whenever I have

it. =)

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:09 PM

Subject: Re: How much was she paid to WRITE THIS CARP??? HFCS

On 6/13/08, Mrs Bernstein <mrsdanielbernstein@...

<mailto:mrsdanielbernstein%40> > wrote:

> UGH!

> THIS lovely 'article' was on the front page of this afternoon.

>

http://health./experts/nutrition/12836/the-high-fructose-corn-syrup

-myth/

The article seems pretty reasonable to me. I don't think HFCS is

likely to be much worse than sugar, other than the fact that people

consume more of it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> > UGH!

> > THIS lovely 'article' was on the front page of this afternoon.

> > http://health./experts/nutrition/12836/the-high-fructose-

corn-syrup-myth/

> > Mrs Bernstein (Avery)

>

> As far as mass-market journalism goes, it's better than average. It

> makes a really good point, that highly refined corn syrup is no better

> or worse than highly refined cane syrup ( " white sugar " ). Of course,

> she misses the larger point that any food with either ingredient is

> inherently and deeply problematic for any number of reasons.

>

> Mike

Ah but there has not been much research into the question of, what does

the change in type and amount of sugars, do to our insides. A little

more fructose makes how much difference in triglycerides? So we don't

know and this writer is making assumptions. HCFS is the fattener of

choice for lab rodents. Why is that.

The increase in fructose from 50% to 55% might or might not be

significant. Where else in the stories of manufactured foods, has a

little difference made a huge health impact. The trans fat story comes

to mind - a wee change in the configuration of molecules.

The final recommendation - get out refined sugars - is fine. I gag on

the Pyramid-style reliance on grains after that.

Connie

>

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> Ah but there has not been much research into the question of, what does

> the change in type and amount of sugars, do to our insides. A little

> more fructose makes how much difference in triglycerides? So we don't

> know and this writer is making assumptions. HCFS is the fattener of

> choice for lab rodents. Why is that.

I don't know but sucrose works pretty fine to give them fatty liver

and all sorts of other problems.

> The increase in fructose from 50% to 55% might or might not be

> significant.

Well, very obviously it is a minor difference. Of course you might

get some *statistical* significance in, say, the amount of fatty

infiltration of the liver, but clearly with such a small difference,

portion size or abstention versus partaking is much more important.

Besides that, you could probably get similar sweetness from less HFCS

since it is higher in monosacharides. So, *if* the softdrink

companies had been maintaining the drinks instead of making them

sweeter and larger, people may have reduced their sugar intake with

the advent of HFCS, instead of dramatically increasing both their

sugar and total caloric intake as portion sizes and sugariness

increased right alongside it.

> Where else in the stories of manufactured foods, has a

> little difference made a huge health impact. The trans fat story comes

> to mind - a wee change in the configuration of molecules.

That is not analogous at all. Aside from the fact that the evidence

against trans fats can, as far as I know, hardly be said to be

conclusive, we're talking about dose, whereas you are talking about a

qualitative change. You can't quantitate a qualitative change as you

are trying to do. To draw a true analogy, you have to question

whether a food that is, for example, 55% trans fat is substantially

more harmful than one that is 50% trans fat.

> The final recommendation - get out refined sugars - is fine. I gag on

> the Pyramid-style reliance on grains after that.

There were many things that could be said in the article that were

not, and things that could be changed, but on the whole it was a very

rational and sensible article, and hardly an irrational defense of

HFCF that could only be explained by a pay-off.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> There were many things that could be said in the article that were

> not, and things that could be changed, but on the whole it was a very

> rational and sensible article, and hardly an irrational defense of

> HFCF that could only be explained by a pay-off.

>

> Chris

That may be true, and I agree, it doesn't look like it's a pay off or a

front group or anything like that. However, the thrust of the article is

that while HFCS is not great for you, it is no worse for you than refined

sugar. That is misleading and incorrect.

What she does not address is that 61% of US-grown corn is genetically

modified, therefore much (most?) of the HFCS on the market is genetically

modified.

In addition to that, HFCS is essentially industrial (inedible) corn that is

soaked in battery acid. In the movie, " King Corn " , they actually try to make

HFCS at home (wearing safety goggles). Pretty entertaining -- and

incredible.

After you watch that, there's no way you would believe that HFCS is equal to

sugar. Perhaps it is not as bad as aspartame, but based on the above, I

posit that HFCS is absolutely worse than sugar.

Ann Marie

[Guest guest]

--- Connie wrote:

> > The increase in fructose from 50% to 55% might or might not be

> > significant.

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Well, very obviously it is a minor difference. Of course you might

> get some *statistical* significance in, say, the amount of fatty

> infiltration of the liver, but clearly with such a small difference,

> portion size or abstention versus partaking is much more important.

the increase from 50% fructose to 55% fructose is a 10%

increase, which is not huge, but nonetheless could be significant,

especially on the long time scale it takes to develop problems from

excess sugar consumption. If the temporal impact is directly related

to the amount ingested, then if it takes 10 years to develop problems

from a given amount of sucrose, then it might only take 9 years to

develop those same problems with the same amount of HFCS 55 instead.

A year is nothing to sneeze at

According to wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs

" Chi-Tang Ho et al. found that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are up

to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as

methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control. Carbonyl compounds are

elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic

complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage; there was

no such link found in table sugar. "

Maybe these carbonyls are formed during the heavy processing that it

takes to make the HFCS.

[Guest guest]

..> Well, very obviously it is a minor difference. Of course you might

> get some *statistical* significance in, say, the amount of fatty

> infiltration of the liver, but clearly with such a small difference,

> portion size or abstention versus partaking is much more important.

But think if HFCS had been tested by the standards of a food additive

(was it?) I heard with additives they are talking about very tiny

amounts, yet here is a large portion of our macronutrients nationally,

come upon us within a short period of time. It's not just in soft

drinks but in everything - that author airily waves a hand for us not

to fuss, and be sure to eat grains, fruit, and veg - Most of which is

processed first with HFCS. (if I remember correctly that most fruit and

veg goes to processing instead of marketed fresh)

If I were the boss of responsibible public health research, I would

look at it, and not just assume it's like table sugar.

Connie

[Guest guest]

cbrown2008 wrote:

>

> Most of which is

> processed first with HFCS. (if I remember correctly that most fruit and

> veg goes to processing instead of marketed fresh)

>

Yes, they're processed, but not with HFCS. The current corn evil in

produce processing is a citric acid spray derived from corn, but it

isn't in totally ubiquitous yet.

--s

[Guest guest]

Ann Marie,

> That may be true, and I agree, it doesn't look like it's a pay off or a

> front group or anything like that. However, the thrust of the article is

> that while HFCS is not great for you, it is no worse for you than refined

> sugar. That is misleading and incorrect.

Well if you have any evidence that feeding equal amounts of one or the

other produces different health outcomes, I'd like to see it.

> What she does not address is that 61% of US-grown corn is genetically

> modified, therefore much (most?) of the HFCS on the market is genetically

> modified.

That's a good point but it's tangential and speculative. It's

tangential because she was addressing whether HFCS was uniquely

harmful, and being GMO would not be a unique characteristic, as most

of her audience is probably eating GMO from many other sources. I say

speculative because, while you are probably correct, we don't actually

have any data on how much HFCS is GMO.

> In addition to that, HFCS is essentially industrial (inedible) corn that is

> soaked in battery acid. In the movie, " King Corn " , they actually try to make

> HFCS at home (wearing safety goggles). Pretty entertaining -- and

> incredible.

That sounds gross, but isn't evidence of anything.

> After you watch that, there's no way you would believe that HFCS is equal to

> sugar. Perhaps it is not as bad as aspartame, but based on the above, I

> posit that HFCS is absolutely worse than sugar.

I think a more reasonable thing to posit would be that HFCS looks a

lot worse than sugar. What I'd like to see is an animal experiment in

which HFCS and refined white sugar fed in isocaloric amounts added to

the same basal diet produce meaningfully different health outcomes.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

> the increase from 50% fructose to 55% fructose is a 10%

> increase, which is not huge, but nonetheless could be significant,

> especially on the long time scale it takes to develop problems from

> excess sugar consumption. If the temporal impact is directly related

> to the amount ingested, then if it takes 10 years to develop problems

> from a given amount of sucrose, then it might only take 9 years to

> develop those same problems with the same amount of HFCS 55 instead.

> A year is nothing to sneeze at

I think there are a lot of factors your calculation isn't taking into account.

First, the extra fructose is replacing glucose. In vitro, fructose is

an 8-fold more effective glycating (bad) agent, but I haven't seen any

well-controlled in vivo data quantifying the extra risk, if any, posed

by fructose. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't seen it.

Fructose is more harmful but glucose stays around much longer and much

more of it hits the blood and gets total-body exposure.

Second, HFCS is monosacharides so should be sweeter -- so

theoretically out of two equivalent products, one using HFCS and the

other using sucrose, the one using HFCS should be able to use less.

Third, in the real world, if people quit HFCS they are not going to

get exactly equivalent products, so we need to look at what people

would tend to replace it with to see the real effect of avoiding it,

and no one has done that.

Finally, like you say, even with your calculation the difference is

not that impressive. It's really misleading dietary advice when you

consider the distraction it would pose from other radically more

important and effective advice like eating less sugar-dense foods,

eating less total food but more nutrient-dense food, exercising more,

etc.

> According to wiki:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs

> " Chi-Tang Ho et al. found that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are up

> to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as

> methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control. Carbonyl compounds are

> elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic

> complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage; there was

> no such link found in table sugar. "

> Maybe these carbonyls are formed during the heavy processing that it

> takes to make the HFCS.

I suspect they're formed in the drink because of exposure to

monosacharides. This paragraph gives no indication of whether that

amount is important, whether the compounds are absorbed, whether there

is any connection to dietary amounts and in vivo levels, etc. The

paragraph is also sloppy in that they do not even state anything

indicating that oxidation and glycation happen within the living

person in diabetes, and thus seems to give the false impression that

they are elevated because they are consuming the compounds in the

diet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> In vitro, fructose is an 8-fold more effective glycating (bad)

> agent, but I haven't seen any well-controlled in vivo data

> quantifying the extra risk, if any, posed by fructose.

if fructose is 8 times more harmful than glucose in terms of

glycation, then a 10% increase in fructose consumption could

potentially be much more significant in terms of health effects

(assuming the total amount of sugar consumption remains the same).

> Second, HFCS is monosacharides so should be sweeter -- so

> theoretically out of two equivalent products, one using HFCS and the

> other using sucrose, the one using HFCS should be able to use less.

But do they really use less? And consumption of larger quantities

would negate a reduction per serving - as in supersize me

> Third, in the real world, if people quit HFCS they are not going to

> get exactly equivalent products, so we need to look at what people

> would tend to replace it with to see the real effect of avoiding it,

> and no one has done that.

Yes, and I certainly don't advocate replacing HFCS with sucrose.

> Finally, like you say, even with your calculation the difference is

> not that impressive. It's really misleading dietary advice when you

> consider the distraction it would pose from other radically more

> important and effective advice like eating less sugar-dense foods,

> eating less total food but more nutrient-dense food, exercising

> more, etc.

Yes, that's a very big problem, because many people seem to think they

can use large amounts of more natural sweeteners, like honey or maple

syrup or molasses to replace large amounts of HFCS or even sucrose.

But I doubt that large amounts of any sweeteners are good for long

term health, especially with sedentary lifestyles.

> > According to wiki:

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs

> > " Chi-Tang Ho et al. found that soft drinks sweetened with HFCS are

> > up to 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds, such as

> > methylglyoxal, than a diet soft drink control. Carbonyl compounds

> > are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing

> > diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve

> > damage; there was no such link found in table sugar. "

>

> > Maybe these carbonyls are formed during the heavy processing that

> > it takes to make the HFCS.

>

> I suspect they're formed in the drink because of exposure to

> monosacharides. This paragraph gives no indication of whether that

> amount is important, whether the compounds are absorbed, whether

> there is any connection to dietary amounts and in vivo levels, etc.

> The paragraph is also sloppy in that they do not even state anything

> indicating that oxidation and glycation happen within the living

> person in diabetes, and thus seems to give the false impression that

> they are elevated because they are consuming the compounds in the

> diet.

The wiki reference has a link to a Science News article with a little

more information about the Chi-Tang Ho study:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/532433/

===================================================

In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests

among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found

`astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those beverages.

These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated with

" unbound " fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause tissue

damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers University in

New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are not present in

table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are " bound " and

chemically stable, the researcher notes.

Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with

diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the

study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five

times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration

found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes.

===================================================

There's also a wiki reference to this article:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/mg19526192.800-diabetes-fears-over-co\

rn-syrup-in-soda.html

===================================================

Ho says these free-floating monosaccharides can undergo the so-called

Maillard reaction, which converts them into carbonyl compounds. By

contrast, cane sugar consists almost entirely of pure sucrose, a

disaccharide.

While Ho stresses that consuming carbonyl compounds has not been shown

to cause diabetes, he urges a switch away from the syrups as a

precaution. The results were presented at a meeting of the American

Chemical Society in Boston last week.

===================================================

In a soda, with pH around 2.5, it's possible that most of the sucrose

added to the soda would also be converted into fructose and glucose by

the high acidity, in which case carbonyls might form as well.

I think the best solution for good health is to avoid sugary foods in

the first place, rather than replacing one sweetener with another.

[Guest guest]

,

> if fructose is 8 times more harmful than glucose in terms of

> glycation, then a 10% increase in fructose consumption could

> potentially be much more significant in terms of health effects

> (assuming the total amount of sugar consumption remains the same).

No, I think its impact is in the opposite direction. Prior to my

statement, the fructose was considered additional. I.e., 10% more

harm. I am noting that its effect is actually displacement of

something that is also harmful. So now the fact that glucose also

poses 1/8 of a " harm unit " has to be taken into account, so the

additional harm effect is somewhat less than 10% (and further reduced

by the other factors I noted, such as the much shorter existence and

smaller total-body exposure associated with the fructose).

>> Second, HFCS is monosacharides so should be sweeter -- so

>> theoretically out of two equivalent products, one using HFCS and the

>> other using sucrose, the one using HFCS should be able to use less.

> But do they really use less? And consumption of larger quantities

> would negate a reduction per serving - as in supersize me

What products can we use to make the comparison? I can't think of any

off the top of my head where there are exactly equivalent products but

one using sucrose and one using HFCS. If you look at soft-drinks,

they don't, becuase the soft-drinks have gotten larger and sweeter.

But there's no reason to think that's *because* they are using HFCS,

but rather because the general trend has been for people to eat larger

and larger servings that are more and more dense in sugar. Had they

done the same thing with table sugar, I think any adverse effects

would likely have been similar in magnitude.

>> Third, in the real world, if people quit HFCS they are not going to

>> get exactly equivalent products, so we need to look at what people

>> would tend to replace it with to see the real effect of avoiding it,

>> and no one has done that.

> Yes, and I certainly don't advocate replacing HFCS with sucrose.

I think that was her main point. Rather than avoiding HFCS as a

unique evil, make a general effort to replace refined sugars with

whole foods.

>> Finally, like you say, even with your calculation the difference is

>> not that impressive. It's really misleading dietary advice when you

>> consider the distraction it would pose from other radically more

>> important and effective advice like eating less sugar-dense foods,

>> eating less total food but more nutrient-dense food, exercising

>> more, etc.

> Yes, that's a very big problem, because many people seem to think they

> can use large amounts of more natural sweeteners, like honey or maple

> syrup or molasses to replace large amounts of HFCS or even sucrose.

> But I doubt that large amounts of any sweeteners are good for long

> term health, especially with sedentary lifestyles.

People eat too much food for their sedentary lifestyles, period.

Also, people's lifestyles are too sedentary, period.

> The wiki reference has a link to a Science News article with a little

> more information about the Chi-Tang Ho study:

Everything in it seems consistent with what I said and does not

provide any evidence that these things are harmful, or that they are

even absorbed, which is an obvious prerequisite to them being harmful.

I understand his point that you might as well avoid them as a

precaution, and I certainly don't eat anything with HFCS, but this can

hardly be said to be anything more than a preliminary finding that

would justify further studies.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- wrote:

> > if fructose is 8 times more harmful than glucose in terms

> > of glycation, then a 10% increase in fructose consumption could

> > potentially be much more significant in terms of health effects

> > (assuming the total amount of sugar consumption remains the same).

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> No, I think its impact is in the opposite direction. Prior to my

> statement, the fructose was considered additional. I.e., 10% more

> harm. I am noting that its effect is actually displacement of

> something that is also harmful. So now the fact that glucose also

> poses 1/8 of a " harm unit " has to be taken into account, so the

> additional harm effect is somewhat less than 10% (and further

> reduced by the other factors I noted, such as the much shorter

> existence and smaller total-body exposure associated with the

> fructose).

OK I think I see your logic here. For simplicity, let's talk

about 100 g of sucrose versus 100 g of HFCS 55. Let's suppose there

is one unit of glycation per gram for glucose and 8 units of glycation

per gram for fructose. Then 100 g of sucrose would have 450 units of

glycation and 100 g of HFCS 55 would have 485 units of glycation.

That's still about an 8% increase in the glycation potential, but less

than the 10% increase in fructose. However, if glycation is a rapid

process, then the shorter amount of time in the blood might not be a

significant factor in favor of fructose over glucose.

> People eat too much food for their sedentary lifestyles, period.

> Also, people's lifestyles are too sedentary, period.

But why are so many more people now eating too much food, even

compared to just 20 years ago? What has changed in the typical diet

over these 20 years to cause this increase in overeating? I doubt

that lifestyles have changed significantly in the last 20 years, which

would point primarily to changes in dietary factors. Is it the

promotion of the low-fat diet, where sugar is often traded for fat to

maintain an appealing flavor? Is it the promotion of grains as the

base of the food pyramid? Is it addicting food additives that promote

increasing consumption? Maybe all of the above?

[Guest guest]

On a related note, has anyone looked into the benefits of replacing

" crap " with " carp " ? Just how equivalent are they? (sorry, couldn't

resist!)

*****

So, not all HFCS is 55% fructose. HFCS-55 is used in soft drinks, but

HFCS-42 is frequently used to sweeten other processed foods. So some

HFCS actually has less fructose by weight than sucrose does.

http://www.hfcsfacts.com/sweetAsSugar.html

Tom

[Guest guest]

> > Most of which is

> > processed first with HFCS. (if I remember correctly that most fruit

and

> > veg goes to processing instead of marketed fresh)

> >

> Yes, they're processed, but not with HFCS. The current corn evil in

> produce processing is a citric acid spray derived from corn, but it

> isn't in totally ubiquitous yet.

>

> --s

I was thinking of not so much processing of fresh produce, but that veg

and fruit output goes first to food processing - like spaghetti sauce,

frozen dinners, and frozen veg mixes with built-in sauces, all of which

have HFCS.

Connie

[Guest guest]

> People eat too much food for their sedentary lifestyles, period.

> Also, people's lifestyles are too sedentary, period.

have you seen Taubes' presentation where he talks about

the " delta energy = calories in versus calories out " , and how the

arrow of causality is not defined? how sugar can be the cause of

overeating and lethargy, and not the effect? At the s

Institute, http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2008/02/gary-

taubes.html , about 38 minutes into it.

What if the further studies on HFCS showed it had a disproportionate

effect on the hormones of fuel storage versus mobilization. Just

sayin.

you might enjoy the book " Lights Out: Sleep, sugar, and

survival. " The authors posit that artificial light time, and screen

time, has displaced sleep, which physiologically increases the

craving for carbohydrate, reduces melatonin, and pushes prolactin

into daytime... Peoples' substitution of screen/entertainment/work

time for sleep has increased hugely in the same time.

The more I think of the original author's article, which I heard as

saying, don't focus on individual issues like HCFS but pay attention

to the big things like how are you doing with veg, fruit, and whole

grains - it seems just nuts and circular because the weird issues are

all rolled up in the food too. Just another way of saying, trust that

all is fine and keep consuming folks.

Connie

[Guest guest]

cbrown2008 wrote:

> I was thinking of not so much processing of fresh produce, but that veg

> and fruit output goes first to food processing - like spaghetti sauce,

> frozen dinners, and frozen veg mixes with built-in sauces, all of which

> have HFCS.

Well, *that's* unfortunately very true!

--s

[Guest guest]

,

> OK I think I see your logic here. For simplicity, let's talk

> about 100 g of sucrose versus 100 g of HFCS 55. Let's suppose there

> is one unit of glycation per gram for glucose and 8 units of glycation

> per gram for fructose.

Providing we're talking about what happens in a test tube, ok.

> Then 100 g of sucrose would have 450 units of

> glycation and 100 g of HFCS 55 would have 485 units of glycation.

> That's still about an 8% increase in the glycation potential, but less

> than the 10% increase in fructose.

Right -- that was my point.

> However, if glycation is a rapid

> process, then the shorter amount of time in the blood might not be a

> significant factor in favor of fructose over glucose.

Less fructose reaches the bloodstream period. About 40% of it is

converted in the liver to fat and 60% reaches the blood stream as

glucose. As I understand it, the damage from fructose would probably

be mostly confined to the liver. I don't think glycation is " rapid "

in the sense that you mean it -- that is, in the sense that any given

molecule will engage in it in a short time. I'm sure that each

instance of glycation is itself quite rapid, but I think the total

rate of glycation for the total pool of sugar in the blood is pretty

slow. If it weren't, we'd all be walking disasters because just

maintaining normal blood sugar would destroy us.

>> People eat too much food for their sedentary lifestyles, period.

>> Also, people's lifestyles are too sedentary, period.

> But why are so many more people now eating too much food, even

> compared to just 20 years ago? What has changed in the typical diet

> over these 20 years to cause this increase in overeating?

Portion sizes are much larger, and when polled, Americans rely on

external cues to stop eating. French people say they stop eating when

they feel full. Americans say they stop eating when the plate is

empty, or when they run out of drink.

> I doubt

> that lifestyles have changed significantly in the last 20 years, which

> would point primarily to changes in dietary factors. Is it the

> promotion of the low-fat diet, where sugar is often traded for fat to

> maintain an appealing flavor?

I doubt it, because the average fat intake is still, as far as I know,

around 40%.

> Is it the promotion of grains as the

> base of the food pyramid?

I kind of doubt it, because 100 years ago Americans were eating a

grain-based diet, fewer calories, and had a much greater level of

physical activity. I don't remember the stats off the top of my head,

but the increase in calories over the 19th century is pretty small

whereas the decrease in physical activity is huge. However, I think

the increase in calories over the last 20-30 years is probably larger

(I think energy intake might have gone down at first).

> Is it addicting food additives that promote

> increasing consumption? Maybe all of the above?

I'm sure that's part of it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> have you seen Taubes' presentation where he talks about

> the " delta energy = calories in versus calories out " , and how the

> arrow of causality is not defined? how sugar can be the cause of

> overeating and lethargy, and not the effect? At the s

> Institute, http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2008/02/gary-

> taubes.html , about 38 minutes into it.

I've seen a Taubes talk recently on the general subject, but I don't

know if it was this particular one. However, I agree with the basic

idea, that by eating too many carbs, one can be induced to overeat

because hunger comes much faster from a high-carb meal than a low-carb

meal. However, that's less true with a high level of physical

activity, which increases the need and tolerance for carbs.

> What if the further studies on HFCS showed it had a disproportionate

> effect on the hormones of fuel storage versus mobilization. Just

> sayin.

Then we'd have something to go on. However, HFCS has a little more or

a little less fructose than table sugar, so on the whole, the two are

basically the same -- so it's really unlikely you're going to find a

meaningful difference. But if someone finds it, hey, we have to look

at the data. But if no one has yet found it, and there's no reason to

believe it makes any sense, then at the moment it makes sense to

ignore rather than indulge the hypothesis.

> you might enjoy the book " Lights Out: Sleep, sugar, and

> survival. " The authors posit that artificial light time, and screen

> time, has displaced sleep, which physiologically increases the

> craving for carbohydrate, reduces melatonin, and pushes prolactin

> into daytime... Peoples' substitution of screen/entertainment/work

> time for sleep has increased hugely in the same time.

>

> The more I think of the original author's article, which I heard as

> saying, don't focus on individual issues like HCFS but pay attention

> to the big things like how are you doing with veg, fruit, and whole

> grains - it seems just nuts and circular because the weird issues are

> all rolled up in the food too. Just another way of saying, trust that

> all is fine and keep consuming folks.

I don't think that's quite what she was saying. I thought it was more

like, it is a total waste of your time to focus your energy on going

100% HCFS-free and replacing it with refined sugar when you could get

better results from focusing half that amount of energy into eating

less junk food and more whole foods.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> have you seen Taubes' presentation where he talks about

> the " delta energy = calories in versus calories out " , and how the

> arrow of causality is not defined? how sugar can be the cause of

> overeating and lethargy, and not the effect? At the s

> Institute, http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/2008/02/gary-

> taubes.html , about 38 minutes into it.

Well he's using a totally false premise, which is that eating less and

exercising more don't work. They do. The well-controlled metabolic ward

studies show that a caloric deficit is the main if not the only determinant of

weight loss, and that dietary composition only affects the composition of the

weight loss, with protein preserving muscle mass and low-carbing increasing the

proportion of visceral versus subcutaneous fat that is lost.

So, while the theory is an interesting theory, it's not really needed to explain

why the calories-in-calories-out hypothesis doesn't work because, in fact, it

does.

What he's saying at 50 minutes is basically false. I thought it was true for

years based on what my biochem book says, but in a class this year I learned of

a less well-studied but nevertheless no less important pathway that is only

active in fat cells, where glycerol is produced de novo for the purpose of

making TG. So it's not dependent on carbohydrate at all. And, by the way, our

severely vitamin A-deficient mice here have lipoatrophy and fatty liver, and it

appears part of the connection is when the adipose tissue can't store fat, it

winds up in the liver, which has always been known to be able to make TG without

glucose. So eating too many calories without the opportunity for adipose tissue

to store fat is not really a good thing! Thankfully, our fat cells do not need

carbohydrate to store fat.

And of course fatty acids also, by stimulating the PPAR-gamma recetor

(peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor) can stimulate fat storage, not just

insulin. And carbohydrates stimulate thyroid hormone production, which

increases BMR, etc. Lots of conflicting stuff he leaves out.

Of course he says what he says was totally true 40 years ago. Well, stuff gets

discovered over 40 years.

We will never have the bicohem totally unravelled, so when we make a hypothesis

based on biochem, it's imperfect knowledge, and it needs to be compared to the

in vivo experimental data. Those experiments have been done -- Colpo cites

something like 26 metabolic ward studies in Fat Loss Bible showing that

calories-in calories-out controls weight loss and low-carb or high-carb makes no

difference.

Of course if your high-carb diet is making you sleepy or not satiating you, then

you're going to eat more calories and exercise less, and thus not lose or even

gain weight.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Well he's using a totally false premise, which is that eating less

> and exercising more don't work. They do.

Eating less and exercising more clearly works for some people under

some conditions. Do you believe it works for all people in all

conditions?

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> Eating less and exercising more clearly works for some people under

> some conditions. Do you believe it works for all people in all

> conditions?

Are there any metabolic ward studies showing that the combination of

exercise and eating less when specifically formulated to induce a

caloric deficit does not lead to weight loss in some people? Unless

there are, then yes, I would assume that it works for everyone if done

correctly. I'm sure lots and lots of people fail at it because they

do it incorrectly (for example, unerestimate their caloric intake, eat

a diet that makes them constantly cheat, fail to increase exercise or

restrict calories sufficiently to induce a caloric deficit, etc).

Chris

[Guest guest]

And all the diet foods I was raised on they use more HFCS. So lite mayo has

more HFCS than regular mayo. Lose the fat, lose what flavor the product had

so add more HFCS so people like it.

My mom is severely obese and so when I was growing up I was put on diet

foods at a very young age despite not being fat at the time. And each

progressive year on " diet " and " light " foods I gained more and more weight

despite the fact that they'd not let me each much either.

By the time I was in highschool I'd quit eating much of anything but lived

on sodas thinking well, fat is what makes you fat and calories so I could

have all the sodas I want as long as I'm under 1200 calories a day!

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of cbrown2008

Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 11:37 AM

Subject: Re: How much was she paid to WRITE THIS CARP??? HFCS

> > Most of which is

> > processed first with HFCS. (if I remember correctly that most fruit

and

> > veg goes to processing instead of marketed fresh)

> >

> Yes, they're processed, but not with HFCS. The current corn evil in

> produce processing is a citric acid spray derived from corn, but it

> isn't in totally ubiquitous yet.

>

> --s

I was thinking of not so much processing of fresh produce, but that veg

and fruit output goes first to food processing - like spaghetti sauce,

frozen dinners, and frozen veg mixes with built-in sauces, all of which

have HFCS.

Connie

[Guest guest]

> Are there any metabolic ward studies showing that the combination of

> exercise and eating less when specifically formulated to induce a

> caloric deficit does not lead to weight loss in some people? Unless

> there are, then yes, I would assume that it works for everyone if done

> correctly.

So you do believe it works that way, until proven otherwise, and one

example of proving it otherwise, that you would believe, would be a

metabolic ward study? Are there any others that you would believe?