Slashdot Mirror

Some nutritionists and natural food advocates believe that consumption of high fructose corn syrup should be avoided due to its possible links with obesity and diabetes. Also cited as reasons to avoid HFCS are that it is highly refined, that it might be produced from genetically modified corn, that various molds found on corn might leave harmful byproducts in the final product, or that corn products in general should be avoided. [2], [3] Other nutritionists say that HFCS is no more or less harmful than other forms of sugar and that all sugars should be consumed sparingly. It may be the case that confusion has arisen between the effects of consuming pure fructose as compared to pure glucose, versus the effects of consuming mixtures of the two sugars from different sources.

Me? I'm on this diet to help with my ulcerative colitis, and it's working very well. I lost about 20 lbs and have had to replace my whole wardrobe. But just try to get most people to give up grains and refined sugars. They'd rather stay fat and unhealthy.

I don't whether to laugh or cry when it comes to so-called "medical research". At least the medical/chemical industrial complex doesn't claim their "studies" are scientific.

The mythology told by "men in white lab coats" almost approaches the mythological tales of King Arthur (anyone watch PBS last night?). There is no scientific proof (using the scientific method) that cholesterol has anything to do with "heart dis-ease".

In fact there are some studies that show there is no relationship! Here's one source that doubts the whole notion http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/hd.html .

But heart dis-ease has become such a cash cow - almost any mythology will fly. Take the mythology from 500 "studies" that "proves that wine is good for the heart." These 500 "studies" were scrutinized and turns out that wine has nothing to do with avoiding heart disease. People who can afford to drink wine with their meals in restaurants are in the upper middle class income stream and can afford a) medical insurance for treatment b) can afford the $3000 ski trip holiday in the alps etc. c) can afford high quality food - including organic foods and so on.

One reason the polyunsaturates cause so many health problems is that they tend to become oxidized or rancid when subjected to heat, oxygen and moisture as in cooking and processing. Rancid oils are characterized by free radicals--that is, single atoms or clusters with an unpaired electron in an outer orbit. These compounds are extremely reactive chemically. They have been characterized as "marauders" in the body for they attack cell membranes and red blood cells and cause damage in DNA/RNA strands, thus triggering mutations in tissue, blood vessels and skin. Free radical damage to the skin causes wrinkles and premature aging; free radical damage to the tissues and organs sets the stage for tumors; free radical damage in the blood vessels initiates the buildup of plaque. Is it any wonder that tests and studies have repeatedly shown a high correlation between cancer and heart disease with the consumption of polyunsaturates New evidence links exposure to free radicals with premature aging, with autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and with Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and cataracts.
-The Skinny on Fats

One reason the polyunsaturates cause so many health problems is that they tend to become oxidized or rancid when subjected to heat, oxygen and moisture as in cooking and processing. Rancid oils are characterized by free radicals--that is, single atoms or clusters with an unpaired electron in an outer orbit. These compounds are extremely reactive chemically. They have been characterized as "marauders" in the body for they attack cell membranes and red blood cells and cause damage in DNA/RNA strands, thus triggering mutations in tissue, blood vessels and skin. Free radical damage to the skin causes wrinkles and premature aging; free radical damage to the tissues and organs sets the stage for tumors; free radical damage in the blood vessels initiates the buildup of plaque. Is it any wonder that tests and studies have repeatedly shown a high correlation between cancer and heart disease with the consumption of polyunsaturates New evidence links exposure to free radicals with premature aging, with autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and with Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and cataracts.
-The Skinny on Fats

One reason the polyunsaturates cause so many health problems is that they tend to become oxidized or rancid when subjected to heat, oxygen and moisture as in cooking and processing. Rancid oils are characterized by free radicals--that is, single atoms or clusters with an unpaired electron in an outer orbit. These compounds are extremely reactive chemically. They have been characterized as "marauders" in the body for they attack cell membranes and red blood cells and cause damage in DNA/RNA strands, thus triggering mutations in tissue, blood vessels and skin. Free radical damage to the skin causes wrinkles and premature aging; free radical damage to the tissues and organs sets the stage for tumors; free radical damage in the blood vessels initiates the buildup of plaque. Is it any wonder that tests and studies have repeatedly shown a high correlation between cancer and heart disease with the consumption of polyunsaturates New evidence links exposure to free radicals with premature aging, with autoimmune diseases such as arthritis and with Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, Alzheimer's and cataracts.
-The Skinny on Fats

I love drinking milk, but the ability to "digest" it may be next to useless with the kind of milk available to most of us. Have a look here for information about how pasteurization and homogenization destroy the useful enzymes in milk, and make more of the fat absorb into the body than when consuming pure cream. Another link here, and for the damages done by so-called "ultra-pasteurized" milk, look here. It makes me want to either stop drinking milk, or befriend a dairy farmer.

CSPI's well publicized campaign against "saturated" frying fats, especially those used by fast-food restaurants, was launched in 1984 and was continued in 1986 when CSPI added the "tropical oils" to their list of supposed villains in the American diet.

The whitewash of trans fatty acids began in 1987 with an article by Elaine Blume, published in CSPI's Nutrition Action newsletter. Wrote Blume: "From margarine to Tater Tots, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils play a major role in our food supply. ... In fact, hydrogenated oils don't post a dire threat to health. ... Improving on Nature. ... Manufacturers hydrogenate... these vegetable oils so they won't become rancid while they sit on shelves, or during frying. ... it seems unlikely that hydrogenation contributes much to our burden of heart disease... The fact that hydrogenated oils appear to be relatively benign is cause for thanks, because these fats are everywhere."

In 1988, CSPI published a booklet called Saturated Fat Attack, which defended trans fatty acids and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and called for pejorative labeling of "saturated" fats. The booklet contained a section called "Biochemistry 101," which claimed that only tropical oils were dangerous when hydrogenated. "Hydrogenated (or partially hydrogenated) fats are widely used in foods and cause untold consternation among consumers... [they] start out as plain old liquid vegetable oils (usually soybean), which are then reacted with hydrogen... converting much of the polyunsaturated fatty acids to monounsaturated fatty acids... [with]... small amounts... converted to saturated fatty acids... [e.g.], stearic acid, which seems to have no effect on blood cholesterol levels.

"Overall, hydrogenated fats don't pose a significant risk... exceptions are hydrogenated [tropical oils, which are made]... even worse after hydrogenation."

Obviously, the individuals writing the booklet were completely ignorant (or pretended to be ignorant) of lipid science. Modern hydrogenation methods create trans fatty acids rather than monounsaturated fatty acids, and very few saturated fatty acids. By 1988, the adverse effects of trans fats were well known. The article points out that stearic acid has no effect on blood cholesterol levels, yet CSPI continued to accuse beef tallow, which is rich in stearic acid, of "raising cholesterol and increasing the risk of heart disease." As for the tropical oils, they do not need to be hydrogenated!

Blume was at it again in March 1988 with another article, "The Truth About Trans ." "Hydrogenated oils aren't guilty as charged. ... All told, the charges against trans fat just don't stand up. And by extension, hydrogenated oils seem relatively innocent.. ... As for processed foods, you're better off choosing products made with hydrogenated soybean, corn, or cottonseed oil..." This article was widely disseminated; Michael Jacobson provided it as a handout to members of the Maryland Legislature during hearings when the University of Maryland group tried to introduce labeling of trans fatty acids in the State.

But by 1990, CSPI could no longer defend the indefensible.

They're also wrong. There is really very little difference between cane sugar & high fructose corn syrup... Such a small difference isn't going to cause an obesity epidemic, unless you're consuming gallons of soda each day.

You're right, the type of sweetening agent used isn't going to cause an obesity epidemic alone, there must be other factors - namely increased mass consumption. The key culprit is not just the mainstream inclusion of HFCS into our diet, but the general industry-wide switch to processed foods. All foods commonly consumed and purchased now contain mostly processed ingredients and/or artificial agents. Even so called health foods now contain HFCS and other artificial agents, unless one purchases true organic at a much greater cost. Which most don't know exist, and most don't understand the health benefits of eating, and Why?

It's overall consumer stupification which has caused the obesity epidemic. Just like rats, we eat what is presented to us, by our corporate overloads; by TV. We eat what we like -Apple Jacks. We eat unquestioningly what is dumped into our dishes, regardless to any trickery or foul play on the other end. So you are correct, it is not just HFCS which is killing us, it's those who control us. Our government and the corporations which run it are systematically converting our food sources against us, not for genocide purposes, but for mass-profit. Like all industries there is a great deal of money to be earned by cutting corners and shaving costs; switching to processed food (HFCS) saves arguably billions per year industry-wide. Likewise, and quite obviously there is also a great deal of money to be earned through increasing consumption; through advertising.

And this is the key, the answer to our obesity epidemic. It is not directly the fault of the consumer, it's not directly the fat persons fault they are fat, it's our negligent masters. Although in the end it was the obese person's own hand who has feed his face, it's not his fault. After all he has only been doing what decades of training have taught him, blindly consume; don't think: "Eat more, buy more, it's free, so do it, only 35 cents more! Now." And who wouldn't after being programmed for decades to do so by TV?

Genetics do play a small part in the epidemic, some are wired to crave food more, just as some are wired to be sex-fiends or easily prone to rage, but how can one be to blame for the way he was born? And when put into a system whose only message is "more!" How can one be blamed for not abstaining from his own bodily urges? Although it is true, and ultimately he alone will be held accountable, to alone only blame the man and not the misguided machine which controls him, especially with an epidemic as this scale is impossible. The machine is equality guilty, if not more.

To simply blame a single agent such as HFCS or a person's own gluttony for a massive nationwide epidemic is largely unwise. We must open our eyes to the larger picture, what's going on outside the big-media box we live in. We must unplug, from the system, from TV and from processed foods; because it's killing us.

A non corporate engineered definition of HFCS is here: http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup. html
Cheers!

That is also the reason that we eat tons of evil High Fructose Corn Syrup. Compared to real sugar, the stuff is really bad for you.

I forgot to mention an interesting factoid from the bonus interviews on the DVD version of the movie Supersize Me. One school was suffering from a high violence rate until they switched from junk food school lunches to whole foods school lunches and the violence went away. Just anecdotal but deserves more study. One web page claims that B12 deficiency causes violence I don't have the DVD any more so I cannot be more specific, perhaps someone who does can transcribe the relevent portion.

Please bear in mind that much of the "grain" that cows eat is stalks, leaves and other material which is not edible by humans. Also, grass-fed beef uses feed that is *entirely* inedible to humans as well as often unusable for other forms of agriculture.

I do agree that grain-feeding (as opposed to silage) is wasteful, and also unhealthy in terms of the resulting meat's fat and nutrition content. An interesting article on the subject can be found here:

Splendor from the Grass
By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
Splendor from the Grass

For information on more sustainable farming methods, check out the concept of Permaculture:
Permaculture the Earth

However, at current (and increasing) levels of human population and consumption, even grass-fed beef is going to cause more damage than the environment can handle, so it's certainly not a cure-all -- but at least it can reduce some of the detrimental environmental and health effects of our agriculture and diet, as part of an overall movement towards a more sustainable (agri)culture.

Here's a precis to a similar study about the effects of converting to agriculture on the dental health of Africans.

I can't find the study I had in mind, but here is a derivative article. The original study may well be in one of the 60-some footnotes but I don't care about the point enough to look myself. I will, though, check if I can find the original again at some point.

I wish I had a better example than nutrition because stating a nutrition opinion is more likely to start a flamewar even than stating emacs's obvious superiority over vi. But having seen some of the nutrition field's shenanigans, I do have to wonder how serious peer reviewers in other fields are.

Well the problem is, you won't see a compelling reason why not to believe the mainstream research, unless you go out and look for it. Also, you are not putting your chances in the "bulk of all dietetic research to date." You are putting your chances on the bulk of dietetic research that these organizations have allowed you to hear. It's not a matter of believing what you prefer, it's a matter of believing the research you find more credible. When you see research funded by Philip Morris or Pepsi Co, and contradicting research done by independent researchers, you have to check which has more studies, which looks less biased, etc.

I understand why you see any discrediting of the JAMA or various widely trusted medical journals as a conspiracy theory. It's hard to distrust something so many people take as scientific fact. But just because something appears in a medical journal does not make it true. Likewise, just because something is not in a medical journal, doesn't mean it's false.

For example: Back in the 60's, Mary Enig was doing research on fats. Her findings showed that trans fats were unhealthy, among other things, which contradicted what the food industry wanted to hear. The food industry aggressively tried to discredit her, and funded many contradicting studies. She lost the food industry funding, some of her research was not published, and she was generally shunned for years by much of the academic community. Just the fact that something like this can happen should be a warning to how manipulated mainstream research can be. It's just now that we're starting to hear talk of how trans fats are bad and should be labeled.

You're right, it's not a governmental organization - my misconception. But the AMA does get funding from the food industry.

First, yes, oil is 100% fat, whether it be animal or vegetable - check the label if you don't believe me.

I never said it wasn't. What I said was that that was not "the bottom line". Fats are different. Some fats are essential to your health, others ar e detrimental.

Ultimately, you seem to have some issues with perceived conspiracies. I see the occasional conspiracy in places too, but it doesn't mean that every recognized authority is tainted and that everything they say is a lie. It doesn't mean that I should believe the opposite just to do so.

I agree, not every authority is tainted. And I understand your skepticism in what sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. But at the same time, don't dismiss it just because it goes against the mainstream. Check out this article. Industry has a lot of power in this country.

I'm not asking you to believe rogue, discredited doctors. I'm asking you to make up your mind for yourself, rather than being convinced something is true because the AMA says it's true. Do a little research. There are a lot of studies (ones that don't receive their funding from the food industry) that show our whole America idea of health is wrong. But since they conflict with what the food industry wants to sell you, no one ever hears of them.

Two things there: First, consumption of animal fat also picked up over that period (ie, 60's to today).

Not according to what I've heard. But then I'm sure you'll say it wasn't AMA approved research, so it doesn't mean anything. Second, processed vegetable oils are dead fatal, containing lots of trans-fatty acids. In general, avoid anything hydrogenated. That's my advice. For what it's worth, the AMA (I believe it was them) fought for labeling of foods with trans-fat labels. But bottom line, both margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. And a diet high in either isn't good.

Hydrogenated fats are bad, agreed. The AMA has just recently fought for labeling of these foods, when it has been known for decades (since the 60s I belive) that trans-fats are bad. And no, the bottom line is not that margerine and animal fat are 100% fat. Margerine contains bad fat (hydrogenated, trans fats). Animal fat does not (saturated is not bad). Don't assume that because the name is "fat" that it is bad for you. You do need a diet consisting of carbs, fats, and protein.

First, that's the food industry, not the medical community - I reasonably trust AMA, not the food industry. Second, farmers are a big part of the food industry (see "Beef - it's what's for dinner"). Third, we don't eat food "straight from a farmer" even if that's where we get it, as cooking is processing. Not trying to split hairs, just trying to point out that a great deal of the damage we do to food in terms of its nutritive value etc. we do in the kitchen.

The problem with trusting the AMA is that it is a government organization which receives a lot of its funding from the food industry. You can't separate the two so easily, and say "The AMA is unbiased and scientific, so I trust it." As a slashdotter, perhaps you recognize the problem of the RIAA and MPAA funding our politicians campaigns - many laws are skewed in their favor. The AMA has a similar situation with the food industry. And before disagreeing with me, check it out yourself.

As for farmers, I'm not talking about giant agribusiness companies. Yes, they are part of the food industry, and that's where your "Beef" slogan comes from. I'm talking about smaller farmers, who don't try to convince you that hormone-infested and irradiated meat is good for you.

For the record, while cooking may be processing in the technical sense, there is a big difference between cooking and the processing that goes on before you that jar of jelly ends up in the grocery store.

And to clarify, I'm not advocating the Atkins' diet, although it is probably closer to being healthy than the standard American diet. I'm merely saying that your belief that "fat = bad, carbs = good", is wholly wrong and based on faulty research.

And yes, it matters what kind of carbs you eat - simple sugars go straight to your blood and raise insulin. However, cereal, bread, pasta, etc are NOT complex carbs - they are broken down into simple sugars and go right to your blood stream. If you want good carbs, you'll need to go to vegetables. Even fruits are a kind of high on the glycemic index (although they at least have nutritional value, unlike cereal).

Calorie intake is definitely not the determining factor for your health. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that eating 2000 calories worth of crackers would the same nutritional benefit of eating a balanced 2000 calorie diet. And overall nutrition has a huge effect on your weight. The problem is, what is a balanced diet?

I won't try to answer that anymore than I've alluded to, but instead refer you to this website. That article is a good one, but if you are interested, the whole site has some very good information.

And yes, it matters what kind of carbs you eat - simple sugars go straight to your blood and raise insulin. However, cereal, bread, pasta, etc are NOT complex carbs - they are broken down into simple sugars and go right to your blood stream. If you want good carbs, you'll need to go to vegetables. Even fruits are a kind of high on the glycemic index (although they at least have nutritional value, unlike cereal).

Calorie intake is definitely not the determining factor for your health. I'm sure you wouldn't argue that eating 2000 calories worth of crackers would the same nutritional benefit of eating a balanced 2000 calorie diet. And overall nutrition has a huge effect on your weight. The problem is, what is a balanced diet?

I won't try to answer that anymore than I've alluded to, but instead refer you to this website. That article is a good one, but if you are interested, the whole site has some very good information.