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

[Guest guest]

Connie,

>> 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?

Yes, I think it works that way, and no, I don't think there is any

other form of evidence that could really suffice to show otherwise,

because the most reasonable interpretation of an anecdote is that the

person is underreporting their calories. Studies have shown that

people who do not lose weight on calorie-restricted diets when

compared to people who do lose weight on the same diets do not have

slower metabolism, but they do massively underreport their caloric

intake, either because they have no idea how much food they are eating

or they are lying about it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Yes, I think it works that way, and no, I don't think there is any

> other form of evidence that could really suffice to show otherwise,

> because the most reasonable interpretation of an anecdote is that

the

> person is underreporting their calories.

> Chris

Yes, I agree that reporting can be off. The metabolic ward thing

would also be cool if they *measured* metabolism instead of using the

formulae (at least one of which have been shown to be 30% off for

some women).

The " reporting flaws " argument, though, to me does not explain

studies that have different weight loss outcomes when all groups use

the same food-reporting mechanism and the same calories. I'm sure

you've seen the Harvard study where with 3 groups, who each had equal

calories, but different macronutrient percents, had different weight

loss outcomes.

But of course this one did not control for exercise.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/lowcarb.mystery.ap

Connie

>

[Guest guest]

what happened to the other 15% in the low-carb meals in this Harvard study? the

amounts don't add up to 100%.

" Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes. The

low-carb meals

were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 65 percent fat. The rest got

55

percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and 30 percent fat. "

>

> > Yes, I think it works that way, and no, I don't think there is any

> > other form of evidence that could really suffice to show otherwise,

> > because the most reasonable interpretation of an anecdote is that

> the

> > person is underreporting their calories.

> > Chris

>

> Yes, I agree that reporting can be off. The metabolic ward thing

> would also be cool if they *measured* metabolism instead of using the

> formulae (at least one of which have been shown to be 30% off for

> some women).

>

> The " reporting flaws " argument, though, to me does not explain

> studies that have different weight loss outcomes when all groups use

> the same food-reporting mechanism and the same calories. I'm sure

> you've seen the Harvard study where with 3 groups, who each had equal

> calories, but different macronutrient percents, had different weight

> loss outcomes.

>

> But of course this one did not control for exercise.

>

> http://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/diet.fitness/10/14/lowcarb.mystery.ap

>

> Connie

>

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> 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.

ly, I think the opposite is more likely to be true -- a higher

proportion of monosaccharides will tend to cause more dramatic blood

sugar and insulin changes and therefore exacerbate overeating more

than sucrose, which takes somewhat longer to digest and release.

OTOH, there's the fructose factor, so who knows.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> 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.

That's interesting, but a proper control should've been a soda made

with cane sugar.

-

[Guest guest]

Connie,

> Yes, I agree that reporting can be off. The metabolic ward thing

> would also be cool if they *measured* metabolism instead of using the

> formulae (at least one of which have been shown to be 30% off for

> some women).

Sometimes they do measure metabolism. And they'd have to for me to

accept it as evidence that someone induced a caloric deficit and did

not lose weight. Otherwise, the most sensible interpretation would be

that the calculations were wrong.

> The " reporting flaws " argument, though, to me does not explain

> studies that have different weight loss outcomes when all groups use

> the same food-reporting mechanism and the same calories. I'm sure

> you've seen the Harvard study where with 3 groups, who each had equal

> calories, but different macronutrient percents, had different weight

> loss outcomes.

There are 26 metabolic ward studies Colpo uncovered and all of them

except one, which was horribly conducted, showed that this is false.

Only free-living studies show this, and there are as many showing

high-carb diets resulting in greater weight loss than low-carb diets

resulting in greater weight loss. Moreover, Colpo shows that

underreporting is differential, and low-carbers tend to overreport

calories and low-fatters tend to underreport calories, especially if

they are instructed to reduce calories, as is the case in some such

studies (low-fat low-calorie versus low-carb eat as much as you want).

> But of course this one did not control for exercise.

A study would also be pretty, well, totally, worthless if it did not

account for exercise.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

>> 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.

> ly, I think the opposite is more likely to be true -- a higher

> proportion of monosaccharides will tend to cause more dramatic blood

> sugar and insulin changes and therefore exacerbate overeating more

> than sucrose, which takes somewhat longer to digest and release.

> OTOH, there's the fructose factor, so who knows.

I'm not sure I follow. I was just saying that to make a drink of

equivalent sweetness, you can use less HFCS.

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- carolyn_graff <zgraff@...> wrote:

> what happened to the other 15% in the low-carb meals in this Harvard

> study? the amounts don't add up to 100%.

>

> " Everyone's food looked similar but was cooked to different recipes.

> The low-carb meals were 5 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent protein and

> 65 percent fat. The rest got 55 percent carbohydrate, 15 percent

> protein and 30 percent fat. "

Carolyn, looks like it was a typo. It should have said 30% protein

instead of 15% protein for the low-carb diet:

Harvard researcher finds dieters eat more, lose more on low-carb plan

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0310/20-lowcarb.html

[Guest guest]

,

> Carolyn, looks like it was a typo. It should have said 30% protein

> instead of 15% protein for the low-carb diet:

>

> Harvard researcher finds dieters eat more, lose more on low-carb plan

> http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/0310/20-lowcarb.html

She suggests the fact that protein takes more energy to digest than

carbohydrate might be a factor, but she doesn't address whether

carbohydrate takes more energy to digest than fat (I think it does and

I think the difference is much more significant) or calculate the

total digestive requirement of each diet for comparison, nor does she

point out that a diet does not need to be carb-restricted to be higher

in protein.

She then suggests low-carb diets are absorbed poorly.

I think it's strange that she doesn't discuss the possibility that the

likelihood of cheating on the diet was highest in the low-fat group

and lowest in the high-calorie low-carb group, due to the relative

satiety values of the diets, or, as Connie mentioned, that the people

eating the most food and the least carbohydrate were exercising more.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> I'm not sure I follow. I was just saying that to make a drink of

> equivalent sweetness, you can use less HFCS.

Yes, but I'm suggesting that perceived sweetness isn't the only factor

affecting consumption -- the effect of a food on blood sugar and

insulin release also influence consumption, meaning that even though

HFCS is sweeter than table sugar, it might well not lead to lower

consumption if its effects on blood sugar and insulin release are

different.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> Yes, but I'm suggesting that perceived sweetness isn't the only factor

> affecting consumption -- the effect of a food on blood sugar and

> insulin release also influence consumption, meaning that even though

> HFCS is sweeter than table sugar, it might well not lead to lower

> consumption if its effects on blood sugar and insulin release are

> different.

Maybe it might have an effect on later snacking, but I think how much

people drink is almost entirely determined by how much is in the

can/bottle. The exception would be someone who gets cases or

six-packs and drinks them all day. I bet sales are much higher from

vending machines.

Anyway, if the HFCS is sweeter and less is used, it should have a more

mild impact on blood sugar because of that fact alone, in addition to

a minor effect from the slightly higher proportion of sucrose.

More importantly, until I see some data showing it, I'm highly

skeptical that it actually takes long enough to digest sucrose in

order to have a meaningful effect. If I've had low blood sugar in the

past, a packet of sucrose would rectify it almost immediately. I

suspect gastric emptying is the limiting factor rather than sucrose

digestion, which should be about the same for both.

Chris