Slashdot Mirror
Fatty Foods May Cause Cocaine-Like Addiction
WrongSizeGlass writes "A new study in rats suggests that high-fat, high-calorie foods affect the brain in much the same way as cocaine and heroin. The rats that gorged themselves on the human food quickly became obese."
BUURPP!!
If you consider what the most fast and junk food are:
pizzas, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, sandwiches, kebab rolls, baguettes, kfc's fried chicken, pan pizzas, nuggets and so on.. like this illustrative image shows.
It's not only high-fat thats the problem, but also high-carb. I never really crave for high-fat but low-carb food and my body feels a lot better with low-carb food. It's the combination of high-fat and high-carb that is bad, and leaves all the fat in your body because carbs burn first.
You ever sucked d**k for a cheeseburger?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
...I have just as much respect for fat people as I do for drug addicts.
I eat so much brisket. Cheaper and more legal than the "good stuff"...
Now, if only we could figure out this "World Peace" thing, we'd be set.
Oh, and cancer, too...
Cheers!
Holy happy hippy crap!
Oh, few... At first I read that as rats gorging themselves on human fat. Wait a minute... maybe the end of the world will come when rats get a cocaine-like addiction to eating humans. Everybody PANIC!
Any questions?
Yeah, can I get mine over easy? It goes in the syringe better.
They are also much easier to obtain than cocaine and cost less.
Cocaine May Cause Fatty Foods-Like Addiction
Dear
Does this mean fatty food is "that" addictive, or does this perhaps mean cocaine isn't that addictive? Though I suppose the mere notion of shades of "addictiveness" can be dishonest itself, considering the binary nature of addiction (you either are, or you aren't, and exhibit a different set of behaviors based on that).
Also, I wonder if this study holds true for various other pleasurable inputs. As far as anyone knows, cocaine acts by causing direct stimulation of the reward center, a property shared by (as far as I know) any behavior the brain seeks to reinforce, including eating energy dense foods, so I wonder if things like bathing and receiving affection could also demonstrate similar "cocaine-like addictions," witness OCD handwashing and narcissism.
Seems like the scientists continue to find supporting evidence for the brilliant motto, "Everything in moderation. Including moderation." Except probably cocaine.
My gf gives me a free pass to stop by Wendy's once a week so I can get my fill of a double cheeseburger. If they weren't so unhealthy I would probably get one every day. I do have a sliver of willpower left.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Married with Children in one episode where a character admitted to be addicted to pie.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
We need a DEA-like arm of the government to enforce state-approved dietary behaviors.
Assuming that rats and humans are somewhat similar in their responses, this paints a really sickening and embarrassing picture of fat people. Although they are harmed physically by their obesity, they continue at their own detriment. Maybe they really are like the obese rats who continue to eat food in the face of physical pain, when the healthier rats have been scared away.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
They taste a lot better most of the time than stuff that is good for you without qualification. That keeps your brain cookin with pleasure-inducing chemistry.
The one thing about these foods that I don't agree with is that the poor need to eat them because they can't afford food that is good for them. That's a load of rubbish. My wife has been able to buy enough good, canned vegetables like beans, chickpeas and corn to feed a family of four for at least a week for $50. You can do a lot with those staples if you try.
There, CNN, fixed your headline for you.
High fat is not the problem at all. Try gorging yourself on a block of good cheddar and see how much you can eat and how addictive it is. It's not. The addiction is all in the sugars, starches and carbohydrates in general.
Now to read the actual paper:http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/pdf/nn.2519.pdf
"The cafeteria diet consisted of bacon, sausage, cheesecake, pound cake, frosting and chocolate" - in other words, full of sugar!!! Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental. But of course, the sugar lobby is strong...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Scientists find that cocaine may cause cocaine-like addiction!
Now that we've shown that cocaine is only as bad as Burger King, can I finally get a double cheese burger, hold the lettuce, add 1g of coke?
Funny, I lost 40 lbs eating high-fat low-carb food, purposely not exercising, and eating whenever I was hungry. And my blood pressure went down to normal from its high of 145/95, so I could stop taking blood pressure medication as well. I'm healthier than I've ever been.
Of course, unlike these rats, I did not eat cheesecake, frosting or other foods high in refined carbs. But this POS study doesn't bother to differentiate between high-fat/high-carb, high-fat/low-carb, etc, let alone about the balance or type of fatty acids present in the food (e.g. grass-fed bacon vs. grain-fed). This is not science, not even close.
How about the HFCS question?
For fuck's sake, there's HFCS in just about everything we eat these days. After the recent study, I went through my pantry. Wanted to see precisely how much of the stuff it was in.
- Hot dogs? CHECK.
- Oscar Mayer "deli meats" for sandwiches? CHECK.
- Breakfast cereals? Almost universal. If it has "modified corn starch", that's HFCS under a disguised name.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
- Anything from Chef Boyardee. Check.
- Frozen pizzas waiting to be heated up? Check. Turns out they add HFCS to the goddamn tomato sauce.
The list goes on but I think you get the picture. We're being fed HFCS EVERYWHERE and we just saw a major study done showing an effect on HFCS, either by brain chemistry or satiety reflex, causing obesity. If they were feeding rats the same stuff in their "fatty foods" (and cheesecake is OMG FUCKING FULL OF IT)...
I believe the article...food is very addictive. I try and try, but still I keep coming back for food. It's a very persistent addiction. When I try to quit, I get cravings that manifest themselves as dizzyness and gnawing pain in my abdomen. Seemingly the only way to stop the torment is to cave in and eat food. Water is difficult too; I try to tell myself that I don't need it and don't want it anymore but when I finally cave and have a drink of water it feels so refreshing going down that it's like ecstasy. It's that satiated, comfortable and full feeling that keeps me crawling back to the Brita pitcher. But an addiction even worse than food or drink is sleep. No matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to kick the habit. I always seem to doze off eventually, craving the sweet solitude of REM and the rested afterglow. I have a long way to go but one day hope to be addiction-free.
As long as you fit within mammals' metabolism (maybe also the Chordate's), the more fats you eat, the fatter you become.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Millions of years of evolution makes animals crave high calorie fatty food and eat as much of it as possible, because they never know when they're going to get the opportunity to do so again. Human beings are no different.
"... people learned to purify or alter cocaine to deliver it more efficiently to their brains... This made the drug more addictive.
... We purify our food...we eat corn syrup."
Can High Fructose Corn Syrup now be listed as a controlled substance and dispensed only by prescription?
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Loud burping while walking around the airport is prohibited in Halstead, Kansas.
High fats aren't the problem - high carbs are, especially the kinds in corn syrup and sugar (starches are a little less bad, but still bad overall).
Note that you need some, but not as much as you get in some of these foods.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
The title of this article suggests that it is the fat in these foods that causes the addictive response, however, this study did not isolate foods as merely high-fat. The diet included many foods, such as cheesecake, which included high levels of sugar. Sugar has been found to be more addictive than cocaine on its own. It is likely that the fat+sugar combination has a synergistic addictive effect, however, anyone who has been on a low carbohydrate diet can tell you that fat on its own actually suppresses appetite and does not cause cravings. Sugar addiction study: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000698
"...and we just saw a major study done ..."
Surely you could provide a link for a major study that was just done.
HFCS is the same as sugar. That's what's being talked about it the thread you have decided to post in.
You just can't decide between looking "socially acceptable" and living longer. So you are pissed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/health/07fat.html?ex=1352091600&en=df140405014189b6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
It's not only high-fat thats the problem, but also high-carb. I never really crave for high-fat but low-carb food and my body feels a lot better with low-carb food. It's the combination of high-fat and high-carb that is bad, and leaves all the fat in your body because carbs burn first.
High fat versus low fat ... high carbohydrate versus low carbohydrate ... the problem is probably better defined as incorrect portion sizing. High fat or high carbohydrate foods are only themselves the problem when you give them to a mindless animal that has a stomach evolved to pack in as much as it can when given to it. When you give a dog five pounds of bacon, it will eat as much as its stomach can hold. It'd do the same thing with a deer carcass but would more than likely get less fat and less calories in it. If our ancestors could sit around eating pizza all day, they'd do it. If they could have made white bread, they would have. Bacon tastes good because it's high fat and high calories. We evolved to seek these things out because they are -- in moderation or small doses -- quite good for our combustion engines. They're rare in nature but great for our energy levels so we crave them. No two ways around that fact.
I know why we blame fat, carbohydrates and foods that are high in them. It's because we don't want to acknowledge that the problem is our own self control and dietary understanding. Food science has evolved to give us whatever we want and we're just not responsible with it. Some regulation is necessary like banning trans fats when an alternative can be used but you're going to get nowhere if you try to focus on vaguely assigned designators as "high-fat" or "high-carb" food. Public awareness, responsible eating and self control are your best weapons here. Put the blame back on those that are responsible: the eaters.
We all evolved to like bacon and pizza and the like. Now act responsibly. In my youth I would eat a whole large deep dish pepperoni pizza. I can still eat that much, I just recognize that my caloric needs when it comes to pizzas is two slices for a meal. I understand some people have lower sensitivity dopamine receptors but that's just how you were born and you should deal with it. At some point we're all flawed in some way. Why do people find that controlling their eating is so difficult?
Note: if there's one thing the government should do, it's put capitalism back in action and remove the subsidiaries being paid out to ensure that corn syrup is cheaper than cane. Or that bacon is cheaper than a fish filet. Although it's great for the United States economy, it's had some very negative results on our belts.
My work here is dung.
In the Documentary Super Size Me, several Doctor's noted the same behavior and stated that Fatty Foods found in Fast Food restaurants (McDonald's in this example) were equal to cocaine in terms of addiction.
string.Empty();
But eating junk food produces a high, a euphoric feeling sometimes. I suppose that's why some foods are called "comfort food".
I can't compare to drug addiction, because I've never experienced that, but a high is definitely present.
Sometimes, with my tinfoil hat on, I've wondered if Taco Bell was slipping something addictive into the food that makes me keep coming back.
Bacon is sugary? Sausage is sugary? Granted, the cake entries are both high-fat and high-sugar, but saying all the food items are high-sugar is wrong. They are all high-fat, though.
There's a Wikipedia article on the brain's reward system. I've not read the Wiki article but have tried to grasp some of the Berkeley, mit, Yale uni online lectures that speak to it. The problem I had with trying to understand it in general terms is that the system itself isn't fully understood and, for a lay person like myself, it seems there's no difference in the mechanics between the motivations and rewards of a crack whore and a CEO, but that may just be the way it is. What seems to come into play is the executive planning functions of the brain and whether they act as a damper to limit a runaway reward system. The Executive Functions seem to reside in the frontal lobes and usually the sad story of Phineas Gage is trotted out to model loss of Executive Function. If this post gets modded up a lot I'll post some more :) well maybe if I'm sure I'll get modded up even more and more...
ideopath @ play
People want to eat food that is tasty....film at 11.
-Xen
Yet the news article says it's "fatty foods..." when in reality, it's sugary foods the rats were being fed, that fat being incidental.
No, it's sugary AND fatty foods that the rats were being fed. The summary ignores the sugar, but you're not being any better by ignoring the fat. When the rats get addicted to plain bread or just piles of granulated sugar, then we can talk about your theory.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
>>>the sugar [and fructose-added corn syrup] lobby is strong...
Fixed. So-called "sugar free" foods that substitute sugar alcohols like sorbitol aren't much better. It's still all sugar and still has fattening properties. (Also gives you lots of gas due to the alcohol.)
More specifically: The fructose half of the sugar is the problem, not the glucose. Plain-old corn syrup (pure glucose) is not harmful to the body, since it's glucose that the body's cells need.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you do any real exercise then you need a pretty high proportion of your total calorie intake in complex carbs . It's worth distinguishing between simple carbs and complex carbs, You don't really need much sugar in your diet, but you need a reasonable amount of complex carbs.
If you're a total couch potato you're going to have health issues whatever kind of diet you take.
I disagree about the Baguette, monsieur. It's just bread, not particularly fat, though with a lot of slow sugar. It's basically cereals, and in a healthier form that what you yankees eat for breakfast. But then, it has to be made daily, and also purchased daily by walking to the boulangerie du quartier before breakfast, which explains why you understand nothing about it :-p
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
To be fair, your body uses fructose too, it's just used by the liver, not by each individual cell. Too much fructose is a problem, but your body does need and use some fructose.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
>>>HFCS, either by brain chemistry or satiety reflex, causing obesity
You think replacing High Fructose CS with Sugar is better? Because it ain't.
Sugar is also high fructose and therefore also fattening.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Bacon and sausage are not "full of sugar".
Simple way to fix this addiction... Lets outlaw food in America after all it is a gateway drug... People are dying from being obese, and obviously they are getting high from it, and we do not like anything that gives anyone else but ourselves pleasure. Support outlawing food!!!
I think this is another case where the media turn something that might be good: increased understanding of how obesity works, into something bad: telling obese people that they have no control over their behaviour, fueling the "it's no my fault, I have a serious illness" justification for doing nothing to help themselves.
beauty is only a light switch away
As we come to understand more and more about neurology and genetic, an increasing amount of studies on human obesity are shifting from a genetic focus to a neurological focus.
Dr. David Kessler, former FDA commissioner and someone who has struggled with weight in his own life, has an excellent book out called The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. NPR has done some very good interviews with him.
He admits that he started his study expecting to head down the road of genetics. But he found the research and data kept pointing him to the brain instead. One interesting tidbit from his research: They did a study where they had a group of people, some overweight and some normal weight, and asked each person to identify their favorite snack or dessert. They would then place each person individually in a room with large portions of their favorite food. What they found was that everybody, upon seeing their favorite snack/dessert, had the same neurological response (endorphin-like response). But what was interesting was that for those who weren't overweight this response ended after they ate enough to be filled. For those who were overweight, they found that the brain didn't stop producing this response until the food was completely gone.
Dr. Kessler, as well as many more scientists, are starting to focus more on obesity from a sociological and behavioral angle than a genetic angle. He keeps mentioning how obesity has more to do with the relationship people have with food than anything else (and focuses a lot on what kind of relationship we are teaching our children to have with food).
Of course, genetics are still important. But not as much as we've initially thought it to be.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Different critters have different dietary needs.
Dogs who gorge themselves on cat food quickly become obese (more so than dogs who stick to dog food).
I really don't think a rat study of human food consumption proves much per se.
>>>Some regulation is necessary like banning trans fats when an alternative can be used
Also ban sugar and replace it with an alternative like High Fructose CS. Oh wait..... is this one of the unintended governmental consequences?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
All these folks had to do was walk around where I work. If you look at those who are obese, you will also find their drawers stuffed with all kinds of boxed goodies, usually chips and the like.
These are the same people who also refuse to walk up one flight of stairs so the two go hand-in-hand.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
the sugar lobby is weak (USA). That's why there is so damn much HFC in everything. It's the corn lobby that's strong
Bacon tastes good because it's high fat and high calories.
Actually, no. Bacon tastes good partially because of the very strong smoked flavors, and partially due to association with eating maple syrup, a nearly pure carb. It also has a yummy crunch texture when properly prepared, like a carnivore potato chip.
If we actually enjoyed high fat/high cal foods, we'd guzzle grapeseed oil, and use crisco as a chip dip, and we would merely heat bacon hot enough to kill parasites, as opposed to frying until almost all the fat is rendered out into the pan.
I can almost 100% guarantee you have not tried a low carb diet involving bacon. One of the three almost stereotypical low carb breakfast foods is bacon. And it goes well as a lunch or dinner side item. Trust me, after a week of that you'll be repulsed by bacon. You will not devour five pounds of bacon in one sitting. Its the association with high carb white bread toast, or high carb maple syrup, or pure carb pancakes that makes bacon appealing. Also the association with almost pure corn syrup "ketchup" and high carb buns on a burger. Or super sugary salad dressings on a salad. My itself, ugh.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
But then, it has to be made daily, and also purchased daily
Daily? The boulangerie was directly across from my place. I'd pop over when I saw the door of the oven open up, 2 or 3 times a day. Carrying them under one's armpit can be difficult when they're still hot though, but that's a disgusting habit anyway ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Sugar is also high fructose and therefore also fattening.
Chemistry fail. Fructose is a sugar, but not all sugars are fructose. Glucose is not fructose.
Is there really a cure for *anything* that's addictive for "everyone"? (pls note the links at the end of the article) http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/28/fatty.foods.brain/
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
Why would HFCS conflict with the "all-natural" label in your mind? HFCS is natural. It comes from corn.
>>>Some regulation is necessary like banning trans fats when an alternative can be used
Also ban sugar and replace it with an alternative like High Fructose CS. Oh wait..... is this one of the unintended governmental consequences?
Your analogy is terrible. There's nothing wrong with sugar in responsible serving sizes. Eating trans fats in responsible serving sizes still drastically increases your risk of coronary heart disease:
"On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of CHD more than any other macronutrient, conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1 to 3% of total energy intake)"
Show me that with sugar or HFCS and then we'll talk about banning them.
A lot of sausages actually contain a lot of carbohydrates. If you eat sausages, you should go with the ones that are almost full meat. The common belief is that bacon is some extremely fatty food, but it really isn't if you don't mix it with carbohydrates. It's salty though, and that's not really good either.
This is /.
/b/.
The only place with less "socially acceptable" people is
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Well, here ya go. Sugar is as addictive as cocaine
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
which is exactly what a commercial for what is apparently a lobbying group for HFCS put in a commercial. It's from corn=it's natural.
If you consider what the most fast and junk food are:
pizzas, hamburgers, hot dogs, french fries, sandwiches, kebab rolls, baguettes, kfc's fried chicken, pan pizzas, nuggets and so on.. like this illustrative image shows.
That picture strangely makes me very hungry...
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Here ya go.
No, the price of sugar is kept high due to trade restrictions for the US sugar lobby.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
I think he was referring to this article from last week:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/24/2122231/High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Causes-Bigger-Weight-Gain-In-Rats?art_pos=1
Fat isn't the problem - it's actually healthy for body and keeps you feeling fulfilled for a long time. The problem is mixing it with carbohydrates. If you eat a lot of carbohydrates and a lot of fat, your body will start burning those carbohydrates first and during that time the fat will go into your body. That's why you gain weight. If you only stayed with fat (or had only a small amount of carbohydrates), your body could start burning the fat right away when it hits your body and it isn't left hanging around.
How about monosodium-glutamate? It's everywhere in potato chips and certainly more, and I heard it was a short term addictive substance, making you take one more, and one more, and one more.
I swear Officer, these are not WMD, just plain French cheese...
In other news, humans that gorged themselves on rat food quickly became bloated with intestinal gas, and then died of starvation within several weeks.
where the calories come from (fat/carbs) isn't important when it comes to weight loss.
It is if you want to feel good and healthy, and to keep that food carving away while feeling full. High-fat food keeps you feeling full a lot longer than high-carb food.
>>> It also has a yummy crunch texture when properly prepared
I HATE crunchy bacon. Went to a friend's house and the difference in how he prepared the bacon, and how I prepared it was striking. I hang my bacon on a kind of "tray" and then nuke it in the microwave so the fat drips off. He threw a bunch of bacon in a pan and let it fry it its own juices.
What came out was so fatty I almost threw up. Yuck.
BTW if you like bacon and want a healtier alternative, try turkey bacon. Tastes the same (smoke flavored), but has almost no fat. And you can eat it with your cholesterol-free Egg Beaters. ;-)
.
>>>like a carnivore potato chip.
I recently tried Lays Baked potato chips. They were so bland. I suppose they are a healthier alternative to the saturated fat found in normal potato chips, but still need some work. I prefer the fat-free Pringles.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
This explains my chip addiction. Thanks, Frito-Lay!
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
the sugar lobby is weak (USA). That's why there is so damn much HFC in everything. It's the corn lobby that's strong
Although there appears to be (or have been at one time) a 'sugar Mafia'; years ago, in a restaurant, I noticed that the packets of sugar had an interesting set of statements on the back:
The last line had everyone at the table laughing at the mental image of the sugar Mafia coming around to strongarm cooks... "That's a tasty-looking cake you got there... be a shame if something happened to it."
Nope, HFCS is worse than sugar. http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20100326/high-fructose-corn-syrup-worse-sugar-id-10105392.html
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Obviously we should start a war on fatty foods. And we all know it's bad for your health. Slingin KFC on the corners of compton.
Sugar was never banned. The only reason that it is not used in the US as in other countries is that the US simply grows so much corn, HFCS is the cheaper option. Now, it is true that this bounty of corn is due to government subsidies, and it may be preferable to end them so that sugar is economical, but there is no ban on using sugar. You can even buy drinks like Coke with real sugar in select US markets.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322121115.htm
I googled "hfcs obese."
HFCS is much worse than sugar as far as weight gain is concerned.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I think you might like this (somewhat dated) article about subcutaneous ("hunter") fat vs. visceral ("gatherer") fat:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/feb/visceral-fat
CANE sugar has two parts: Glucose and Fructose. That's what I was talking about. With that in mind reread what I wrote: "You think replacing High Fructose CS with [cane] Sugar is better? Because it ain't."
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I disagree about the Baguette, monsieur. It's just bread, not particularly fat, though with a lot of slow sugar. It's basically cereals, and in a healthier form that what you yankees eat for breakfast. But then, it has to be made daily, and also purchased daily by walking to the boulangerie du quartier before breakfast, which explains why you understand nothing about it :-p
Any other white bread, like baguette, is high on carbs and sugar, and doesn't contain almost any fabric like dark bread does.
Bread itself is pretty bad food. If you have to eat bread, then just eat dark high-fabric bread.
It's not only high-fat thats the problem, but also high-carb. I never really crave for food food food. Food? Fooooooooood. You're hungry? Aren't you? Want something to eat? The kitchen's only right around the corner, you could go heat up a nice, convenient pizza in your toaster over.
*nods* I agree with you completely. We must... uh... self control and eat pizza.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
It's salty though, and that's not really good either.
Don't worry, the nanny state is hard at work here too. We'll keep you safe, because you are obviously too stupid to make informed decisions for yourself.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You're wrong. You should read slashdot more. :)
Really??? Why does the liver need fructose, and not glucose like every other cell in your body? To me your comment is akin to saying your liver needs alcohol every day.
You are forgetting the possibility that the liver could need both glucose and some fructose...
In Eastern Europe, salo (UK, RU)/szalonna (HU)/slanina (RO), which is bacon with everything except the pure fat skimmed off and then smoked, is eaten daily by many people and they don't tire of it. There, there isn't any maple syrup or pancakes to blame its popularity on. Pure lard is indeed highly appealing to people.
They didn't try all the foods individually, otherwise they might find that bacon is not included. I too thought that they must mean "high fat + high sugar", or maybe just high sugar (but high fat + high sugar is the worst combination for packing on the pounds). If you try eating a load of bacon you'll get full after not too many calories, protein is very filling. I've been eating plenty of protein + fat and low GI carbs for months now and I'm not obese. Yes, I have been exercising also but if I'd been eating cake and ice cream this whole time I'd still be fat.
which is totally what she said
I think this is another case where the media turn something that might be good: increased understanding of how obesity works, into something bad: telling obese people that they have no control over their behaviour, fueling the "it's no my fault, I have a serious illness" justification for doing nothing to help themselves.
Isn't "not my fault, I have a serious illness" the first of the 12 Steps?
Since it was on Slashdot less than a week ago, the poster probably didn't think it was necessary... If you really think HFCS is the same as any other sugar, go read it, it is quite interesting.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/24/2122231/High-Fructose-Corn-Syrup-Causes-Bigger-Weight-Gain-In-Rats
What the fuck is HFCS and why the fuck are you speaking as if everyone on a forum for computer nerds knows what that abbreviation (which is obviously food/health/not-computer related) stands for?
The only way to insure a truly healthy diet -- low in fat, salt, sugar and high in grains and fiber -- is to prepare all of your own meals all of the time.
Virtually everything that is sold supermarkets or restaurants -- aside from fresh and unprepared produce -- does not qualify as being healthy.
Preparing ones own meals each and every day requires a good investment of time and effort, but the sad fact is that our society is tooled only for the production of these "addictive" foodstuffs. Thus, we all must say goodbye to convenience if we desire to eat in a healthy manner.
...or is it, the TV, or maybe too much twitter?
C'mon everyone, ignore further evidence that eating a steady diet and creating a 'food supply' in highly processed junk, loaded with sugar, HFC, and fat, and all sorts of random chemicals has nothing to do with obesity spreading at epidemic-like levels. "Whole Wheat" bread with HFC? Sounds deliciously appropriate.
Let's just debate and debate and debate. That way everything gets solved and everyone wins (the right to enjoy their ignorance!).
It's your right to get addicted and stay addicted from an early age until premature death.
The infinite wisdom you're born with will only guide you perfectly in every decision throughout your entire life. No need to worry.
If you do any real exercise then you need a pretty high proportion of your total calorie intake in complex carbs . It's worth distinguishing between simple carbs and complex carbs, You don't really need much sugar in your diet, but you need a reasonable amount of complex carbs.
If you're a total couch potato you're going to have health issues whatever kind of diet you take.
Though I agree, I ask of you to suggest some numbers, some reasonable proportions rather than "much" and "reasonable".
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
How about the HFCS question?
For fuck's sake, there's HFCS in just about everything we eat these days. After the recent study, I went through my pantry. Wanted to see precisely how much of the stuff it was in.
- Hot dogs? CHECK.
- Oscar Mayer "deli meats" for sandwiches? CHECK.
- Breakfast cereals? Almost universal. If it has "modified corn starch", that's HFCS under a disguised name.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
- Anything from Chef Boyardee. Check.
- Frozen pizzas waiting to be heated up? Check. Turns out they add HFCS to the goddamn tomato sauce.
The list goes on but I think you get the picture. We're being fed HFCS EVERYWHERE and we just saw a major study done showing an effect on HFCS, either by brain chemistry or satiety reflex, causing obesity. If they were feeding rats the same stuff in their "fatty foods" (and cheesecake is OMG FUCKING FULL OF IT)...
That's a major reason why I limit the amount of processed foods I eat. I've been doing this for a long time and cook most of my food from scratch. It does not really take a lot of time and the quality of my meals has improved greatly.
A while back, I came across this article by Michael Pollan and I agree with it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html
"Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants."
Avoid processed/prepackaged stuff as much as possible.
Yeah, all fat people act, behave, and interpret information the exact same way.
This is /.
The only place with less "socially acceptable" people is /b/.
And on /b/ it would be ./
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
You think the food manufacturers haven't done studies on what legal additives can cause addictions?
High fat versus low fat ... high carbohydrate versus low carbohydrate ... the problem is probably better defined as incorrect portion sizing. High fat or high carbohydrate foods are only themselves the problem when you give them to a mindless animal that has a stomach evolved to pack in as much as it can when given to it. When you give a dog five pounds of bacon, it will eat as much as its stomach can hold.
When you give a human five pounds of bacon, they'll eat a little of it and then not be hungry for 4 hours. Give them crackers or candy, and they will eat a lot more. We are not dogs.
I know why we blame fat, carbohydrates and foods that are high in them. It's because we don't want to acknowledge that the problem is our own self control and dietary understanding.
The problem is genetics, hormones, and a *little* actual self-determination. The foods we eat change our hormones, which change our behavior, which changes our body size, which changes our input demand. It's all related.
In my youth I would eat a whole large deep dish pepperoni pizza. I can still eat that much, I just recognize that my caloric needs when it comes to pizzas is two slices for a meal. I understand some people have lower sensitivity dopamine receptors but that's just how you were born and you should deal with it.
Hey, perhaps from eating all that crappy food when you were little, you ruined your dopamine and insulin sensitivity. Also, I bet you couldn't eat a whole deep dish pizza if it were all cheese and pepperoni. Cut out the carbs and you have a simple, satiable, easy-to-follow solution for weight loss.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
Please tell me the various social busybodies in the government aren't going to start with this shit.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Although High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) and Cane Sugar will cause the SAME AMOUNT OF OBESITY as they are both sugars, there is still something to be said about HFCS. People who are sugar sensitive, such as myself who is slightly hypoglycemic, notice severe differences between Cane Sugar and HFCS. In short, consuming the same amount of HFCS will cause an extreme crash/low a few hours later compared to Cane Sugar that is gradual (and not noticable in comparison to HFCS). I test this by drinking Cane Sugar Coca-Cola one day versus the normal HFCS Coke. Cane Sugar didn't give me that weird slight withdrawal feeling I got from HFCS.
Bacon tastes good because it's high fat and high calories.
No, it tastes good because it is both salty and moderately smoked. With low carb intake, it will make you lose your weight. Calories, measured by burning food in calorimeter, are not good measure of fattening or even energy providing effects of food. When I was on Atkins's, I ate bacon instead of bread ("So Bart butter your bacon") and lost 20 pounds. I must admit I felt hungry all the time, and I mean exhausted, starving, not "my stomach growls" hungry. Fatty foods on their own, your body just can't use them. However, add carbohydrates in - all hell breaks loose. OTOH, food high in carbs low in fat doesn't taste good, doesn't satiate. You could eat all day and still want more. Obviously, there is a sweet spot (no pun intended) of carbs to fats ratio where your meals have best fill to energy intake ratio. If you cut on fats, you end up eating more. If you take too fatty food without severely reducing carbohydrates, you will overshoot your energy needs and start getting obese. IMHO, we should get back too traditional recipes and meals (and portions, which were more modest back then) and start from there. It seems it worked for most folks in their time.
Because at least slashdotters are supposed to know how to Google. It's the first result.
Does this mean I can snort a line of bacon and get high!
I've been doing this weird thing lately.... "cooking". From base ingredients. I don't mean some kinda "all natural" kick, but most of my meals are cooked using basics. Flour. Sugar. Water. Various cooking oils. Beef/Chicken/Vegetable stock. Spices. Rice. Pasta in reasonable amount. Vegetables - fresh or fresh frozen -- which should take up a larger portion of your meal than they probably do. I also started exercising* a few times a week, and eating reasonable proportions -- and as a result of those changes have lost forty pounds and counting. I still eat the crappy stuff with too much HFCS and excessive fat (I've a mental addiction to cheeze-its and butterfingers) but in moderation.
THe problem here isn't HFCS. It's not fatty foods. If anything, part of the problem lies in looking for external factors to blame. It's eating too much food, too regularly, and most of us not getting any significant exercise*. In my case, for a long time it was lack of knowledge of when is "enough" to eat .(Hint - if you feel full when you're done eating, you've eaten far too much.) Once you have that knowledge, it's also lack of willingness to exercise self control.
The point of this mini-rant: look to yourself when trying to find a reason. For the vast majority of people, it starts and ends there. If you think it's HFCS -- ok, fine. But HFCS in quantity is far easier to avoid than you make it sound. Hell, fresh bread takes 30 minutes of actual time once a week, without even using a bread machine. Most other alternatives are as easy; or come with a slight increase of time in exchange for healthier food that tastes as good or better.
* By "exercise" I'm not talking about anything drastic. I started walking my dogs for 30 minutes at a brisk walk, 4-5 times a week. I also started using stairs instead of elevators for up to three flights at work and not just one flight. More recently I've started running, but that's after I lost most of the weight and I do it because (amazingly) I find that it feels good.
How does mixing bacon with carbohydrates change its fat content? What a dolt...
If everyone in America suddenly starting eating a diet that would maintain their BMI at 23, most of the food industry would go bankrupt in six months.
We all evolved to like bacon and pizza and the like. Now act responsibly. In my youth I would eat a whole large deep dish pepperoni pizza. I can still eat that much, I just recognize that my caloric needs when it comes to pizzas is two slices for a meal. I understand some people have lower sensitivity dopamine receptors but that's just how you were born and you should deal with it. At some point we're all flawed in some way. Why do people find that controlling their eating is so difficult?
If only I had mod points left. Eating anything is OK in moderation, and if the bulk of your consumption is reasonably healthy. Eating anything in excess is unhealthy. There is no way around this. And unfortunately, "normal" portion sizes for most people are excessive -- a disturbing number think they need to eat until they are full; but that thin margin is the difference between "moderation" and "excess".
How about the HFCS question?
For fuck's sake, there's HFCS in just about everything we eat these days. After the recent study, I went through my pantry. Wanted to see precisely how much of the stuff it was in.
- Hot dogs? CHECK.
- Oscar Mayer "deli meats" for sandwiches? CHECK.
- Breakfast cereals? Almost universal. If it has "modified corn starch", that's HFCS under a disguised name.
- Salty-type snacks? Check. Even the supposedly all-natural pita chips.
- Anything from Chef Boyardee. Check.
- Frozen pizzas waiting to be heated up? Check. Turns out they add HFCS to the goddamn tomato sauce.
The list goes on but I think you get the picture. We're being fed HFCS EVERYWHERE and we just saw a major study done showing an effect on HFCS, either by brain chemistry or satiety reflex, causing obesity. If they were feeding rats the same stuff in their "fatty foods" (and cheesecake is OMG FUCKING FULL OF IT)...
Its in the cereal, and the sausage, and the freaking ketchup. If you aren't meticulous in your label checking when you shop, it will be in every aspect of your meals. Even the damn cows are fed it to fatten them up. Watch the movie King Korn to find out what how the US Government is ultimately responsible for the overdose of corn in our lives.
1) Princeton Link: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
2) King Korn the movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1112115/
I explained it further in the discussion, but here's it again for you:
Fat isn't the problem - it's actually healthy for body and keeps you feeling fulfilled for a long time. The problem is mixing it with carbohydrates. If you eat a lot of carbohydrates and a lot of fat, your body will start burning those carbohydrates first and during that time the fat will go into your body. That's why you gain weight. If you only stayed with fat (or had only a small amount of carbohydrates), your body could start burning the fat right away when it hits your body and it isn't left hanging around.
It doesn't need to change any fat/carb/protein content, but it's how your body reacts to them and their combination.
Although the junk food mentioned is generally high in fat, they are also usually extremely high in carbohydrates too. Some researchers believe that it is the high level of carbohydrates (perhaps in conjunction with the fat) that makes these foods addictive.
Proverbs 21:19
Actually, no. Bacon tastes good partially because of the very strong smoked flavors, and partially due to association with eating maple syrup, a nearly pure carb.
Except that unsmoked bacon is still tasty, and I've never had bacon with syrup, but I still love it.
Most meat is pretty low calorie unless it's a very fatty cut.
Likewise I eat wholemeal bread instead of white bread or pancakes and I still love bacon (and wholemeal bread - in fact I used to prefer brown breads ever since my late teens, and that was purely a personal preference rather than anything to do with how healthy I thought foods were, which is something I didn't really pay attention to until the last couple of years). Last week I eating packs of weird crispy dried bacon that I found at Marks and Spencer, it's delicious by itself. Why can't it be tasty purely because of the protein and fat?
I was eating low carb for a couple of months and then low GI for the last 3-4 months now. I still love my food. Pretty much all my favourite foods apart from pizza, Pad Thai Noodles and donuts are low carb foods - ie peanut butter, thai curries, indian curries. The only time I like to eat foods with a higher GI is right after being at the gym, when my body is actually really needing a quick injection of energy.
which is totally what she said
Seriously? I guess plastic is natural, too - I mean it comes from stuff found in nature, so it must be natural, right?
You can prepare it the way he did, as long as you drip the fat out about half way through frying it. It also helps to have some high quality bacon.
Might as well add Splenda's all-natural angle: "it tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar"
You need to balance your choices to achieve moderation. Eat the fatty, sugary stuff, but then take the cocaine to burn off the calories. Soon you'll reach your ideal weight.
It's processed as fuck, but still "natural" according to the tortured-as-fuck definition the corn lobby uses to get away with selling it for "all-natural" foods.
Remember: Hemlock is "organic." Arsenic is "all-natural."
The addiction is in heavily processed foods that are "artificially" good tasting - usually this means high fat + high amounts of carbs, or really bad fats (especially trans fats) even with low amounts of carbs. As to the carbs, it's a really broad group. When assessing how healthy they are, you just can't lump together refined sugar (bad), sugar naturally occurring in fruit (good), and slow-absorption carbs (such as those in pasta; generally good, and essential to endurance athletes, though you must be careful not to overeat).
High Fructose Corn Syrup is a very long thing to type out. If you're not familiar with that stuff, you've been living under a rock. Or in a cave. I want to live in a cave.
Fat addiction is not sufficient to explain the United States obesity epidemic because fats are just as addictive in Sweden, Japan and Uruguay as they are in the United States but we only have an obesity epidemic here.
With diet as with other behavior, one of the most effective ways to encourage responsible behavior, by individuals or corporations, is to internalize economic externalities. That is, make the price paid by the individual (person or corporation) be the true cost. For example, if corporations pollute the air when manufacturing, then they are messing up your air and not paying for it. Charge for air pollution and two things happen: It becomes more profitable to pollute less and the victims of air pollution are compensated. People complain about the "Tragedy of the Commons." Well internalizing economic externalities is what fixes that. Making people pay costs for their decisions encourages responsible decisions.
Socializing costs, that is, externalizing internalities by distributing the costs of individual's actions over everyone encourages irresponsible behavior. Socializing costs is a tragedy, known in fact at the "Tragedy of the Commons." Individuals act irresponsibly when insulated from the costs of their own decisions, because those costs are paid by everyone and reduced to the individual.
So here is the thing. Government policy in the United States is designed to promote obesity by socializing the costs of obesity. The first cost is the food itself, which the government pays for in the forms of, to name two, food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Everyone in the United States is required, by law, to pay for food to feed fat people. Really. The second cost of obesity, greatly increased medical care, is now socialized as well. Those costs could be reflected immediately to the individual in the price of insurance when the insurance market is deregulated and insurers are permitted to charge fatties more. If all those fatties had to pay for their food and pay more for health insurance then their would be a lot fewer fatties. Instead, now, a person who eats responsibly and exercises and who will require far less medical treatment as a result will pay the same amount for medical insurance as they guy who eats two dozen doughnuts for breakfast.
Telling people to eat less does not make them eat less. Making them pay the price for overeating does. After passage of a multi-trillion-dollar bill which sponsors obesity, somewhere down the road Congress will spend billions to create and expand government agencies staffed with overpaid unionized employees paid to tell people not to stuff themselves full of government sponsored food.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Google Pritikin Diet. Read a little. This was researched long ago.
The thing that surprised me about HFCS is that its added to things like bread and cereals and other things that arent sweetened.
Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the Kernels secret spices is derived from corn somehow (that or the oils they use to fry the chicken with)
None of those foods you listed are good for you anyways. Stick to actual food like meats, rice, vegetables, potatoes etc. It's pretty hard to mess up those foods although I'm sure someone is trying.
Step 1.
"We admitted we were powerless over alcohol [food]-that our lives had become unmanageable."
I am powerless. I have an illness, an addiction of mind and body.
But that doesn't mean I do nothing about it. I got help, I got better.
Unfortunately we're hardwired evolutionarily to crave these things in order to cope with lean times, and to top it off these foods are typically cheaper and have less prep time involved.
Solution:?
Put cocaine in healthy foods. Problem solved
>>>the sugar lobby is weak (USA). That's why there is so damn much HFC in everything.
Bzzzz. The sugar lobby is STRONG and have erected protective tariffs that raised cane sugar's cost to artifically-high levels. Therefore companies look for cheap alternatives (HFCS). This is a classic case of how government laws, which appear good on the surface to protect American sugar workers/farmers, actually cause unintended and harmful consequences.
The sugar tariffs should be removed, so we can import cheap sugar from elsewhere (like Brazil) and therefore make HFCS too expensive to use.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Taken as a whole, the diet is high in sugar. The paper doesn't give a breakdown of where all the calories came from in the diet, but 4 of the 6 foods mentioned are high in sugar.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
1. Don't eat.
2. Repeat 1 until desired weight is attained.
Side-effects of diet: whining, exhaustion and craving.
The jews did it, so can YOU!
So.... They were fed foods high in fat and high in sugar. Show me a study that shows that just the fat is addictive. It's not. But there are studies showing just the opposite - that sugary foods are addictive. But the sugar lobby is strong.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Runner's high, weightlifters high, etc.
Sometimes people then chase this higher and exercise more than their body needs to the brink of injury.
Otherwise this makes the exercise pass pleasantly for those in control.
I've been eating big macs for years and I ain't hooked yet.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
For bacon it is the fat that is tasty and as it fried the bacon simmers in its own fatty juices. Hence the reason some people drain the fat from the bacon using, for example, a paper towel.
As I've been researching it recently I've been finding it listed as a "preservative" in addition to a sweetener.
So in the last 20 years, as people have been freaking out about sodium intake and wanting "reduced salt" in everything from canned vegetables onwards, we now have... wait for it... HFCS-laden everything. Check the recipe for your favorite "reduced sodium" this-or-that, it'll have HFCS added in higher quantity, usually with some other substance to try to mask the sweetening effect.
Pasta is not good, not least because wheat is generally not good for you. Naturally occurring sugar is still sugar - it matters not. With fruit you may get a few extra nutrients with it, but it doesn't make the sugar content itself any better for you.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
That argument is silly.: you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener or any other toxin that happened to enhance the taste because you view it as the person's responsibility to know what is in their food. You think I'm going to carry a wet chemical lab around with me to test food every time I'm hungry? The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food. If you don't like it, move to some third world country where that sort of thing is acceptable.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
On the surface, it does seem that simple and the effects are certainly borne out by practice. However, there's more to it than that, and the source/type of calories does make a difference in how you feel and can have other side effects.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
One nice thing about bacon, particularly if you like it crispy, is that you can cook a good chunk of the fat out of it. Sure, it's not great for you, but crispy bacon in moderation isn't too bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
High fat high protein foods do keep the cravings for food away longer. High carbohydrate foods will have you craving even higher carb foods, and it's a bad cycle to get into. Just one chocolate bar or ice-cream can start those carb cravings up.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
The link was to an article about a assemblyman who wants to BAN salts in NY, and cut salts in manufactured products.
This is not the same as requiring proper and correct food labeling.
When people complain about the nanny-state, they aren't complaining about companies having to tell you, correctly, what's in their products, it's when the state says you can't do something as opposed to making the decision yourself based on correct labeling.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
There's HFCS in all the crap food. Get yourself some fresh fruit and vegetables.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Turkey bacon is just as bad for you, if not worse, than regular bacon. Next time you're at the grocery store, compare the nutrition information of turkey vs regular bacon. The turkey info is listed for 1/2 the serving size as the regular. Multiply everything on the turkey bacon by 2 and you quickly see that it has just as much fat, and most times even more sodium.
HFCS isn't everywhere. It's just in all the crappy food that you have in your pantry.
Did you think about what you were posting before you posted it?
I have an anecdote here, YMMV. In the olden days, when we were kids, Maharishi Bob and I did an Ice Cream diet, for about six months. Black coffee and bacon for breakfast, a half pound apiece. Lunch was a one pound loaf of sourdough, with one stick (1/4#) of butter, and one half-gallon of ice cream for each of us. Dinner was a Malley's Giant Burger and FRIES. (Larger than the normal 3/4 pounder, Peter Lum loved us. ;-) Robert lost weight, got back to his boot camp physique in fact, for the last time in his life, and I stayed totally skinny. My Grandfather ate a quarter pound of bacon every morning and he was skinny as a rail until the cancer got him @92. BTW, I've gone on to a more typically American diet and seem to be holding @ about 25# over my correct weight. Robert lives in Arnhem now, if he was in America I bet he'd be a lot heavier.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Double Fail
Sucrose (Table Sugar) Is Glucose and Fructose combined. Thus normal sugar also has fructose in it. No one eats pure glucose (it tastes terrible.)
Splenda (sucralose) is not natural because it is chemical modified from sugar. Splenda have never claimed to be all-natural although their commercials are deliberately vague. HFCS is not chemically modified, it is separated from corn.
Sugar is a class of chemicals of which fructose, sucrose and glucose are examples. Nothing you said contradicts what I said. I didn't say anything about table sugar and neither did the OP I was replying to.
The difference between "Fructose" and "Sucrose" (table sugar) is significant, biochemically.
Sucrose is a Glucose + Fructose molecule, linked by a glycosidic (read: "Oxygen atom") bond. The body uses an enzyme, Sucrase, to split up that sucrose into its glucose and fructose componenets.
Sucrase acts, indirectly, as regulator of sorts -- when a whole lot of sucrase is being used, the body observes that change and reacts accordingly, "Hey, we're good on sugar!"
But with High Fructose Corn Syrup, the need for Sucrase is bypassed, leaving that regulatory system out of the loop.
The Sugar lobby may be big, but the Corn lobby is much, much, bigger. And it's heavily subsidized. The main reason HFCS is cheaper than sugar is because of government subsidies.
Well, it is. Doesn't mean it's good for you, but it is natural.
Bacon is a hell of a drug.
Though I agree, I ask of you to suggest some numbers, some reasonable proportions rather than "much" and "reasonable".
Without knowing any physical characteristics of the person in question, their target weight and what their exercise regiment is like, assigning values is pretty pointless, and possibly misleading. Filling in "much" and "reasonable" is an exercise best left to the individual.
Part of the reason I don't eat sugary or starchy things (apart from right after I work out) is that it has a very obvious effect on my mood (well, obvious now that I'm aware of it! I used to think I was just a moody bastard). I get a high from the easy carbs, and then I go into a state in which anything can get on my nerves, or I feel really sleepy for an hour or so (and then am back to normal). I think the effect is exaggerated now that I've been on low GI food for so long, so that's even more reason to avoid that type of food. The other reason is that I don't even really find cake very appealing any longer. Ice cream I still do enjoy from time to time though (had an ice cream milkshake when I went to see Kickass at the weekend), but certainly not every day :)
which is totally what she said
Reminds me of this advertisment in the July 23, 1956 issue of Life, claiming that eating sugar "...offers a new way to more effective weight control."
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
If only I had mod points left. Eating anything is OK in moderation, and if the bulk of your consumption is reasonably healthy. Eating anything in excess is unhealthy. There is no way around this. And unfortunately, "normal" portion sizes for most people are excessive -- a disturbing number think they need to eat until they are full; but that thin margin is the difference between "moderation" and "excess".
Have to contradict you completely. Go to your nearest super market, look at what they are selling, and you'll find that everything is stuffed full with sugar. Sugar is cheap, it is fat-free (and for thirty years the industry has indoctrinated us with "fat is bad" to the point where jelly babies consisting of 75% sugar are sold as "fat-free" and people buy them thinking it is good for you), it doesn't fill you up, it gives you energy for a short time and craving afterwards, in other words it is _designed_ to make you eat excessive.
And you _can_ eat until you are full _and_ lose weight, if you eat the right stuff, forget about the anti-fat indoctrination and get rid of sugar (and get rid of sugar substitutes as well, because they just lead to more cravings). That is why the Atkins diet actually works, not because any of Atkins' weird theories are correct (they are not), but because the stuff fills you up and you eat less calories.
As an example, buy a handful of mars bars, and buy some high-cocoa chocolate (more than 70%). Try how much you can eat of each. You can easily stuff yourself with mars bars no end; try eating 50 grams of 70% cocoa chocolate and you won't be able to fit more.
It's not tortured at all. If all the processing that is done is either physical separation (e.g. distillation) or traditional cooking methods (e.g. boiling, roasting) or uses natural processes (e.g. fermentation), then it retains its natural status. Otherwise anything that is cooked would be classed as artificial, which would make it a useless label.
If you, for example, treated it with HCl, then it would be classed as artificial.
Not, as you point out, that being natural makes any difference as to whether or not its good for you.
OK - I think the usual advice is that you don't really need any sugar in a healthy diet, but a bit isn't going to hurt - after all it makes things taste nice and stuff like fruit has other benefits and also contains sugars. As for complex carbs - the usual advice is around 50-55% of total calories from carbs for a normally active person. The proportion of your calories that comes from carbs should go up with the amount of exercise that you do. For endurance athletes you often see figures of about 55-65% of total calories being suggested.
I'm not saying that this is what the averages actually are. Around the globe, and the US in particular, obesity is on the increase and I suspect that people are getting a high proportion of calories from fat and sugars and a correspondingly lower proportion from carbs. Of course you can consume calories in the "correct" ratios and still gain weight. Ultimately weight loss/gain comes down to calories burnt vs. calories consumed.
Wow, one person's explanation of what feels good for them. That's statistically relevant.
You have it backwards - that bill would allow people to choose by adding their own salt to food, instead of having it arrive with some unknown quantify of salt in it already. As I read it, that bill did not ban restaurants from having a salt shaker on the table. (If so, I would oppose it). So it doesn't actually restrict salt, it just makes it "opt in" instead of having no choice.
Thanks for the link to the real study. I always hate the CNN, WSJ, Fox, or other news oranization summaries...although the scientific articles may contain spin, at least getting it there doesn't have 2 or more levels os spin/"interpretation" on it. I will get a subscription to nature, science, and others eventually.....eventually :)
After the ban "against excessive salt in processed foods" :
- People who don't like too salty food and people with medical problems (hypertension) :
buy processed foods.
- People who like salty food and who don't give crap about their health :
buy processed foods.
sprinkle some additional salt before consumption.
---
Before the ban :
- People who like salty food and who don't give crap about their health :
buy processed foods.
- People who don't like too salty food and people with medical problems (hyper-tension) :
too bad for you !
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm lactose intolerant you insensitive clod!
I get a nasty aftertaste as a bonus side-effect from HFCS. It's put me off of soda pop, unless it's that boutique sugary kind. I also find myself making a lot of stuff from scratch because of it. Today I'm making Pizza, and would use canned sauce only if I could find the Hunt's that has just tomatoes and olive oil. I get queasy just looking at the Kid's ChefBoyardee crap. I noticed the other day that only one of the five varieties of salami at the market did not have HFCS. yuck. (Oddly though, it was the lowest price-per-ounce, go figure.)
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I don't think you're ever going to get around the fact that bacon will always be cheaper than fish. Fish is getting more scarce, and generally farmed fish are less efficient at converting feed to meat than pigs are.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
So it doesn't actually restrict salt, it just makes it "opt in" instead of having no choice.
But you do have a choice. You can refuse to eat somewhere that adds salt to it's menu. You might find the taste a little bland and unappealing but there you go.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
... by prescription only, from licensed dispensaries.
The liver doesn't "need" it, it either uses the fructose for energy or processes it into other compounds that other parts of the body can utilize.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Not exactly. "Modified corn starch" is simply cornstarch+water, then boiled. The resulting goop is used as a thickener. HFCS is what happens when you spit in said mixture and let the enzymes do their work to convert the starch to sugars.
Eating modified corn starch effectively adds those enzymes to it from your saliva. But unlike HFCS, the actual conversion from starch to sugars isn't actually already done for you yet.
People complain that there's HFCS in everything. Your list above shows almost exclusively instant food. Learn to cook and you'll see how easy it is to avoid HFCS.
There used to be a time when we didn't try to live almost exclusively on pre-made, pre-boxed, overcooked, conserved food. We should be ashamed that we *already* forgot how our grandparents lived.
Breakfast cereals? Give me a break. There's nothing wrong with plain old oats/wheat flakes or cheese/egg on toast. Pre-made pasta sauce (or worse, canned macaroni and cheese)? Try garlic/fresh tomato/basil/oregano/onion/bayleaf/salt/pepper/nutmeg and a drop of wine. It's not that hard, doesn't cost that much time, and probably tastes better than your jar of tomato sauce. And at least you know what you're eating. As for the snacks, you shouldn't be stocking up on those to start with.
Yes, the topic of food addictiveness has been studied a lot and is well understood. It's the sugar which causes the dopamine release, and the sensation of pleasure. Fat enhances the absorption of the sugar - fat enhances the absorption of any food it's consumed with. Take away the sugar and leave a high-fat only diet and there is no addictive overeating problem. Take away the fat and leave the sugar, and there is the same problem, it's only marginally less pronounced. The headline is entirely misleading - but expected, people with sugar addictions often blame the "fat content" for their problems, they can't face their addiction head-on.
I'm guessing you don't do a lot of your own baking. Salt does a lot more then just adjust things for taste. For example it also controls the fermentation rate of yeast, and modifies the gluten protein structure to dough. Try making a decent loaf of bread without salt and let me know how it works for you.
Of course, when you say "Hemlock" most Americans think of the tree, which is not poisonous, and is actually a decent source of Vitamin C.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
It's done by:
#1 - milling corn
#2 - "steeping" the milled corn in acid water.
#3 - cyclonic and screen separation (to separate oil, starch, and hulls)
#4 - finer-grade milling
#5 - more separation (to pull Gluten out)
#6 - Multiple cycles of acid and enyzme soaks to convert glucose mix into "90%" fructose mix
#7 - re-blending with bare "glucose mix"
#8 - liquid chromatography pushes the fructose/glucose mix back to 90% fructose
#9 - more back-blending to get to the "45/55%" mix commonly used.
Between the enzyme process, acid washes, and all the other steps and additions, that's why I describe any definition of this as "natural" as a "tortured as fuck." definition.
Yes, I was referring to the famous plant genus Conium, the subject of Socrates' famous last words, "I drank what?"
I think you just described ONE viable path to better health, but not sure all of your statements are "universal truths" either....
EG. You claim that if you "feel full", then you already ate far too much. That implies that our body's mechanism for telling us we're full is defective. Not sure I agree with that, so much as I think our bodies evolved these systems during a period of time when we didn't have such calorie-packed foods to choose from. I'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal.
There's also that fact that "fast food" places simply lack an interest in offering people healthier choices. Do I think legislation is the answer to that? NO! But when I watch how Subway sandwich shops shot up from relative obscurity to battling it out with McDonalds for the #1 spot in fast-food sales, it tells me a LOT of people are more than happy to patronize a fast food establishment that offers healthier alternatives. All I can figure, though, is that most fast food places find it less expensive to serve up the other stuff. Maybe they have a tougher time keeping the fresh veggies and/or fruits from going bad?
This study didn't fare well under close scrutiny, it wasn't well-done. ArsTechnica investigated it further and critiqued it fairly well. Which doesn't put HFCS off the hook, but regular table sugar is still extremely damaging on any animal that consumes it!
Everything an Engineering type needs to know about weight gain/loss and control
free pdf of the book
"Hacker's Diet"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hacker's_Diet
Think of this as a "appnote" for the human body relative to weight loss. I lost 50lbs sitting in front of a computer after reading this.
but crispy bacon in moderation
Now there's two things I never thought I'd see in the same sentence!
THe problem here isn't HFCS. It's not fatty foods. If anything, part of the problem lies in looking for external factors to blame. It's eating too much food, too regularly, and most of us not getting any significant exercise*.
Wait, suggesting that we're eating bad foods is "looking to external factors to blame", but suggesting that we're eating too much food isn't? I don't see the difference.
I think you're right that a big part of the problem is that we often misunderstand when we should eat and how much we should eat. A good rule is: eat when you're hungry, eat until you're not hungry. Don't eat until you feel like you couldn't eat more.
Of course, part of the reason people eat so much *is* due to external factors. Eating habits are often cultural and situational. For example, go into a restaurant and look at the serving size. Understand that most people will get into the habit of eating as much as they're served. Most people won't ask for doggy bags, and many of us were raised with the idea that you shouldn't waste food. That often means force-feeding yourself if you're served too large of a portion.
Beyond that, *everything* has HFCS in it. If you go to the grocery store and buy bread and apple juice, each of those probably have corn syrup in them.
Yes, it's theoretically true that we could expect people to cook all their own meals from scratch, never go out to eat, bake their own bread and juice their own fruits. *Or* we could think about whether the people making billions of dollars from feeding us have some responsibility to provide healthy food, but I guess that's just expecting too much from people. Lets instead expect everyone to grow and butcher their own livestock and live off of what fruits and grains and vegetables they can grow in their own gardens, since we can't afford to trust the people providing our food.
Yes, because sprinkling it on the surface of the food afterward tastes identical to it being used during the cooking process.
Try making a full, multi-course meal FROM SCRATCH without using a single grain of salt. No cheating, pick recipes that actually call for it.
Have fun eating in your crap-tasting restaurants.
I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards. The primary fat storage mechanism the body uses is the release of insulin to drive excess glucose out of the blood to be stored as fat. Your body likes to burn fat as fuel and is very well-evolved to do so.
you would have no objection to the food companies could put lead in their food as a sweetener
That's a stupid comparison. Lead is a toxin. Salt is required for life.
The bottom line is that part of the reason why we have a government is to precisely to prevent people from passing poisonous or other misleading substances off as nutritious food
Salt is a poisonous substance? Your kidding me, right?
Salt reasonable quantities is needed for life, as you correctly noted, but if there is to much salt in your food, it becomes unhealthy for you. If you eat extreme amounts of salt, you could even die from dehydration.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Have to contradict you completely. Go to your nearest super market, look at what they are selling, and you'll find that everything is stuffed full with sugar. Sugar is cheap, it is fat-free (and for thirty years the industry has indoctrinated us with "fat is bad" to the point where jelly babies consisting of 75% sugar are sold as "fat-free" and people buy them thinking it is good for you), it doesn't fill you up, it gives you energy for a short time and craving afterwards, in other words it is _designed_ to make you eat excessive.
Damn you Nature, for trying to make me gain too much weight! And damn you greedy corporations, for forcing me to eat your food!
I agree as far as overkill on "fat is bad, don't think about the sugar" path -- but but both of those fit in with the concept of moderation.
There's no reason to excise sugars from your diet, but you *do* need to pay attention to how much you consume. And contrary to what you seem to believe, this is simple to do. It's just a matter of deciding what you will eat, and how much of it. Unless you've an underactive thyroid , it *is* that simple -- and the evil addictive sugars can be kept in their place.
And you _can_ eat until you are full _and_ lose weight, if you eat the right stuff, forget about the anti-fat indoctrination and get rid of sugar (and get rid of sugar substitutes as well, because they just lead to more cravings).
Yes, if you eliminate sugars from your diet completely, you will certainly lose weight. Until you snap from not having sugars and you gain back what you lost and then some -- that would be the downside of the Atkins diet, at least based on my own observations among many people who attempt to follow it. Let's not forget that for many people, high carb/low fat does nasty things to cholesterol levels in addition to other documented risks.
As an example, buy a handful of mars bars, and buy some high-cocoa chocolate (more than 70%). Try how much you can eat of each. You can easily stuff yourself with mars bars no end; try eating 50 grams of 70% cocoa chocolate and you won't be able to fit more.
But I've no interest in having more than a bit of each anyway... which I suppose is my entire point. Given a choice between almost eliminating entire broad categories of food -- categories which any nutritionist will tell you are pretty necessary for long-term health -- and simply eating less, I think I'm gonna go for eating less.
Did I mention that I've lost 40+ lbs this way so far, by changing quantities of food , stopping before I get full, and walking a few times a week? That blood pressure and cholesterol levels have dropped (the latter pretty uncommon for atkins) to within normal ranges?
As far as artificial sweeteners - most of my weight loss was while I was drinking ridiculous amounts of diet soda. I've since stopped - hoping that ceasing intake of aspartame might help with my tinninitus (it didn't). But much like blaming sugars, blaming substitutes is just a way to avoid accepting responsibility. Yes, if you have sugar substitutes and then *increase* intake of other sugars because you think the sugar substitute makes up for it, it won't help you. For years I did not lose weight while drinking diet soda because of this exact reason. But when I woke up and make some relatively minor changes, the sugar substitute (and the sugars) were no longer a limiting factor even though I continued to consume both.
"Artificial" is a useless label. It is all politics and prejudice.
Chemistry fail on your part, dumbass. Sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and . . . wait for it . . .
FRUCTOSE!
Holy shit, who would have guessed that half of sucrose is fructose? Only those of us who didn't smoke a bowl or get loaded on Mickey's before Chem 101.
The second sucrose contacts saliva, the sucrase enzyme begins to break it down into glucose and fructose. The end result is that you get 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
For reference, HFCS is usually 55% fructose, 40% glucose, and about 5% maltose.
Not all that much different.
Bad article. Conflates fat food with high carbohydrate food. Bacon == good. Frosting, with sugar == bad.
The real addiction here is carbohydrate, and it's a pretty simple equation:
1) carbohydrates increase blood sugar levels;
2) blood sugar levels increase insulin levels;
3) insulin levels cause fat cells to hold on to fatty acids instead of cycling them through as usual;
4) with your fat cells stealing energy from your blood stream, your other cells start starving for energy;
5) starved for energy, your body becomes hungry, and you exhibit "addiction" behaviors.
Fat is good for you (trans-fat is not fat, it's frankenfood). Carbohydrates are the source of all evil and the cause of the "diseases of civilization", including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, alzhiemers and other chronic diseases.
Stop eating carbohydrates. It's simple.
For a great hour and forty minute lecture on the topic, google "gary taubes berkeley".
EG. You claim that if you "feel full", then you already ate far too much. That implies that our body's mechanism for telling us we're full is defective. Not sure I agree with that, so much as I think our bodies evolved these systems during a period of time when we didn't have such calorie-packed foods to choose from. I'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal.
Or that you're perhaps misinterpreting what they mean? Hungry -> need food. Not hungry -> don't need food anymore. Full -> Had too much food. At least, that's how I tend to perceive them.
'm pretty sure it's possible to feel full by eating a bunch of salad, and yet not have consumed excessive calories in that meal
No, lettuce is horribly bad for you! Joking of course - as with any "rule", common sense should apply.
There's also that fact that "fast food" places simply lack an interest in offering people healthier choices.
The simple choice here is not to eat "fast food" until they change this. I think I eat fast food maybe once a month, if that. (Used to eat it several times a week. Can't imagine how *that* contributed to weight gain...;) Nobody is saying it doesn't taste good, but you get it *knowing* how bad it is... the consequences are yours to bear.
Frankly, I would love to see a fast food place that sold exclusively healthy food (not to be confused with "health food") in reasonable proportions. But for me, the lack of them means that I just don't frequently get fast food.
ll I can figure, though, is that most fast food places find it less expensive to serve up the other stuff. Maybe they have a tougher time keeping the fresh veggies and/or fruits from going bad?
I wouldn't think so - as long as they're moving through in quantity... I wonder if anyone has even tried this though? Perhaps some local shop that hasn't expanded, or failed for other reasons?
You might do better in the future to remember that your opinion, derived from your experiences and perceptions, may well be unique to you when it comes to things like enjoying the tastes of foods. Telling people why they do or do not like foods is kinda ridiculous in its arrogance, no?
In case you're wondering, you're wrong on all counts with my personal opinions on the foods you talked about. That's how I know.
It's the trans-fats in potato chips which are bad for you. Saturated fat has a neutral effect on blood cholesterol levels. But mostly it's the starch in the potatoes which causes the raise in triglycerides which far and away causes the most damage to a persons blood cholesterol levels. And eating "cholestorel-free eggs" is unhealthy, you'll be missing most of the nutrition from the eggs - eating whole eggs have a positive effect on your cholesterol (see Jimmy Moore interviewing the Eades about an 88-year old dude on an all-egg diet), they only raise the "good cholesterol" - it's sugar and starches which raises the "bad cholesterol". If it's "fat-free" then it's probably very bad for your cholesterol.
http://xpda.com/bs.jpg
I don't believe people get the shakes from fat withdrawal. (By the way, this photo came from fatty, well-marbled beef.)
Which is still a remarkably stupid idea. Cooking is chemistry. Remove a chemical from the equation and it no longer works. I would be all for publishing the amount of salt called for by any recipe, but restricting the use of salt in the kitchen? NY would not have a single chef left if this ass-stupid measure were to pass.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
The reason you think that bread and cereals are not sweetened is because you eat so much sugar in such high densities that you cannot taste it. I eat very little sugar, and I can tell you that I can taste huge amounts of sugar in virtually every bread I have eaten. My favorite sugar lie recently was an "All Natural" granola cereal from a brand called Kashi. It's second ingredient was "Concentrated Cane Juice Extract Crystals". Now, maybe I am miss reading it, but that sounds like a complex way of saying "sugar".
Wait, suggesting that we're eating bad foods is "looking to external factors to blame", but suggesting that we're eating too much food isn't? I don't see the difference.
The difference is between blaming the foods you eat, and accepting responsibility for your choice to consume them -- and there *is* a choice.
Beyond that, *everything* has HFCS in it. If you go to the grocery store and buy bread and apple juice, each of those probably have corn syrup in them.
Fresh meats don't. Frozen and fresh vegetables don't. Potatoes (even several brands of instant potato) don't. There's a huge list of things that *don't* have it -- but that depends on the types of things you're looking to buy.
Yes, it's theoretically true that we could expect people to cook all their own meals from scratch, never go out to eat, bake their own bread and juice their own fruits.
Nowhere did I say "all" or "never" though. I still go out. I still eat store-bought bread (though not as often). I still eat quick meals. I just do so in moderation, and never as much as I used to. Still -- there's this thought that "cooking from scratch" needs to be a difficult and arduous task -- when most of the time it seldom takes as long as required to bake a frozen meal, or run to the store to pick up some take-out. The only down-side is more dishes to wash ;) And it's possible to get juices without sugar added - mostly due to the increasing market for diabetics, but it does exist. Personally, I just eat the fruit these days instead of drinking juice but that's my own choice.
*Or* we could think about whether the people making billions of dollars from feeding us have some responsibility to provide healthy food, but I guess that's just expecting too much from people
It is expecting too much. Don't lose sight of the fact that they make billions of dollars by selling the things that people want to consume. If there's a market for other options, then things will be sold to fill that market. (And they are.) The only responsibility sellers have is to sell things that make money. That in no way abrogates our responsibility to know what we're eating.
Lets instead expect everyone to grow and butcher their own livestock and live off of what fruits and grains and vegetables they can grow in their own gardens, since we can't afford to trust the people providing our food
Of course we can trust. But we also should be aware of what we're putting into our bodies, shouldn't we? And not just take someone's word for it? Or just assume that because someone is selling it, it must be healthy for us?
Thanks for the typical self-important rhetoric, pompous imbecile.
Thanks for the typical self-important rhetoric, pompous imbecile.
Sorry to read that this is all you got out of it. Still -- if it makes you feel better to fling insults, lay on MacDuff! I can take it...
Fat addiction is not sufficient to explain the United States obesity epidemic because fats are just as addictive in Sweden, Japan and Uruguay as they are in the United States but we only have an obesity epidemic here.
Government policy in the United States is designed to promote obesity by socializing the costs of obesity. The first cost is the food itself, which the government pays for in the forms of, to name two, food stamps and the earned income tax credit. Everyone in the United States is required, by law, to pay for food to feed fat people. Really. The second cost of obesity, greatly increased medical care, is now socialized as well.
Uh, dude, America has the LEAST socialized health and welfare policies of the first-world nations. I don't think you can blame socialized medicine for the obesity epidemic when we don't have universal health care like all those skinnier nations do, and we have a much weaker safety net for people who can't afford food on their own. If you want an insight into how government policy influences food choices, you might instead want to look into farm subsidies for certain kinds of produce.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
Can you not read (and since we're getting nasty) asshole? Did I say anything about sucrose?
Or: "It tastes like chlorine because it's made from chlorine."
I wonder why they didn't go with that one...
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Nothing in there invalidates the label of natural (assuming the acid wash involves a natural acid like acetic acid). Do you think making an apple pie has less steps? Does that make apple pie not natural (assuming you use natural ingredients)?
Those "studies" must be BS, because nobody ever said "man I'll suck your dick" for a pack of sugar.
So when I go to the store and buy more than a pound of butter,
the DEA is going to break down my door and arrest me for an
attempt to distribute... butter? Does that mean cow farms
are going to move to Afghanistan?
Well, exactly. But, for what it's worth, there are rules relating to whether or not something can be labeled as natural as HFCS usually meets those rules.
Not that natural means good or artificial means bad, but food companies know that ignorant people attach value to the "natural" label so it's a useful label to them at least.
Have I entered bizarro world? How is this in any way, shape, or form "flamebait?" Or is pointing out factual errors in commodore64_love's trash posts considered "flamebait" now?
We pay for corn through our taxes so that corn will be cheap, so that private companies can make a lot of money producing cheap but unhealthy food. As a result, most food on the store at your local grocery store is more unhealthy than it needs to be.
There shouldn't need to be a problem with store-bought bread. I have, in fact, seen frozen vegetable and frozen meat with HFCS, but there's no real reason why it needs to be there. If you want to take the free-market stance of "it's the consumer's own choice for buying this stuff", then I think before you can even make that argument, you have to first make the following changes:
And keep in mind that obesity is also a problem among poorer people who aren't as well informed, don't have as much time to cook, and often don't even have access to a proper grocery store.
But fructose is easily converted to glucose by the liver so it doesn't make much of a difference.
The major difference is that sucrose (glucose+fructose dimer) causes satiety while fructose doesn't.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
That changes nothing! Eat the damn cheese or the nanny state will come get you!
"they are coming to take me away ahhahaha...."
Not exactly true-- Not all fruits are created equal, even if they should happen to have the same sugar contents;
This is because whole, unprocessed fruits have all the fiber intact. The fiber works like a sponge, and absorbs a good deal of the aqueous sugar in your stomach, and keeps it from your digestive tract. It also allows microbial agents in your middle and lower bowel to digest the sugar, before you can; making you flatulent, instead of FATulent.
Drinking fruit JUICE on the other hand, which has been stripped of the fruit pulp, is PURE bad for you. Might as well be drinking flavored sugar water.
If you want a serving of fruit, eat the damn fruit.
Hey, if you were smart enough to make decisions for yourself, you wouldn't be living in New York!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You can easily stuff yourself with mars bars no end; try eating 50 grams of 70% cocoa chocolate and you won't be able to fit more.
I only wish; it'd be easier to keep it around. I can easily finish off a 3.5 oz bar of 90%, and even pure baking chocolate, if it's high enough quality (e.g. Ghirardelli). Dee-lish.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
if there is to much salt in your food, it becomes unhealthy for you.
Which is true of... EVERYTHING ON THE PLANET.
Salt is one of the fundamentals of cooking. The others being fire, water and food.
If you cannot cook with salt, you literally will not be able to cook most dishes.
Everyone throws out the term "natural" like it means anything. There are plenty of "natural" stuff in the environment that will kill you if you ingest it....and there are plenty of artificial things that are healthy for you.
I don't even think this is an argument someone can really make, its all in what the food actually does for you that means anything.
Not really. The CNN article is basically a more approachable summary of the Nature article with some insight from the scientists involved. All the article says is that fattening food is addictive, and that, as a result, some of the same techniques used to get people away from narcotic addiction could be used here. Much in the same way that a narcotic addiction isn't easy to get away from, an eating disorder is not either. The problem arises when people downplay the difficulty involved to a triviality.
The government should enforce truth in labeling, not regulate contents. As long as the food carries a warning label reading "Warning: May contain lead, which has been shown to be hazardous to your health" then I don't have a problem with food companies using it in food... although I strongly suspect economic considerations would stop them from doing so.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
However, glucose and fructose are readily converted into one another in your body. "Table" sugar is sucrose which is 50% each glucose and fructose. HFCS is also 50% of each but sweeter than sucrose which is why it is used. And all of these are converted into glucose, which is the form in which your body stores spare carbs.
(Technically much of it is stored as glycogen which is long chains, but they are long chains of glucose, not fructose or any other sugar).
People being stupid is not the problem, although many people indeed are. The problem is that unhealthy citizens cost money to society. Medical bills go up and productivity goes down. The nanny state is just protecting its wallet.
Sure, you could argue that this is a private matter between you and your insurance company, but recent discussions about ObamaCare show it isn't.
An apple is "natural."
An apple pie is cooked. Processed. Definitely not "natural" in any meaningful sense of the word.
Eating foods high in glucose spikes your blood sugar (glucose is blood sugar), which then spikes insulin levels, causes your body to store more of the energy you just consumed as fat, and increases risk of diabetes. Pure glucose has just about the highest glycemic index possible. So while glucose is perfectly natural and fine to eat in small quantities, it's a bit disingenuous to say its not harmful and blame everything on fructose. In fact, purely from the blood sugar perspective, fructose is better than glucose. You need to have a most of your glucose coming from more complex carbohydrates which are processed by your body into glucose, this takes time and prevents the blood sugar spike.
http://www.carbs-information.com/blood-glucose-levels.htm
"the sugar lobby is strong"
That explains the use of High Corn Fructose...idiot.
You need to do more thinking and less attempting to boil everything down to a conspiracy.
bacon - no sugar, lots of fat
sausage - no sugar, lots of fat
cheesecake - 315 calories 35 G of fat. Almost the max recommended amount.
Pound cake - 322 calories, 20G of fat.
So the foods are very fatty and most of the thing you list get a large amount of there calories from fat.
It IS fatty foods and that was what the study was focusing on.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Remeber, the bacon is not cripsy enough until the bacon has been on fire for 5 mins.
+----------------- | What is the question!
But I am suddenly hungry.
> Those "studies" must be BS, because nobody ever said "man I'll suck your dick" for a pack of sugar.
I recomend you don't ask your nan what she did back in the war to get by then.
In conclusion supply / demand. If sugar were as restricted as coke your dick would be sucked for it just as much.
+----------------- | What is the question!
Just like carbon dioxide.
Where are you getting you info?
Bacon is very fatty. 1 oz has over 5 grams of fat.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
No, there are rules for food labeling. How do you tell the difference between an apple pie made with natural ingredients and one that includes artificial ingredients (maybe it's sweetened with Splenda instead of sugar)?
It's your definition of "natural" that is meaningless. Presumably you don't consider anything that's not raw as "natural"?
I worked with drug addicts. There is no will power. Will you lick the sidewalk were someone spilled a morsel of cheeseburger? Eat a cheeseburger covered in human blood? Eat a burger made of ground glass?
I think the whole article is silly. You want to see real addiction? Air. Go ahead. Quit it. See how long you can go cold turkey. Hello scientists, fatty food is what we evolved to eat. It allows us to fuel our brain. And we got a huge brain because we don't eat vegetables but tasty juicy animals.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Buy your girlfriend some nice chocolates. You might be surprised.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The problem is that there are a few vague terms being used such as addictive and fattening. Everything can be addictive and or fattening in the right circumstances. I recognize that poison goes the same way, and in fact most medicine are poisonous in large quantities. However most of these foods are things we eat pretty much in the maximum quantity possible without exploding, and while we do get fat and we do develop cravings, there is no evidence that we're unable to control these things.
As a teenager and college student I probably lived entirely on McDonalds, I almost never eat it as an adult. Whatever addiction there might be, cannot be that strong. Clearly we don't understand addiction well enough to be drawing conclusions about danger. Similarly, though I am not in great shape, at times in my life I have been able to lose weight and keep it off for years at a time by eating well and mostly excersize, the latter being the key element missing from my otherwise sedate life.
All I'm saying here is that all this stuff places the blame everywhere but where it should be: on us. It's up to us to stop eating shit, it's up to us to exercise and maintain our weight. And, more to the point, if we do not choose to do so because it's inconvenient, or because we like our lifestyle, it's our concern. If someone starts robbing your house and killing your children to get their next double cheeseburger fix, then we can talk.
Right. But the point I was originally replying to was regarding food labeling. There are rules for food labeling which, while certainly not scientifically useful, nevertheless exist.
I got some premium stuff. Chocolate. From belgium. I swear it is pure!
Butter, I got that, almost no margarine in it. Cheap for you, you know who loves you.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Actually, some people do use nanny state to describe company having to properly tell you what is in the roduct.
Anytime anyone uses the term "Nanny-State" they are making the "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy.
It serves no other purpose.
And something should be banned from foods, sodium isn't one of them. I wonder how the will supplement their Iodine without salt?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What do you think is in HFCS? Glucose and fructose are sugars.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Yes, lets do everything off anecdotes because there couldn't be anything wrong with yuor person views of your experience~
" if I'd been eating cake and ice cream this whole time I'd still be fat."
Not if it didn't exceed the calories you intake from bacon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oops. I'll have to retract that (dunno where I got it from - maybe from HFCS disinformation :)
After reading up on fructose metabolism, it seems that fructose is preferentially used for glycogen replenishment in the liver, and after that mostly for triglyceride (aka fat) synthesis. Interesting.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
No, companies will always you HFCS.
It's easier to use then sugar, cheaper then sugar, and is perfectly safe to consume.
The cost of simply using sugar for manufacturing is higher.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The news article uses the headline "fatty foods" but that simply reflects the cultural bias against fat.
And the article also reflects the bias that everything begins in the brain. Check out this researcher's faculty page. He's obviously focused on the brain exclusively.
But seminal research like Good Calories Bad Calories shows us that the reactions are mediated by hormones. Brain effects follow the hormonal influence that makes us eat.
And carbohydrates, not fat, cause insulin release (and chronically elevated insulin levels in people who eat large amounts of carbs, i.e. almost everybody) which causes our cells to suck nutrients and glucose from our blood stream. This makes us hungry, so we eat more. And insulin causes our fat cells to store fat. Our liver converts fructose directly into fat. GCBC also provides a large amount of documented evidence that
Eating fat by itself causes no insulin response, and proteins have a much lower insulin response. Diets like the PaNu approach take advantage of this. The idea that saturated fat (which our bodies are composed of) is somehow bad for is is incredibly wrong. The modern research over the past 50 years that has got us to the deadly dietary guidelines that we still provide to diabetics today (low fat, high carb) is thoroughly researched in GCBC. I'd really recommend that anyone with an interest in this field (or just in losing weight) check out GCBC and PaNu.
IT's in everything. SO what?
The study you mention had some vary big flaws.
No controls, Only one source for food, and 3000 calories a day JUST from HFCS.
Plus is goes against every other study and any noted practical effects after decades of use. This is fine, I have no problem with a study being counter with previous finds;However it needs to be a good study,. That one was not.
Hopefully they will do another study and shore up that flaws.
No one should ever eat delicious cheescake. It is very bad for you..but oh so good.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Nothing in that article tells me whether they controlled for consumption. Does anyone have a link to the actual article published in PBB? My institution doesn't subscribe, and it's impossible to comment intelligently without reading the actual article. FWIW, the corn lobby claims that they didn't control for consumption at all:
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
ah yes, the horribly done study with no controls and a sever over feeding of HFCS.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
WRONG.
That study fed 3000 calories to rats only from HFCS and had no controls.
It's a bad study.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This sounds like a job for *horns blaring* da da da DA GOVERNMENT MAN!
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
The corn lobby is strong. The wheat and starch lobby is strong.
If the study was testing fat, the rats would be eating just fat. But the study tested "cafeteria food" which is high in sugar and starch and also high in fat. The headline says that fatty foods are bad - ignoring the fact that the food is high in sugar and starch also.
In other studies with rats, it has been shown that sugar alone is addictive. There have not been studies that show that fat alone is addictive.
You have not shown that the study was focussing on fatty foods as 4 of the 6 foods mentioned in the study are high in sugar / starch.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
Scientific studies seem to disagree. Look at this big study in low-carb diet. Only about 10% of people were able to maintain the weight they lost on a low-carb diet (observed for 3 years after weight loss).
The problems are:
1) You can't maintain low-carb diet for longer periods without risking serious health problems. Carbs are essential in tissue regeneration and formation and preventing ketones (waste products) from polluting your body.
2) You need to learn to balance your caloric intake with the needs of your body and the low-carb diet does not teach you that
3500 calories roughly amount to 1 pound of weight. That means if you eat 100 cal more than you eat per day, you're going to gain 10 pounds in a year. If you eat 100 cals less, you're going to loose those 10 pounds. It's as easy as that.
healthy: adj. possessing or enjoying good health
healthful: adj. conducive to health
No one eats "healthy foods" because what we eat is always dead first, therefore the food does not "possess good health". Some of us eat "healthful foods" however. This mix up is so common that dictionary.com even lists healthful as an alternate definition of healthy (and vice versa), which is ridiculous.
One convenient locations...in Africa.
Except you simply cannot create some foods without adding salt in the process. Salt is a vital ingredient for the proper creation of breads in order to control the yeast fermentation, for example. In other foods it's used to absorb moisture so they stiffen correctly. Kosher salt is used to remove blood from meat before cooking.
Salt is a necessary ingredient and a broad ban in restaurants is ridiculous.
The whole anti-fat/anti-atkins hysteria makes perfect sense if you presume the goal is to get everyone to be a vegetarian. Sugary foods are thus not maligned because they are vegetarian. Probably a bunch of the PETA crowd behind it all.
Poor kids' parents must be the Mr. & Mrs. Tony Montana of McDonald's Say hello to my little friend!
You sound like some wacko libertarian type that believes people can be trusted independently of government to make both economic AND personal choices completely defying the two party systems that says you must pick one and crush the other.
Yeah, right there with you.
The problem (which I don't think mandates prohibitive regulation) is that there are warning labels on everything and people dismiss them faster than Windows Security warnings. The labels are meaningful for 1 good lawsuit, and 2 weeks of scary headlines in the newspaper, and after that it is an embedded cost passed on to consumers of all related products. Such regulations should go far enough to allow people to take personal responsibility and be ENABLED to make an informed decision which may actually require some reading or research. Prohibition, even of lead enriched food products as you put it, is an attempt to protect people from themselves. Creating a bureaucracy for the purpose of protecting us from ourselves has no limit as we can see people are "trusted" less and less to spend their own money wisely. I'll stop there; that is either a philosophy you agree with or do not. Neither side can get their point across to the other in any meaningful way.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Errr... for the sake of argument where would a person that embraces personal responsibility as a great gift in these United States today?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Liver_disease If I am to believe wikipedia, I don't think your liver "needs" fructose, its just the only thing that can process fructose, much like it processes lots of other things it doesn't need, yet is the only organ that can do the processing.
Straw man arguments are lies.
Fruits and Vegetables can also be high in carbohydrates. These are complex carbs that are much more difficult for our body to break down, and thus result in far fewer calories. I once talked with a lady who was convinced that peas were so high in carbs she shouldn't eat them because she would gain weight. In most of what we eat there is generally a correlation between lower carbohydrates and lower calories (because generally high carb food is loaded with simple sugars), this is why a low carb diet will help you lose weight. I run a medically managed weight loss program and we make patients eat a minimum of 5 full cups of fruits and / or vegetables a day, but many eat 10 - 20 servings in a day, and still lose weight, an AVERAGE of 60lbs to be precise. You can argue high fat, low carb, low fat, high carb, whatever, but at the end of the day obesity is about calories in / calories out, there is seriously no debating this fact. Its just a matter of how you get those calories, is it one trip to McDonald's or is it 30 CUPS of vegetables (good luck eating that many vegetables in a day, I guarantee you'll be stuffed, and feel great.) P.S. I am a meat eater...but controlling weight in American society is about eating lots of fruits and vegetables and walking some...
neorush
Lately I've been working through a medical issue that requires me to severely restrict my fat intake. I just ate a sandwich and decided to include some Doritos type spicy chips on the side. A luxury, if you can call it that, I haven't had in a while.
I about did a Homer Simpson drooling arrrrr with my first taste. Without question the pleasure centers of my brain were firing with a wow, this tastes great kind of thing.
It wasn't that long ago I was eating freely - maybe a few months. But in that short time limiting my fatty food intake I can definitely tell the difference. Before that I would eat a side of chips and hardly notice. Now? Big difference. I can see what the article is saying. I've tried to quit smoking before and upon failure my first return cigarette had a similar effect. It's more than the chips just tasted good. It was more like satisfying an itch I didn't know I had type of a pleasure satisfaction thing.
-[d]-
Alaska? Nevada? Montana? Generally, as population density increases, more laws are deemed necessary. New York and California have been trying to support a nanny state through taxation, and are now discovering that it is not sustainable -- tax base moves out, while those that profit from government largess remain.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's your definition of "natural" that is meaningless.
Bullshit. One of the greatest lies of modern food packaging is insisting that items that are 2,3,4,5 or more steps removed from the "natural" origination are still "natural." HFCS was originally produced using industrially packaged glucoamylase enzymes, but to dodge and claim it to be "natural", they now stick the Aspergillus fungus (yes, this nasty shit) right into the vat. Then they run the sludge through this industrially packaged shit for another conversion process.
Splenda (sucralose) is "sugar-derived." HFCS is "corn-derived." They both go through roughly the same amount of processing steps from the "natural" source (sugar/corn) and NEITHER of them actually occur naturally.
Nothing produced with HFCS is "natural." Period. The only thing keeping that label on things with HFCS currently is the corn lobby's lawyer brigade.
I'm usually all for things being opt-in, but any reasonably skilled cook will tell you that adding salt after the fact will not get you the same results in some cases. Some things need a little salt right at the beginning, so it's there to be absorbed during cooking, and no amount of salt added at the table will get you the same finished result. I honestly don't care if you limit the allowable amount of sodium in processed foods, but telling a good restaurant that your can't lightly salt water before cooking dried beans or pasta, or that you can't sprinkle a steak with some salt while it rests before you sear it, or that you can't put salt in a batch of brownies.... that's just WRONG. None of those foods would qualify as high-sodium even with the added salt, and all of them will suck without it.
The "Rat Park" experiment showed that addictive behavior results from stress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
"""
Rat Park was a study into drug addiction conducted in the late 1970s (and published in 1980), by Canadian psychologist Bruce K. Alexander and his colleagues at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada.
Alexander's hypothesis was that drugs do not cause addiction, and that the apparent addiction to opiate drugs commonly observed in laboratory rats exposed to it is attributable to their living conditions, and not to any addictive property of the drug itself. [1] He told the Canadian Senate in 2001 that prior experiments in which laboratory rats were kept isolated in cramped metal cages, tethered to a self-injection apparatus, show only that "severely distressed animals, like severely distressed people, will relieve their distress pharmacologically if they can." [2]
To test his hypothesis, Alexander built Rat Park, a 8.8 m2 (95 sq ft) housing colony, 200 times the square footage of a standard laboratory cage. There were 16-20 rats of both sexes in residence, an abundance of food, balls and wheels for play, and enough space for mating and raising litters. [3] The results of the experiment appeared to support his hypothesis. Rats who had been forced to consume morphine hydrochloride for 57 consecutive days were brought to Rat Park and given a choice between plain tap water and water laced with morphine. For the most part, they chose the plain water. "Nothing that we tried," Alexander wrote, "... produced anything that looked like addiction in rats that were housed in a reasonably normal environment." [1] Control groups of rats isolated in small cages consumed much more morphine in this and several subsequent experiments.
The two major science journals, Science and Nature, rejected Alexander, Coambs, and Hadaway's first paper, which appeared instead in Psychopharmacology, a respectable but much smaller journal in 1978. The paper's publication initially attracted no response. [4] Within a few years, Simon Fraser University withdrew Rat Park's funding.
"""
Many people in today's industrialized society are under a lot of stress. Creating healthier communities may help reduce addictive behavior. One example of how to do that is here:
"About the AARP/Bluezones Vitality Project"
http://www.bluezones.com/makeover-about
Another is here:
"Surviving America's Depression Epidemic: How to Find Morale, Energy, and Community in a World Gone Crazy"
http://books.google.com/books?id=bCuC2H-6k_8C
Vitamin D deficiency from being indoors too much also contributes to obesity and depression.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml
For more on breaking out of a "pleasure trap" leading to obesity, see these:
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Pleasure-Trap-Mastering-Undermines-Happiness/dp/1570671508
http://www.amazon.com/Supernormal-Stimuli-Overran-Evolutionary-Purpose/dp/039306848X
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Yes, the rats were fed fat and sugar. This study did not do well to discover whether just part of the diet was the cause of the addiction, so yes, you're right, the article is not completely accurate. However, before claiming with such confidence that the problem is sugar and not fat, please conduct your own study. I for one am not going to assume your biases as true simply because they're consistent with a well designed experiment. They need to be explicitly tested for.
The problem is that unhealthy citizens cost money to society.
So do unproductive ones, but liberals don't seem to mind subsidizing them in exchange for votes.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Fatty foods have harmed our society enough already. The people must be protected from themselves. We must do something. It's time for a war on fatty foods! Just say no to fat. Do you have an obese friend? It would be better for them if you just turned them over to the police for possessing contraband, that way they can rehabilitate from their addiction in jail.
The issue is carbohydrates, and carbohydrates only. Read "Good Calories Bad Calories", 200 years of clinical diet and physiology studies don't lie. See "Protein Power Life Plan" too.
Sugar is also high fructose and therefore also fattening.
Chemistry fail. Fructose is a sugar, but not all sugars are fructose. Glucose is not fructose.
The poster is likely referring to "table sugar" as "sugar", which is sucrose.
Sucrose molecules are joined molecules of fructose and glucose, which they return to upon metabolization.
i.e. table sugar is exactly 50% fructose.
Have you ever been tested for hypoglycemia? the dramatic mood swings from even reasonable quantities of simple carbohydrates can be a sign of abnormal blood sugar regulation.
If you eat extreme amounts of salt, you could even die from dehydration.
There is no substance that you can't overdose on in some way.
Aren't those people cooking in restaurants educated very well on the chemistry of food? I think they are. I remember studying once with a friend from such school and they had very serious curriculum in chemistry and biochemistry. I would trust them with the salt in my food over politicians and lobbyists any day.
Manufacturers of processed food, however, need to be looked at very carefully and unbiasedly. The whole "fat nation" thingy in the west stinks like hell of biochemistry pushed to the limits. Recently I got simple bread making machine and applied very common recipe. In the beginning I thought the taste was rather bland. The salt is actually just alright according to science. Later experiments confirmed that the bread in the supermarket is too salty. I cannot imagine buying bread from the shop now even if my choice is quite limited.
And so on...the examples are plentiful. I don't want to be drugged by my food! No, I am lying. I want to be drugged by my food but I will choose with what, when and how and I want easy access to real raw ingredients and spices. The rest I leave to the sublime art of culinary which, according to a recent documentary I saw, might have played far more significant role in the evolution of man than expected.Thank you!
"Salt is not good for you, hence, it is illegal."
- Demolition Man ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106697/ )
Not only a dumb idea, but not even an original idea.
Alaska? Nevada? Montana?
You mean, places that generally receive more Federal money than they pay? (As opposed to places like New York that pay more in Federal taxes than they get back?) Your recipe for "freedom" is to be a ward of the Federal government?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Your crazy, stop talking like that or the Fast Food Mafia will make an example of you.
I am not a nerd, I just play one in real life. My avatar thinks I'm a total loser.
Those "studies" must be BS, because nobody ever said "man I'll suck your dick" for a pack of sugar.
If you could buy cocaine for a couple of bucks a pound like sugar, no one would fellate anyone for coke either.
Addiction doesn't necessarily have anything to do with price or scarcity. Addiction is when you can't stop yourself from doing something in spite of the negative effects (like, in the case of sugar, weight gain, hypertension, diabetes etc.)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
I did have some blood tests run a few years back, was wondering if I had diabetes, not sure if they checked for hypoglycaemia or whether that would come under similar warning signs for diabetes.
which is totally what she said
water wet, sky blue.
This article fails to distinguish between fats and fast-burn carbohydrates.
There is much evidence that fast burn carbs are addictive due to the way that they cause boom-bust cycles of glucose levels. At peak glucose levels the body frantically tries to take glucose out of the blood stream and store it (ultimately as fat). It does this by dumping large quantities of insulin into the blood. The problem is that when the supply of glucose has dried up, the insulin is still there, and this causes a glucose crash, and intense hunger/food cravings. Boom bust causes you to eat too much and makes you fat. It only takes a few grams of sugar to have this effect. The powerful sugar lobby do not want you to know this.
But the effect of fat is less clear.
Fat have had an unfairly bad press. Granted some types of fat are moderately bad for you, and granted that when mixed with sugars, they make it easier to eat far too many calories.
However it is not clear that fats in themselves are in any way bad for your. Whereas sugars are the real enemy.
Similar warning signs but a different test. Diabetes is generally diagnosed by testing the amount of sugar in your blood. Too much is pretty clearly diabetes, but too little doesn't always mean hypoglycemia. It could mean you're really hungry. Hypoglycemia is generally diagnosed by watching the rate and size of the changes in your blood sugar after you consume a known quantity of sugar. Generally, in someone with hypoglycemia, the insulin response is too large, so the blood sugar reduces to a very low number too quickly afterward.
The thing is, the diet you describe that you feel best with is just what a good doctor would recommend to help control hypoglycemia anyhow. If a good diet makes you feel well, I hesitate to call that a disease, really. Crappy food makes people feel crappy.
And if you think sprinkling table salt on food is the same as properly cooking with salt... you clearly aren't much of a cook.
I wouldn't want plain old sugar in EVERYTHING I EAT either.
Those new ads where people say, "HFCS is the same as sugar..." are true. They're both bad for you, particularly in the quantities we're consuming.
i.e. table sugar is exactly 50% fructose.
But isn't fructose as several other posters have already pointed out.
Lead Acetate was good enough for the Romans, why isn't it good enough for you?
You can bitch and whine all you like. It doesn't change the fact that HFCS is natural according to the food labeling rules. And whether or not it's "natural" by food labeling rules or your hysterical personal definition has no baring on whether or not it's good for you.
And, FYI, Splenda is not natural and nobody ever claimed it was. Yes the Splenda adverts are deliberately vague (some might say misleading) on that point, but they do not explicitly claim that it's natural.
In case of salt (and sugar) it is way too easy to overdose.
And many cheap fast-foods actually overdose a bit just to hide behind the slight saltiness/spiciness the fact that their stuff actually tastes ... nothing. Yeah most of the fast food tastes literally nothing because all the ingredients there are far from fresh. (In worst case, without salt/sugar/spices their stuff has taste of preservative chemicals. They also rarely tasty or healthy.)
Try to go on for a few days without the salt and the sugar (you can easily compensate for them with vegetables) to taste how the stuff you eat really tastes... I did that once on a prescription and became much much more conscious to what I eat/drink.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
But nobody's obliged to declare how much salt they put into the dish.
You might find the taste a little bland and unappealing but there you go.
If one able to cook with vegetables, then quite often can skip spices completely. I do that sometimes.
Sometimes I fail and it tastes bland, but I still feel myself better after eating my own cooking than anything tasty I ever bought from a fast-food.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Hypoglycemics tend to be underweight, such as myself. You are confusing diabetics (who are hyperglycemic), which is typically a symptom of being overweight. However, it has no bearing on anything previously mentioned.
But nobody's obliged to declare how much salt they put into the dish.
So ask. If they refuse to tell you, then leave.
Sometimes I fail and it tastes bland, but I still feel myself better after eating my own cooking than anything tasty I ever bought from a fast-food.
Why are we talking about "fast food"? This particular piece of legislation would apply to every restaurant in New York State. Think the quality of your favorite white cloth establishment might go down when you remove an important tool from the Chef's toolbox?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
84.5% of Nevada and 69.1% of Alaska are "owned" by the Federal Government. They damn well better be getting more money from the Feds than they are paying out.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Move to Europe. I live here 30+ years and never heard of HFCS.
P.S. Though yes I have googled and needed no further explanation.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Yeah, some people do... but by requiring proper labeling, they're not dictating your behavior. They're requiring a certain behavior from the companies, but not telling them how to make their products... just truthfully tell us what's in them.
So, I can see both sides, but I don't consider that so much to be a "nanny-state" complaint.
Stupid, sexy Flanders.
Fuck you.
Corn lobby lawyers threatened the FDA, so the FDA made sure that they don't bother to give a real definition for "natural."
They deliberately said "we don't have the resources to bother to define this". They've gone back and forth since, mostly because they're under-budgeted and still don't have the heft to get into a court fight with the corn cartel's lawyers.
HFCS is less natural - requiring more chemically-intensive steps and molecular rearrangement to produce - than the "synthetic" dextrose. If you can bring yourself to call it "natural", you're either delusional or you live in Iowa married to your cousin.
I'm going to have to take issue with some of what you've said here.
First, exercise is not going to have a significant impact on weight, certainly not in the amounts you're talking about. It simply doesn't burn enough calories. Your 150 minutes a week of brisk walking burns 870 calories. That's about 4oz of fat burned off. Exercise is good for your health, oh yes. But don't count on it for weight loss.
Second, bread takes considerably longer than that to make. Sure, you can bake bread in an oven in a half hour. But that ignores the time measuring and combining ingredients, kneading the bread, waiting hours (sourdough) for it to rise, folding the dough and waiting again, and waiting an hour after baking for it to finish. I bake my own bread whenever I have the time, but I would never try to claim that it only takes a half hour.
thank you so much for this comment - incredibly helpful addition to the discussion . I am always amazed we live in an information culture but actual useful information never floats to the top . Seems like this point would ring out in every discussion but this is the first I have seen it (admittedly I live under a rock)
Great point.
Another downside of the sugar found in cakes, cookies and other processed foods is how it coats the teeth and damages them badly.
As to GP's statement
wheat is generally not good for you
[citation needed]
Wheat, other cereals such as rice and other foods rich in slow-absorption carbs are very healthy and successful at suppressing appetite for long periods.
And speaking as someone who has run a few marathons, I can attest they are an excellent (I would say indispensable) source of energy for endurance sport.
Really??? Why does the liver need fructose, and not glucose like every other cell in your body? To me your comment is akin to saying your liver needs alcohol every day.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Nothing you just said is true. Sugar is easier to make, and easier to use, which is why cane sugar is used everywhere else, except the U.S.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Insulin also tells your cells to store fat.
Check out Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. This is seminal research that is basically ignored by modern policy.
84.5% of Nevada and 69.1% of Alaska are "owned" by the Federal Government. They damn well better be getting more money from the Feds than they are paying out.
Other "red" states, like Texas, are also on the net-receiving end of Federal "wealth redistribution". I always think it's funny to hear red-staters yell about taxes and statism, while it's us "socialists" in NY, CA, MA, etc. that make the money to pay the Federal taxes to finance their "free, small-government" lifestyles. (Actually, no, it's not funny at all.)
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Thanks for the info :) Well, I have no plans to start eating crappy food again, so hopefully that will be me set.
which is totally what she said
Insulin also tells your cells to store fat.
Absolutely!
What is your explanation for the severely mis-guided nature of modern policy?
Can it be as simple as the power of the sugar lobby?
But that's not what industry reps tell us when they cry "nanny state" because they don't want to have to label their products. (See also: the new menu calorie requirements.) It gets confusing when people are paid to make it that way.
It is evident that you are the one who can't read. Many words in the English language have multiple meanings. It is clear that the post to which you were replying was using the word sugar in the sense of table sugar, or sucrose. See definition 1.a.
Sorry.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219526
The rats which had 12 hr access to a 8% solution of HFCS got fatter than rats which had 12 hr access to 10% solution of sucrose.
This was even though they ingested fewer calories from the HFCS solution.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
Seriously? Reposting because the first attempt at posting this exact comment was modded down? Despite the fact that others replied to you indicating that the liver processes it into usable forms? I'm sure you've got karma to burn, but asking for Redundant seems unnecessary.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
If he was referring to table sugar (sucrose) he is correct. Sucrose is broken down into glucose and fructose once ingested.
"Neither side can get their point across to the other in any meaningful way."
This is because of the irrational extremes that occur when you let ideology replace rational judgement (which seems to be a popular fad in the US at the moment). Allowing people to add poision to fast food becuase you belive in "feedom" is irrational, banning people from adding salt to fast food because you belive in "the greater good" is irrational.
"...that is either a philosophy you agree with or do not."
Philosophy is a guide to life it is not a replacement for rational thought.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
What about furry conventions, pedophile gatherings, and those "tea party" protests?
High fats aren't the problem - high carbs are, especially the kinds in corn syrup and sugar (starches are a little less bad, but still bad overall).
If you want to see research studies, this site has a good repository of published studies that compare the effects of various diets (low-carb v.s. low-fat, etc.) and intakes of various macronutrients (fats, carbs, proteins) in actual human subjects.
http://www.paleoforlife.org/research.php
Clever. Are you extending that argument so far as to say that without that "support" that those states would be in just as bad a position per capita were they left to fend for themselves? I would be very impressed to see anything that meaningfully connects your premise to your conclusion.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
So why not go with Menkin on this one and give them what they want good and hard. Why not just laugh at them and graciously take your own money back?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
The streaky offcuts they call bacon in the US is not bacon, same deal with that white liquid that lasts for weeks, it's not milk, it's not even homogonised milk.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Please read the OP again. I think you'll find that what he referred to sugar, is in fact what you're calling table sugar. It is common for people to refer to sucrose as such. Your misreading it and insisting that the OP was wrong makes you sound like an ass.
That episode of The Simpsons was right!
Its more likely that carbs are a hell of a lot cheaper than a nice juicy steak, rather than the 'power' of the sugar lobby.
This is the best article on eating that I ever read. Thank you for linking to it.
That's true if you eat nothing but processed convenience foods. Maybe the real problem is that your pantry is full of crap rather than actual food.
I actually am on a rather strict weightlifting diet and I understand that modern societies palettes are greatly biased towards salt/sugar. If I have more than 2 tablespoons of ice cream (non-fat frozen yogurt variety) I'll start to get a headache that will get worse if I eat more sugar.
Now there are times when a sugar bomb is good for your body (e.g. right after working out when you just burned all your immediate energy)
The thing is, a diet is a personal choice though. I've chosen to live a healthier life myself and if somebody doesn't want to make healthy choices, waving the ban-stick on foods is really just us legislating morality which is not the job of the g'ment.
What moron mod rated this troll?
Well, kernels are generally derived from corn, I'll give you that...but I don't know what the Colonel would think of that!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
The liver turns fructose into NON-useful forms (fatty acids) which not only damages your body, but also damages the liver in the process. Eat enough fructose and you'll develop cirrhosis just like an alcoholic.
See "Sugar the Bitter Truth" on youtube.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
If you want to take the free-market stance of "it's the consumer's own choice for buying this stuff", then I think before you can even make that argument, you have to first make the following changes:
The problem is that except for point 1 (which I heartily agree with), the rest of it comes from people. The choices *are* there. The information *is* there. Proper labeling *is* there and has been required for years. I do agree that corn subsidies et al should be stopped, there is no good justification for it. I would say the same about *any* government subsidy though, so that probably doesn't mean very much ;)
nd keep in mind that obesity is also a problem among poorer people who aren't as well informed, don't have as much time to cook, and often don't even have access to a proper grocery store.
But it's also a problem for people who don't fit that category. And again, cooking usually does not take any more time than required to pick up some take-out or wait for a frozen dinner to cook. As far as access to a proper grocery store - potentially true, though I would say this is the exception rather than the rule. Meaning that for a very small portion of the population, they have less choice. That doesn't excuse the rest of us for being fat though...
The choices *are* there. The information *is* there. Proper labeling *is* there and has been required for years.
Well the choices are there... mostly. I bet you have a really great whole foods in your neighborhood with all kinds of wholesome food, but go into a poor-ish neighborhood and see what your options are. Or let's say you're at work and you need to take a quick lunch break. If you've packed a lunch in advance, what are your choices? Probably mostly fast food. Or if you pack a lunch, do you pack a sandwich? Most peanut butter, for example, is filled with transfats and hfcs, and almost all jelly has hfcs, so no PB&J. No sandwich meats either, since they have hfcs even if you can deal with the salt content. Unless your very picky and shop it out, you can't even pack a drink because of the hfcs.
So yes, there are choices, but it means weeding through 100 products to find one that has low sodium, no hfcs, and no transfats.
The information exists, but that doesn't mean that people know and understand the information. Meanwhile there are commercials put on TV by the corn industry saying hfcs is fine, making fun of people who try to avoid hfcs.
Labeling is there, but it's sometimes unclear and rarely prominent. Plus you're assuming that people are well enough informed to know to look.
And again, cooking usually does not take any more time than required to pick up some take-out or wait for a frozen dinner to cook.
Eh, well lets be clear about what you're saying. Depending on what exactly you're cooking, cooking doesn't necessarily take longer than waiting for frozen dinners to cook. However, there are many things which take all day to cook, and you can do other things while you're waiting for frozen dinners to cook. If my day is packed, then I can throw a frozen dinner in the oven and then do something else while it cooks. Even if it takes an hour to bake, it has only taken up 30 seconds of my time.
And how long fast food takes depends entirely on how far out of your way it is. I can pick up dinner for 5 at McDonalds in 2 minutes on my way home. I can't cook a full dinner for 5 in 2 minutes. What's more, McDonalds might even be cheaper (partially because of subsidies).
As far as access to a proper grocery store - potentially true, though I would say this is the exception rather than the rule. Meaning that for a very small portion of the population, they have less choice.
Do you know how small a portion of the population? What if you're underestimating the number of poor in this country. I mean, I don't know what portion of the population doesn't have a decent grocery store available, but I lived in a somewhat poor neighborhood for a couple of years, and it was eye-opening. Most of the grocery stores weren't real grocery stores; they were corner stores with a bunch of junk food and *some* groceries. Like they had bread, but it was Wonderbread. And it was expensive-- more expensive than comparable groceries in nicer neighborhoods. There were a couple real grocery stores farther away, but even there the selection was pretty bad and the produce wasn't very good. And then there were *tons* of cheap fast food restaurants all over the place.
That doesn't excuse the rest of us for being fat though...
I'm not extremely interested in placing blame and figuring out who has valid excuses. I'm much more interested in what the causes of the problems are and how the problems can be solved. I'd rather figure out how to stem and reverse the epidemic of obesity than sit around hating fat people for being fat.
The recent melamine scandal in China comes to mind.
So why not go with Menkin on this one and give them what they want good and hard. Why not just laugh at them and graciously take your own money back?
Um, because I don't personally control the Federal government?
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Clever. Are you extending that argument so far as to say that without that "support" that those states would be in just as bad a position per capita were they left to fend for themselves? I would be very impressed to see anything that meaningfully connects your premise to your conclusion.
I guess that would depend on what you mean by "bad". All I'm saying is that, if red-staters are all about small government and taxation with representation and all, then they should practice what they preach and stop siphoning off Federal money that's being provided by the taxes paid by us blue-staters, and let us keep the money instead.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
Well the choices are there... mostly. I bet you have a really great whole foods in your neighborhood with all kinds of wholesome food, but go into a poor-ish neighborhood and see what your options are. Or let's say you're at work and you need to take a quick lunch break. If you've packed a lunch in advance, what are your choices? Probably mostly fast food. Or if you pack a lunch, do you pack a sandwich? Most peanut butter, for example, is filled with transfats and hfcs, and almost all jelly has hfcs, so no PB&J. No sandwich meats either, since they have hfcs even if you can deal with the salt content. Unless your very picky and shop it out, you can't even pack a drink because of the hfcs.
The problem I have here is that I don't agree with what seems to be the premise - HFCS is not a horrible ninja of fat. I personally don't think that HFCS needs to be avoided any more than sugar -- only that intake of both (along with fats, etc) should be done in moderation. For this I can only go on my own experience -- which says that if there's no medical reason to prevent it, it is possible to lose weight (and keep it off) without avoiding any of these foods entirely.
To directly answer your question: I usually pack leftovers, and sometimes lunch meat sandwiches. Or sometimes I'll forget and find something nearby. I'm in an odd neighborhood here at work - it's actually a pretty rough area (parking lot muggings a few times a year, stabbings across the street, etc) but due to my employer (a large bank w/ corporate offices here) there are also a lot of restaurants in my immediate vicinity, giving me more choice than I normally would have on those days.
And how long fast food takes depends entirely on how far out of your way it is. I can pick up dinner for 5 at McDonalds in 2 minutes on my way home. I can't cook a full dinner for 5 in 2 minutes. What's more, McDonalds might even be cheaper (partially because of subsidies).
I'll give you this. And that there are meals that can take a full day to cook. But my overall point is that it's possible to cook well for a family of 4 without spending more than 15-45 minutes on it. While that's not the most convenient thing for many people, it's also not outside of the realm of possibility. Let's not confuse "don't feel like cooking" or "want to spend my time watching TV/web surfing/gaming/etc" with "don't have time to cook" as many people seem to do.
I'm not extremely interested in placing blame and figuring out who has valid excuses. I'm much more interested in what the causes of the problems are and how the problems can be solved. I'd rather figure out how to stem and reverse the epidemic of obesity than sit around hating fat people for being fat.
There are very few people I hate, and certainly fat people are not among them. I *do* think that most people [again, excluding specific medical reasons] have it within their capability to not be fat.
I don't want to come across as some kind of new age "healthy living" preacher - I rarely think about this stuff, and almost never talk about it. I don't getting feel-good organic food (are you insane? far too expensive) or yearn for a nearby juice bar. But in the end, it's so bloody simple: moderation. *some* exercise. Being aware of what you're putting into your body and how much. Taking responsibility for your own choices, and realizing that the thousands of "quick fix" options don't fix anything -- it took work to put the weight on, it is not going to be easy to take it off.
I've digressed far too much and am out of time to finish point-by-point discussion (I tend to work both ends toward the middle in replying to quotes...), so I'll try to wrap up.
I agree that it's a particular problem for the poor, and cede (from my own experience) that no, it's not always possible for them to get to a grocery store with a reasonable selection. However, it's *far* from being limited to a 'poor' pr
The problem I have here is that I don't agree with what seems to be the premise - HFCS is not a horrible ninja of fat. I personally don't think that HFCS needs to be avoided any more than suga
Well the science does not seem to back you up on that one.
I *do* think that most people [again, excluding specific medical reasons] have it within their capability to not be fat.
I'd agree with you if you mean that a healthy diet and some regular exercise will make you much healthier than a crappy diet and no exercise. I'd agree with you that most people who are terribly obese have a bad diet and probably don't exercise very much. The bigger question in my mind: why?
If you try to attribute it simply to "self control", then I think you're oversimplifying it. There are a lot of social/cultural/economic/psychological factors which contribute. If you actually want to fix things rather than simply finding a scapegoat to blame, it would help to address all of these factors. Depression, anxiety, and social isolation contribute to overeating. Our economic models (bad grocery stores for food, government subsidies for unhealthy food, etc) certainly don't help. Living in a culture which values excess but doesn't value health, moderation, taking responsibility for yourself, or showing good judgment hurts us in many ways.
All of these things are connected and reinforce each other. Telling people, "It's not your fault, it's McDonalds fault!" might be counterproductive in some ways, since it allows people to shirk their own responsibility for their lives. However, telling people, "It's all your own fault. If you really wanted to be thin, you'd get off your fat ass and exercise! You're just an undisciplined peace of crap!" can often be counterproductive. It adds to the depression and sense of helplessness/isolation.
I believe it's also important to understand the phenomenon of learned helplessness. In order for people to unlearn their helplessness, it helps to understand what external factors are contributing to their failure rather than simply blame themselves.
Fat is not an opiate! What is this tomfoolery?