Slashdot Mirror
Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists, Skewed Dietary Guidelines For Decades (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Back in the 1960s, a sugar industry executive wrote fat checks to a group of Harvard researchers so that they'd downplay the links between sugar and heart disease in a prominent medical journal -- and the researchers did it, according to historical documents reported Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine. One of those Harvard researchers went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where he set the stage for the federal government's current dietary guidelines. All in all, the corrupted researchers and skewed scientific literature successfully helped draw attention away from the health risks of sweets and shift the blame to solely to fats -- for nearly five decades. The low-fat, high-sugar diets that health experts subsequently encouraged are now seen as a main driver of the current obesity epidemic. The bitter revelations come from archived documents from the Sugar Research Foundation (now the Sugar Association), dug up by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco. Their dive into the old, sour affair highlights both the perils of trusting industry-sponsored research to inform policy and the importance of requiring scientists to disclose conflicts of interest -- something that didn't become the norm until years later. Perhaps most strikingly, it spotlights the concerning power of the sugar industry. In a statement also issued today, the Sugar Association acknowledged that it "should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities." However, the trade-group went on to question the UCSF researchers' motives in digging up the issue and reframing the past events to "conveniently align with the currently trending anti-sugar narrative." The association also chastised the journal for publishing the historical analysis, which it implied was insignificant and sensationalist. "Most concerning is the growing use of headline-baiting articles to trump quality scientific research -- we're disappointed to see a journal of JAMA's stature being drawn into this trend," the association wrote. But scientists disagree with that take. In an accompanying editorial, nutrition professor Marion Nestle of New York University argued that "this 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era."
Fortunately for us, this does not seem to be happening in other industries. /s
Ezekiel 23:20
What with the push by the FDA not to eat bacon and eggs in favor of vegetable oils and the creation of millions of diabetics by overloading their systems with sugar it is surprising any of us still live. We were made to eat meat, that is the bottom line.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I remember a decade and a half ago there were scandals where false Global Warming data had been spread around. It took me a long time to trust future evidence because I saw it as a partisan battle, rather than legitimate science. This sort of thing is always bad for everyone involved. Obviously they had 50 years of good profits, so they may disagree. My point is simply that any level of deceit in science can totally scare people away from a subject entirely, and even oppose the idea in the future, whether valid or not.
So what is the statute of limitations on mass murder as a result of fraudulent practice. Have proof, let's see the convictions, let's demand the convictions (victims in the millions, seriously).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Now trying to deflect blame from carbs in general to all sugars. I mean, it's not like fructose is processed through the liver like other poisons or anything.
I would think that the sugar industry would WANT people to smoke marijuana. There is this thing called the munchies and the fine folks in the sugar business have all sorts of convections to satisfy your munchie needs.
Marijuana legalization advocates really need to get the sugar and the snack industry involved....
I know this isn't talking about a lawsuit. But my question back then was based on the way the industry (including bakeries) manipulates products, and claims their high-sugar snacks are healthy.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
High fructose corn syrup even worse. And it's not just fructose and glucose.
That 42/58 and 55/45 is a bulk culinary description, the truth is there is about 3-5 percent saccharide polymers plus leftover reagents (which until very recently even included mercury)
Food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Read this story and think for a moment about all the "GMOs are perfectly safe" studies. You don't think it's possible some of the wealthiest, most powerful corporations in the world might have a hand in that?
Just follow the money.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is how the system works. Now it's up to us to break it.
[company] or [industry] will liberally shower money on schools, politicians and scientists so they can spread the word of how wonderful their [thing] is.
Break it. Break the goddamned system.
Demand to know where the money for "studies" come from. Then act accordingly.
Demand campaign reform that actually has fangs to bite with.
Does it incense me that Big Sugar has been doing this? Nah. I'm not surprised in the least. This is exactly how America operates. Oh and don't get me started on the corn people, with their HFCS in our drinks and ethanol poisoning our gasoline!
What I am incensed about is the absolute reluctance to question things. The People simply accept what is told to them in schools, churches and media. Ask. Fucking. Why. Every time.
Or, you know, keep doing the same idiotic thing we've been doing for the past 200+ years. It works sooooooo well.. for the rich.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
So, you're trying to tell me that scientists are mere mortals, with human tendencies like the rest of us? That they are not divinely inspired conduits of the Truth, who can solely interpret the cryptic texts of the Journals de Academe?
There are two major things ruining science. First, scientists are revered like priests, and the laypeople do not feel worthy to question them, even though at the end of the day it all boils down to logic and math. Laypeople even beat each other up for speaking out without the proper credentials. Are you less likely to be right about a study if you're a layperson? Of course. But this is still an important check on the system. Second, every clown PhD and pre-PhD who is avoiding the real world needs to publish publish publish in order to advance. This leads to ever more silly and esoteric journals full of silly and esoteric studies that nobody reads and very few can be bothered to try to replicate. And of course you get no credit for replicating a study, because credit = being published. So replication, another important check on the system, is diminished. And within the mainstream subjects, you have ever more pressure to come up with a new result, because there are many more PhDs looking to publish and only so many will. Scientific results, which were already susceptible to human biases, are victim to marketing spin and selective publishing. If nobody will ever try to replicate your results, who cares anyway. And if it's advancing interest in your field, which I'm sure you care about for at least some make-the-world-better reasons, then it's quite easy to convince yourself you're doing a neutral or positive thing.
The scientific method is solid. We just don't follow it anymore. And the #ifuckinglovescience crowd isn't helping.
The legal wins agains Big Tobacco are not a good example of a success story. To this day, tobacco itself is only so harmful to smokers. What Big Tobacco did was intentionally make their product 100 times more deadly. What is in cigarettes can hardly be called tobacco anymore. Smoking anything is bad, but smoking today's national cigarettes is easily 100 times more deadly than smoking what the Native Americans smoked, what pipe smokers smoke, natural tobacco. In the 1970's the US Attorney General released a report with some hard to understand findings: pipe smokers live longer than non-smokers. That's hard to swallow, but that science is no less true today, and it is fact. The main glaring problem with the legal wins against Big Tobacco in the early 1990's is that beyond fining them hundreds of millions of dollars and taxing the shit out of national cigarettes, nothing else was done. Big Tobacco still produces an insanely deadly product that millions of people are addicted to, and the addiction not their fault. What should have been done, what needs to still be done, is that Big Tobacco must be entirely dismantled, their industry reduced to rubble. Taxing smokers is not a solution. The only sane solution is to fix the tobacco industry from the inside, and it is so fucking easy. They are regulated by the FDA. In a single order, the FDA could require Big Tobacco to cease creating and selling their deadly tobacco substitute, and force them to instead sell actual, legitimate, natural tobacco, with no additives (poison). This would not help the stench of burning tobacco, but it will reduce the cost to the healthcare industry, and smokers will live a lot longer.
The sugar industry and food manufacturers have been essentially doping our food with sugar. They put sugar in damned near everything. The only real way to avoid it is to stay far away from processed foods.
I don't disagree with the notion of personal responsibility, but like smoking, when corporate interests put their profits ahead of human wellbeing, and then compound their sins by actively subverting public health and legislative solutions to keep the cash flowing in, I think the penalties should be massive. Quite frankly, in a properly functioning world, there wouldn't be a tobacco company left in the Western world, and their boards, senior management and their researchers would be rotting in jail cells.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If it was just in pop and candy, it would be a lot easier to avoid. But manufacturers have been upping the amount of sugar in other processed foods for years, in everything from bread to TV dinners.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well the science was settled on this, I don't see how this is possible.
How about the CEOs of the companies that pay the scientists and buy off the politicians? How about the major institutional investors and boards that put pressure on senior management to maximize profits regardless of every other consideration?
The scientists and politicians are like concentration camp prison guards. Yes, they ought to be criminally culpable, but the real masterminds have MBAs and law and accounting degrees.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Same here. In addition, it helped my digestive problems a great deal.
Dr. Peter Attia: The limits of scientific evidence and the ethics of dietary guidelines — 60 years of ambiguity
https://vimeo.com/45485034
Sig ?
If you haven't seen them, you should go watch the documentary films King Corn and Food, Inc. King Corn in particular goes into detail about the transition in the US from a diet with lots of fat and lower levels of sugar into one where eating fat is evil and will send you to hell and not eating sugar is evil and will send you to hell.
Food, Inc is more general but it shows clearly why food production in the US is so screwed up.
This would be a good time to go after Kellogg, General Mills, Wonder Bread, and all the other purveyors of starchy foods that begin to turn to sugar the moment they touch your tongue. Yes, extreme athletes, insomniacs and a few others will turn these carbohydrates into energy and muscle, while the rest of us turn carbs into fat.
The promoters start with the children and insidious advertisements for sugary cereals and high carb snacks. Children often don't immediately show the bad effects of excess carbohydrates. Once the children are hooked, they will remain so for the duration of their short lives. They can expect obesity, diabetes, dementia, other diseases, and a short lifespan.
This huge industry knows that, as well as the governments of the world, but lobbyists have suppressed and cast doubts on scientific proofs. How many millions of deaths are the result of this corporate greed? Remember that a corporation has only one mandate- to provide profits for the shareholders.
I'm one of those addicts. As I sit thinking how good a potato chip might be, or a tortilla chip; I settle for peanuts and the lesser satisfaction they give. It's 9PM and I avoid beer in favor of vodka with lemon water (no sugar). My diabetes is somewhat controlled, but when will I ever have a Ben & Jerry's ice cream again? I'm not happy about it because I grew up watching millions of advertisements promoting carbohydrates (and saying fat is bad). Turns out that's 100% backwards.
...omphaloskepsis often...
I understood GPs post to mean the other way around. All the "San Francisco will be underwater in 20 years" stuff. It sours people on any other claims about global warming, even if"it might be based on more objective research. Then a few years ago well-known leaders of the global warming thing admitted they had intentionally exaggerated. That sort of thing seeds doubt in ANY global warming claims. You read "San Francisco will be underwater by 2010", then when 2010 comes around and San Francisco is still there, it's easy to say "I don't believe that global warming crap."
It's the same as telling lies about Trump (or Hillary), when the lie becomes known, it looks like anti-Trump people are just a bunch of liars. Better to tell the truth about what you don't like about them - there is plenty of bad things about both that are TRUE.
Re global warming, from my research, it seems that there is a real thing called climate change, and then there's the hype. Saint Nick was a real guy, and politicians are selling Santa Claus.
We all remember the incredibly eye-opening lecture named "Sugar: the bitter truth" from almost a decade ago. Robert Lustig, the presenter, is an Emeritus Professor at surprise surprise UCSF!
The Sugar Association is full of it when blaming the researchers of bias.
The worst thing is: we've known that for decades too. But nobody ever did something about it.
-- Cheers!
Smokers living longer? Now who would want that? Do I want a smoking geezer? Not only is he a burden on the retirement system, it also cuts into the image of smokers the tobacco industry wants to project, that of the young, energetic, dynamic smoking person. And behold, that's what we get, young people with cigarettes.
The old ones are already fertilizer for more tobacco. The circle of life.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You got it the wrong way around. They conspire to their personal benefit. Evil deeds are just a byproduct. Nobody goes out of their way to dump crude oil into the ocean to poison fish, killing ocean dwellers is just the byproduct of getting rid of the gunk cheaply.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Eating processed food isn't as much the problem as eating food that has been turned into little more than a flavored slurry that was then remodeled into something palpable. It's the OVERprocessing that should be avoided. Eating bread with some ham on top is ok. Eating something that looks like bread with a texture of potatoe chips that tastes like meat is not.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem isn't the obvious sugar, it's all the hidden bits and pieces that you don't even notice anymore that are added to our ready-to-eat-just-reheat crap so they at least taste like anything "good".
There was a study concerning the food in a certain burger restaurant I won't name here that came to the conclusion that of all the products on their menu, only 3 contained no sugar: Diet Coke, salad without dressing and the fries.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
cell phones are still perfectly safe as long as you don't eat them.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
... nutrition professor Marion Nestle of New York University argued that "this 50-year-old incident may seem like ancient history, but it is quite relevant, not least because it answers some questions germane to our current era."
Not sure I can take her seriously...
'Anti-sugar narrative'? Bloody hell.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
You fail to show any kind of incentive for the tobacco (or sugar) industry to provide such a product. From what you say it would go against their fundamental interests to provide a product that is less addictive.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Unless you mean "falsified" instead of "verified."
Even the IPCC now admits that the Hockey Stick was bogus.
The only people who still believe in the Hockey Stick are, well, uninformed.
And he studies nutrition and writes about sugar containing sweets and chocolates ?
This, dear friends, is the theory of nominative inevitability at work.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Sorry, but I honestly can't think of any sensible way how meat would occur as naturally cooked, at least not in quantities that would provide sustenance to a relevant amount of people for a long enough time that an evolutionary process could occur.
Big fail on understanding how evolution works. Something doesn't have to occur "naturally" to create an evolutionary pressure. Diseases, parasites, technologies, climate, predation, food sources, genetic mutation, selective breeding, politics, war, and much more can all create evolutionary pressures. Some of these are "natural" and others not so much. Evolutionary pressures do not have to occur by random chance. The dogs in my living room are there because of selective breeding by another species (us). Had nothing to do with any "natural" randomly occurring process out in the wild.
One of the reasons why a "Paleo-Diet" works, it takes your body a lot more investment of energy to digest uncooked food, hence you lose weight despite eating "the same" food.
The paelo-diet is another in a long line of diet fads popularized and marketed on cherry picked and often incorrect or unsupported ideas about health and nutrition. It was not developed based on scientific methodologies but instead some half baked ideas poorly supported by actual evidence at the time it was popularized starting around 2002. It draws on an appeal to nature and various conspiracy theories regarding the food industry. It's based on the notion that by eating what our ancient ancestors ate that we will be healthier. (Never mind the fact that the actual foods our ancestors ate are no longer available to us) When it works it has little to do with requiring a greater "investment of energy to digest uncooked food". That's a very convenient (but wrong) sound bite explanation for something which is FAR more complicated in reality.
You are postulating that we knew how to cook food before our brain developed
We developed fire as a technology, used it for cooking and it has been a key factor in the CONTINUED growth of our brain. You misunderstand the argument completely. Modern humans look quite different than humans from around the time we started cooking food. Our brains had already evolved to the point we could figure out how to utilize fire. Cooking food created evolutionary pressures which accelerated certain aspects of our development as a species.
It wasn't that we started cooking food and BAM our brains suddenly developed any more than we developed antibiotics and our brains suddenly improved. The evolutionary effects took place over long periods of time. Nor was it the case that we developed our current big brains and only then learned how to cook food. Fire was a technology we learned to harness and it's evolutionary pressures have revealed themselves over millennia.
I see what u did there.
Are you a twelve year-old?
This is why the next appointments to the Supreme Court are so important. They will either save or destroy the US and most of the free world (Citizens' United), depending on who is the next POTUS.
The way to fix this is to make importing sugar easier. Poor Caribbean farmers get more money, consumers get cheaper goods, the sugar lobby goes away. Everybody wins!
The blame for low-fat dietary recommendations pretty much exclusively fall on government: no matter how much the sugar industry paid for scientific spin, there has never been any objective evidence that sugar is harmless or that low-fat diets work. In fact, the government "bought off" scientists to push a low-fat agenda just as much as the sugar industry, selectively funding studies and preferring results that supported existing government dietary guidelines. To add injury to insult, not only has the US government pushed bad dietary guidelines, it has also manipulated the US sugar market to keep prices high, protect US sugar producers, and position HFCS as a common sweetener.
The US government should simply not get involved in even suggesting to people what they should eat, let alone fixing or manipulating prices for foods. Yes, government can, in principle, some good when it gets nutrituional information right, but the risk of getting it wrong is simply too high. And these manipulations and scientific errors have persisted for decades, through every Congress and administration.
And lest you think this doesn't matter much, millions of Americans died horrible deaths unnecessarily because of bad government dietary guidelines, which don't exhaust themselves in bad recommendations, but influence labeling and the kinds of foods both kids and adults are fed in institutional settings.
Moreover once the anti-tobacco movement started, they often played the role of useful idiots to the national tobacco industry, by promoting an abstinence-only mentality that prevented the development of harm-reduction products. Also it won't be long before I have to scramble to find materials to roll non-radioactively-fertilized clove cigarettes because apparently anything flavored with cloves is attractive to children -- which you would not know from their attitudes towards the Christmas ham. Now, not that there isn't a big problem with the Indonesian tobacco industry and child farm labor/safety, but this will also ruin a significant portion of that country's economy, given traditional clove cigarettes is a principal export. Guess which country's tobacco industry hopes to gain customers from that move?
Someone had to do it.
HFCS used in sodas is a 55% fructose + 42% glucose mix.
I.e. 55 parts of "fat making sugar" and 42 parts of "blood sugar level" sugar.
Brain only understands glucose and will keep demanding more until the desired glucose level is reached.
Sucrose is 50-50.
Thus, for every two units of sugar you ingest, trying to satisfy your brain's desire for glucose with sucrose you get something like this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G][G]
10 units of fructose + 10 units of glucose.
With HFCS (55-42), for every two units of HFCS you're getting this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]
[G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G]
20% less glucose, i.e. 20% lower blood sugar level, i.e. your brain will ask for at least 20% MORE of that sugary drink before reaching its desired blood sugar level.
Getting even more fructose along with it.
Looking at those same numbers from a BSL angle, taking that desired BSL as some individual 100% glucose level...
For 100% glucose satiety (i.e. reaching BSL desired by your brain) by ingesting HFCS, with your glucose you must also ingest 130.9% of fructose you'd be ingesting with sucrose.
I.e. HFCS makes you ingest 30% more fructose, which goes directly into triglycerides as by that time you already have plenty of glycogen.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
With HFCS (55-42), for every two units of HFCS you're getting this:
[F][F][F][F][F]-[F][F][F][F][F]-[F]
[G][G][G][G]-[G][G][G][G]
So it's 26% less glucose, i.e. 26% lower blood sugar level etc. etc.
Serves me right for copy/pasting my old posts while being late for something else.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The problem for the food industry is that you have to keep slowly increasing the amount of sugar. If your competitor makes things slightly sweeter than you, then they taste a lot nicer to someone who is used to your product so you have to add more sugar to retain your customers. The downside of this (from the food maker's perspective) is that someone who is not accustomed to that level of sugar finds it disgusting. I haven't been able to eat mass produced cakes for a few years, because I only ever ate them occasionally and they're now so sweet that I find they taste horrible. In the last year, I've heard more people complaining about the same thing. Unless children grow up eating them, they'll find it hard to start in later life.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
..and they deserve to be discredited, shamed, and blacklisted from any high level profession. I woudn't even trust them to flip my burger at Mc Donalds
So you're saying that scientists and politicians MUST accept those bribes? They have absolutely no free will in the matter? Bollocks. You can't buy something that isn't "for sale" to begin with.
Corporations are required by law to maximize profits and act in the best interests of the shareholders. Government is supposed to be serving the people.
Where's the problem? Is it the corporations that are doing exactly what we should expect them to be doing or the government which betrays the people for its own benefit?
What a horrible name for someone pursuing nutritional science.
What an even worse name for someone mentioned in an article about being bought out by the food industry!
lol!
Sample size of one, and it may just be my biology, but over the last twenty years I have done this three times:
- Gain 50-70 lbs. over time, see skyrocketing blood pressure, and bad cholesterol, high fatigue, fuzzy thinking
- Get tired of it and cut all sugar and starch (i.e. no breads, sweets, soft drinks) out of my diet
- Lose 50-70 lbs. in the space of about 3 months, see blood pressure and cholesterol return to perfect, lose fatigue and fuzzy thinking problems
The first time I rationalized that it was more likely due to inadvertently reduced calorie count (after all, natural carbs are supposed to be good for you, and the foundation of your diet, while fats are supposed to be bad for you, and protein in moderation—that was the federal wisdom at the time). So I added sweet foods and starches back to my diet but kept to a lower calorie count. Within five years, I had put on tons of weight again.
The second time I sort of thought "worked once, probably will work again," so I cut out all sweeteners, natural or artificial, as well as all grains and grain flours. Three months down the line, I was skinny and healthy. "This time," I thought, "I'll adopt a lower calorie count when I return to a 'normal' diet." Well, another six or so years down the road, back up by 75+ pounds, even with calorie restriction and a conscious replacement of "refined" sugars with "natural" alternatives like honey and sticking to "whole grain, high fiber" starches and flours. I just plain got fat, even on the "natural" and "high fiber" stuff.
Third time cutting out sugars and starches just happened, started in about June of this year. Cut out all sweeteners and all grains. But consciously increased my caloric intake of protein and fat considerably as a kind of experiment. No limits. We're talking a full pound 70/30 beef patty sandwiched between two fried eggs for dinner territory. What many people at Whole Foods would call "heart-clogging food." Well... Dropped 75+ pounds in ~3 months. No calorie control at all, and not even thinking about moderating fat, protein, or salt intake. Same result, and again, blood pressure returned to excellent as did cholesterol, despite likely significantly higher cholesterol and salt intake. Energy levels are much higher. Alertness significantly improved.
Though some people worry about sustained ketosis as the result of diet, I have experienced no problems. This time, I'm not going back to a "normal diet." I feel like I have enough first-hand data for my own biology. I'm just gonna keep eating as much red meat, eggs, and butter as I want, along with low-sugar vegetables (esp. leafy greens like spinach and chard, etc.)
But sweet anything and grains are seriously off-limits.
I am still having trouble convincing relatives that this is a good idea, everyone is terribly worried about me. The fat will clog my arteries, the whole grains are good for me and I'll get colon cancer without them, etc. But I feel about 1,000% better without sugars and grains in my diet, and I can buy regular clothes as well.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
No change in activity level throughout any of this. Office worker in a cube at a computer, come home to take care of kids. No specific exercise regime and no particular "high-energy" activities.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
It doesn't require its components to be perfect in order for the whole thing to operate.
Science doesn't provide instant truth, any more than the Internet provides instant communication. It detects faulty transmissions and corrects them. Otherwise how would we know those researchers were wrong?
It would be better if researchers were banned from taking funding from companies affected by their research, just as it would be better if politicians were banned from accepting contributions from companies affected by their legislation. But in the case of science the entire enterprise is robust enough to identify and isolate corrupted results -- eventually.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It is sugar + PUFAs
They have also been protecting the vegetable oil industry - concentrated vegetable oils are not human food. Around 1960 they started selling veg oils to replace lard - it was also around that time that Americans started getting fat. We now know that eating PUFAs messes with the insulin system ( main source is LA linoleic acid ).
It will be 10 years or more before the public becomes aware - people warned about sugar in the 1960's were ignored. only 50 years later is it common knowledge.
https://wiki.xtronics.com/inde...
The usual mantra is that PUFAs are good for you as they reduce cholesterol levels - but if we look at all cause mortality - this falls apart. PUFAs reduce cholesterol by making people ever fatter.
"Sugar Industry Bought Off Scientists"
Those people? If they can be bought, they're not scientists. Just for the record.
Harvard or not.
However, whether sugar is actually detrimental? That's not such an easy statement to make.
Someone should tell my organs... because I have been grain and sugar free for 4 years now, eat high (good) fats, am in great health, have maintained a consistent weight, and feel fantastic.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
They use Windows.
I don't know why people are so upset. With the number of people on here who vehemently complain about having to pay taxes for various unimportant services like public schooling, they should be entirely in favour of a rich entity gaming the system in order to make themselves more money.
I mean, that's what the US is all about, right? Personal profit at the expense of everyone else? Well, this is just more of the same. So what if an industry body is powerful enough to skew public policy to their own advantage? It made them more money, and I'm sure all the people that have suffered as a result are rejoicing at the Sugar Industry's cleverness and wishing they thought of it (and had the money to pull it off) first!
Remember, it's all fair and good as long as it's not you who is getting screwed over.
This excellent documentary details the shenanigans of the sugar industry. Available in Canada and the US on Netflix; definitely recommended.
So if we are Supposed to Trust in Scientists, where before we Trusted in God, how do we know when the Scientists are Being Bought or otherwise Biased?
http://sugarcoateddoc.com/
It's cause most of the soft beverages served in restaurants are mixed at the spot - and those formulas use HFCS 65.
http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventur...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
HFCS-55 is slightly sweeter than sucrose, so you need less of it.
That's talkin recipe - not what your brain needs to reach satiety and to stop bugging you for more.
Same goes for calories.
There's no buzzer going off once you ingest your daily intake nor will your stomach go into a shut down once you stuff yourself with enough calories.
Our bodies have evolved to eat until we're satisfied, then until we're full - and then to keep eating some more.
Particularly when it comes to fructose - which in nature comes bound to A LOT of fiber and it takes a while to extract it.
Or it comes attached to insects armed with poisonous stings.
In a can of HCFS-55 soda, you will consumer 19.25 grams of fructose and 15.75 grams of glucose.
The change in total fructose is negligible (+0.5 grams) compared to the change in glucose (-3.0 grams).
Number of calories in fructose alone doesn't matter. What matters is the "flavor" of those calories - cause only the glucose calories count for your brain.
If you're left wanting those 3.0 grams of glucose, you're just gonna get another can of Coke.
Again, there's nothing and no one stopping you from spending your money - and everything and everyone is enticing you to get that extra can. Or a bigger can/bottle.
From marketing to your own brain, which is sitting there and going "I need me that glucose, or I'm gonna make you feel like shit."
And even if you're not craving more glucose, if those 15.75 grams of glucose are all you need - you're still taking in 3.5 grams of fructose MORE than had you drank Coke with sucrose instead.
3.5 grams which goes straight to fat. Fat which you will never use - cause when you get a craving for calories due to your low blood sugar, you're just gonna eat more.
Or drink another Coke.
That's why those huge "big gulp" and "double gulp" servings sell - people don't just stop when they hit their calorie limit.
They keep drinking until they've "had enough". Which is regulated by glucose levels in their blood.
Meaning that even if fructose were just 1% more than glucose - you'd still be having more fructose per serving than the kind of sugar that activates the signal for being full.
And if you're ordering "gulps", you're probably gulping down HFCS 65 instead of HFCS 55.
Which is the kind used in the soda machines. Better sweet than sorry.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Like I said, there is no "only" part of my claim. There were words before and after "only". Namely: "if not only". Do you know what "if not" means, when applied to to something?
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
You've written a lot but it is entirely irrelevant because this is a global thing and I am not American.
I've had a bit of contempt for Gore ever since his wife started using his position, just like a fucking aristocrat of old, to make things difficult for musicians. Who the fuck voted for her?
By coming in and "jazzing" things up in response to some Republicans spouting PR bullshit he's provided fuel for utter pricks to suggest that the scientists are lying instead of it just being Washington lies as usual.
Numbers are wrong above - very wrong - I shouldn't post before coffee starts the brain.
The main point to consider is sheer volume. A pile of apples worth of fructose is not a problem since it comes with fibre etc and there really isn't much of it. A few drinks full of huge amounts of sucrose and fructose is a different story and above a threshold where it really starts to matter. Anything extra beyond that is adding to the problem.
Fucking Paleo freak versus a Professor of Endocrinology at the University of California San Francisco?
I know who is full of shit here. The Paleo freak who can't move his bowels due to a lack of fibre.
AC I suggest you get away from such confidence tricksters before they empty your wallet and leave you with fucking insane health habits, and please stop posting evidence that you have been tricked by those evil pig fuckers here.
Biologically, it all becomes glucose when processed by the digestive system. Then, the body stores excess for needs as fat.
From strictly a weight regulation point of view; fats run 9 calories per gram and table sugar is 6 calories per gram. It becomes the same adipose in the end.
There are some interesting side issues when you get into the complications of the biological system overall. Such as habitual use of sugar substitutes can depress insulin production. Yeah, diet soda is more likely to give you diabetes than sugary soda. Cholesterol plaque seems to not form in diets that don't have any xanthine oxydase (byproduct of broiling or grilling fatty meat).
The best policy should be moderation in all things especially moderation. (yes, that is a quote) Add in physical activity to keep the metabolic rate high and to burn extra energy and you will have weight reduction.
NRRPT/RCT
But let's take those 100 grams of sucrose as a measurement of being full.
I.e. After ingesting 100 grams of sucrose, one's blood sugar reaches the level at which the body decides that it's had enough.
How does the body measure that? It doesn't count grams or calories. Instead, it constantly monitors and regulates glucose levels in the blood.
So... 100 grams of sucrose makes one full.
I.e. 50 grams of fructose and 50 grams of glucose raise the blood sugar level to the point that the body doesn't want more food.
50 grams of glucose = stop eating.
Less than 50 grams of glucose = keep eating more.
Now, instead of 100 grams of sucrose, take 100 grams of HFCS.
How much glucose does it have? Above or below the "stop eating" level?
At the same time, does it have more or less of fat-forming fructose?
How about HFCS' quantity of fructose per unit of glucose? I.e. Per unit of satiety?
If ingesting 100 units of sucrose contains 50 units of fructose and 50 units of glucose, how many units of sucrose are in a quantity of sucrose which contains 42 units of glucose?
How many units of fructose does such quantity contain?
How many units of HFCS are needed to ingest 42 units of glucose? How much fructose is in that much HFCS?
How many units of sucrose would be needed to ingest 42 units of glucose? How much fructose is in that much sucrose?
Is it more or less per the same amount of glucose ingested through HFCS?
How much more of fructose would one ingest with the amount of glucose needed to reach the glucose satiety level of 50 - after ingesting 42 units of glucose from sucrose?
How much more of fructose would one ingest with the amount of glucose needed to reach the glucose satiety level of 50 - after ingesting 42 units of glucose from HFCS?
It is very simple math. You are only looking at the problem from the wrong angle.
Human bodies don't count calories or grams. All we know is "not enough" and "enough". "Give me more" and "stop giving me more".
We eat until we've had enough or until we've emptied the plate, cup, can, whatever.
And if that is "not enough" we WILL go all Oliver Twist and WILL ask for and will take some more.
I.e. We just get another can.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens