How the Sugar Industry Tried To Hide Health Effects of Its Product 50 Years Ago (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: About 50 years ago, the sugar industry stopped funding research that began to show something they wanted to hide: that eating lots of sugar is linked to heart disease. A new study exposes the sugar industry's decades-old effort to stifle that critical research. Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, recently analyzed historical documents regarding a rat study called Project 259 that was launched in 1968. The study was funded by a sugar industry trade group called the International Sugar Research Foundation, or ISRF, and conducted by W. F. R. Pover at the University of Birmingham. When the preliminary findings from that study began to show that eating lots of sugar might be associated with heart disease, and even bladder cancer, the ISRF pulled the plug on the research. Without additional funding, the study was terminated and the results were never published, according to a study published today in PLOS Biology. The study in question investigated the relationship between sugars and certain blood fats called triglycerides, which increase the risk of heart disease. The preliminary results from the research, called Project 259, suggested that rats on a high-sugar diet, instead of a starch diet, had higher levels of triglycerides. The rats that ate lots of sugar also had higher levels of an enzyme called beta-glucuronidase in their urine, which at the time was thought to be potentially linked to bladder cancer, says study co-author Cristin Kearns, an assistant professor at the UCSF School of Dentistry.

Comments

HFCS

[PopeRatzo]

And yet, the same people who want to tell us that climate change is a hoax, want us to believe that the "research has shown" that all GMOs are perfectly healthy and that you shouldn't be allowed to know whether or not the food you buy is from GMOs.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? Are we talking HFCS or GMO or Sugars or what? Fuck, dude, pick your poison. Not everythiing is horrible for you. Do you hate turkey too?

Re:HFCS

[Mr D from 63]

Think of all the rats that could have benefited had this study been properly completed and released.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

What? People who understand how science actually works (because they learned critical thinking) know that climate change is substantially the result of human release of CO2, and that GMOs are safe.

Re: HFCS

[jedidiah]

If you think you "know" anything, you have no clue about how science works.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd be running the streets singing "pour some sugar on me".

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

What a stupid claim. I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system and the Earth rotates around it based on the sceince of Astronomy. Please tell me how knowing this means I have no clue how science works.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

False dichotomy.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Awesome. It's good to know you're retarded about nearly everything, not just politics.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know that?

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

But how can you claim to know how science works if no one can “know” anything? You’ve contradicted yourself with an entirely mastubatory statement.

Re: HFCS

[swillden]

If you think you "know" anything, you have no clue about how science works.

Fine. People who understand how science works know that the best available explanatory theories for observed phenomena indicate that climate change is substantially the result of human release of CO2, and that GMOs are safe.

Of course, new evidence may be discovered tomorrow that upends these conclusions. That's science. But it's really unlikely.

Re: HFCS

[Immerman]

"GMOs are safe" is a nonsensically overgeneralized statement. It's entirely dependent on the *specific* GMO being discussed. The whole point of a GMO bioweapon for example is to NOT be safe.

If you're specifically talking about GMO foods, then the answer is a definite "it depends". Golden Rice, etc seem quite safe, as do many survival- and yield-boosting enhancements. But the GMO food market is dominated by things like Monsanto's poison-resistant crops, which might be fine on their own, but exist for the specific purpose of allowing the plants to be saturated with chemicals that are both known to be toxic to humans, and to be absorbed into the "food" part of the plant.

And then there's the very definite secondary risks of monoculture that inevitably accompany enhancing yield, etc. of a comparative few crop strains, which makes them far more vulnerable to disease and other blights. You know that weird cloyingly sweet candy flavor that's called "banana" despite not tasting remotely right? That's actually what bananas used to taste like, before the commercial banana monoculture was hit by a plague that rapidly drove our preferred species to extinction. Too dense a population with too little genetic variation is *extremely* vulnerable to plagues.

Not to mention the very real risks of allowing Monsanto and friends to have a legal stranglehold on the food supply, which they have already shown themselves to be eager to abuse at every opportunity.

And of course if you want to go full "Frankenfood", there's no reason you couldn't engineer corn, or anything else, to produce any of a wide range of highly toxic substances that would make them as lethally poisonous as the most deadly of mushrooms. And there are in fact already GMO crops (not deployed...I think) designed to produce their own pesticides internally - not immediately fatal to humans, but most pesticides can do nasty things to us if consumed in large enough quantities. And no amount of scrubbing will wash off a pesticide that's produced within the fruit itself.

Re:HFCS

[PopeRatzo]

Are we talking HFCS or GMO or Sugars or what? Fuck, dude, pick your poison.

It's all poison.

Re: HFCS

[PopeRatzo]

Of course, new evidence may be discovered tomorrow that upends these conclusions. That's science. But it's really unlikely.

This article is about the food industry covering up the dangers of sugar for 50 years, the same way tobacco covered up the dangers of smoking. So why is it so unlikely to suspect that the chemical industry is doing the same thing with GMOs?

We have a pattern of multinational corporations covering up shit that will kill you and/or ruin the environment. What changed in the past 50 years to make you think that wouldn't be their operative pattern today?

Re: HFCS

[swillden]

Of course, new evidence may be discovered tomorrow that upends these conclusions. That's science. But it's really unlikely.

This article is about the food industry covering up the dangers of sugar for 50 years

s/covering up/not funding studies that show/

There's a fairly large difference there. There are plenty of independent and government studies of GMOs.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but your arguments make too much sense to possibly be countered with anything but toxic bullshit.

Therefore fuck off, you're an idiot, you don't know shit etc.

Re: HFCS

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, some GMO's are really unsafe.

Like corn that contains gluten. That's a particularly nasty one that already happened (easy to google - GMO corn taco bell).

I imagine anything with nut genes or shellfish genes inserted would also be pretty bad (potentially fatal).

If GMO is so great - LABEL IT.

Seriously - if it were just priced 10% lower and labeled as GMO, within 10 years most people would be eating it at full price and not care any more.

And people who were sensitive to gluten wouldn't be hospitalized after eating a corn taco shell.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

A study funded by turkeys suggest turkey is the worst possible meat for you to eat. They found all sorts of health issues related specifically to turkey, especially he kind eaten on holidays. The study further found that any animal that the turkeys didn't like were actually beneficial to your health.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure what that has to do with sugar. After all, both the high price of sugar and the widespread use of HFCS in the US are the result of government regulations and government subsidies, both of which you tend to argue for.

In any case, to clear up the straw men you put up.

And yet, the same people who want to tell us that climate change is a hoax

No, we merely believe that government action on climate change is ineffective and harmful.

want us to believe that the "research has shown" that all GMOs are perfectly healthy

All GMOs actually grown as food crops are, in fact, perfectly healthy; that's a requirement for their approval. Of course, it's easy to make harmful GMOs, those just don't get approved.

and that you shouldn't be allowed to know whether or not the food you buy is from GMOs

No, merely that manufacturers shouldn't be forced to label their foods as containing GMOs. But, of course, GMO-free manufacturers are still free to label their foods that way. You can simply assume that anything unlabeled contains GMOs, since it is hard to keep GMOs out of the food chain and most people don't care.

Re: HFCS

[ShanghaiBill]

I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system

You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.

Please tell me how knowing this means I have no clue how science works.

Science is not about "knowing" things, it is about evidence. The preponderance of the evidence says that climate change is real, and that GMOs are safe. But we don't "know" these things.
 

Re:HFCS

[PopeRatzo]

All GMOs actually grown as food crops are, in fact, perfectly healthy

Then they should put a fucking label on it.

No, merely that manufacturers shouldn't be forced to label their foods as containing GMOs. But, of course, GMO-free manufacturers are still free to label their foods that way.

This is authoritarian logic: "Labels should not say what's IN a product, but what's NOT in a product."

You're willing to turn that level of control of your life over to a corporation that would throw a baby off a bridge if it meant a 0.2% jump in stock price.

Re:HFCS

[BeauHD (1)]

Table sugar (also called sucrose) and HFCS both consist of two simple sugars: fructose and glucose. The proportion of fructose and glucose in HFCS is basically the same ratio as table sugar, which is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose. Both sweeteners contain the same number of calories (4 calories per gram).

But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds before the body can absorb the fructose and glucose into the bloodstream. In contrast, the fructose and glucose found in HFCS are merely blended together, which means it doesn't need to be digested before it is metabolized and absorbed into the bloodstream. Because of this, theories abound that HFCS has a greater impact on blood glucose levels than regular sugar (sucrose). However, research has shown that there are no significant differences between HFCS and sugar (sucrose) when it comes to the production of insulin, leptin (a hormone that regulates body weight and metabolism), ghrelin (the "hunger" hormone), or the changes in blood glucose levels. In addition, satiety studies done on HFCS and sugar (sucrose) have found no difference in appetite regulation, feelings of fullness, or short-term energy intake. How can that be?

Well, the body digests table sugar very rapidly, too. And both HFCS and table sugar (sucrose) enter the bloodstream as glucose and fructose—the metabolism of which is identical. There is no significant difference in the overall rate of absorption between table sugar and HFCS, which explains why these two sweeteners have virtually the same effects on the body.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

jedidiah you're a moron.

Re: HFCS

[blindseer]

So why is it so unlikely to suspect that the chemical industry is doing the same thing with GMOs?

Because a genetically modified plant is still made of the same stuff as any other plant. The proportions of these chemicals in these plants might be different but the fundamental chemistry is unchanged. If the proportions of the chemicals is different then the cause of any health issue is in the chemicals, not the genetics.

Suppose I have two different potatoes. One is a common variety of potato but was grown in soil that is rich in chromium. The other was grown in more typical soil but has been genetically modified in a way that makes it take chromium from the soil more efficiently. If someone shows up with poisoning from chromium do we blame the potato farmers for planting in high chromium soil or for planting a GMO?

If this is from growing crops in chromium rich soil we'd probably have the soil treated and the farmer would be held blameless. If this was from a GMO then we'd have people ready to have this farmer tarred and feathered. Both cases the farmer had no intent to harm anyone, and the poisoning would have been out of ignorance. It also would likely have been from someone eating a lot of "organic" potatoes from the same local community garden. Buying potatoes shipped in from long distances means the risk of such kind of poisoning is rare as the potatoes would be mixed from many locations.

Barring some freak side effect like a potato taking up a heavy metal from the soil the ability for a GMO to pose any health risk is non-existent. GMOs don't suddenly gain the ability to produce some crazy chemical structure. These plants must still be able to process air, water, and sun like any other plant. We can test for things like heavy metals, or bacteria growing on the plant, or whatever. We test for many of such risks and we treat plants for others, like using radiation to kill the bacteria on plants.

If you think that irradiating plants is also bad then you are doubly stupid. Stupid for thinking GMOs are bad and stupid twice over for thinking irradiating plants is also bad.

Think what you want though, that just means more potato chips for me.

Re: HFCS

[PopeRatzo]

s/covering up/not funding studies that show/

You should learn how research into food substances works. There's very little that's done without industry input.

Re: HFCS

[ShanghaiBill]

Like corn that contains gluten.

Bullcrap. Corn, whether GMO or not, does not contain gluten.

(easy to google - GMO corn taco bell).

I googled it, and came up with ... nothing. There was not a single reference to GMO corn containing gluten.

I imagine anything with nut genes or shellfish genes inserted would also be pretty bad

You can imagine anything you want, but unless you can cite an example of a real (non-imaginary) GMO product available to the public that actually contains those genes, then your imagination is irrelevant.

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

Actually, some GMO's are really unsafe.

Time for fun - I'll get you the tin foil.

Like corn that contains gluten.

Corn (even GMO corn) does not contain gluten. Some people refer to the storage proteins in maize 'glutens', but that's not the same thing.

That's a particularly nasty one that already happened (easy to google - GMO corn taco bell).

StarLink - the event that, even after extensive testing, didn't have any demonstrable health effects at all?

I imagine anything with nut genes or shellfish genes inserted would also be pretty bad (potentially fatal).

Only if you insert particular genes, and that's why nobody is dumb enough to do that.

If GMO is so great - LABEL IT.

When it's useful information, it is. Buy any bag of seed and you'll be able to find out exactly what traits are in it.

When it comes to consumer products, there's no point - almost every corn or product in the US contains a mix of GM and conventional crops - the whole point is that they're interchangeable after they're harvested.

within 10 years most people would be eating it at full price and not care any more.

They already are - surprise!

And people who were sensitive to gluten wouldn't be hospitalized after eating a corn taco shell.

Then they'll be free to complain that the new cell tower that hasn't been turned on yet is aggravating their 'WiFi sensitivity'.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately how science works but is not science.

Re: HFCS

[PopeRatzo]

Because a genetically modified plant is still made of the same stuff as any other plant. The proportions of these chemicals in these plants might be different but the fundamental chemistry is unchanged. If the proportions of the chemicals is different then the cause of any health issue is in the chemicals, not the genetics.

You've made a compelling argument for why GMOs should not be protected by intellectual property laws.

We can agree on that.

Think what you want though, that just means more potato chips for me.

You are what you eat. You can have all of my potato chips, friend.

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

"GMOs are safe" is a nonsensically overgeneralized statement. It's entirely dependent on the *specific* GMO being discussed.

What about "the collection of GMOs that are currently available or in development", or "industry practices and the regulatory regime that allows GMOs into the food supply".

exist for the specific purpose of allowing the plants to be saturated with chemicals that are both known to be toxic to humans

Glyphosate has been used since the 70s, and would still be used with or without GMOs. Resistance to it allows crops to be sprayed with more of it at once, rather than having to spray more often and with herbicides that are more likely to cause human health issues.

and to be absorbed into the "food" part of the plant

What? Sorry, but I haven't even heard that claim before.

secondary risks of monoculture that inevitably accompany enhancing yield

We have more varieties of available now than we did after we started using hybridized crops more than half a century ago.

commercial banana monoculture was hit by a plague

So thank goodness we can now stick a single gene into multiple varieties, rather than having to cross them and hope we transfer the trait we want without sacrificing too much of the genetic diversity between them.

a legal stranglehold on the food supply

That's too vague to even be called a conspiracy theory. What do you think they're going to do, specifically?

there's no reason you couldn't engineer corn, or anything else, to produce any of a wide range of highly toxic substances that would make them as lethally poisonous as the most deadly of mushrooms

Yes, and that would be an interesting plot for a work of fiction that's fast and loose with the science. Just as with the previous quote, what's the point? Even if you somehow managed to get some of it into the food supply and somehow the toxic crop wasn't noticed due to dead animals or farmers, there's an extensive recall system already in place. Why not skip the hard part just put poison in the food before it's shipped?

And there are in fact already GMO crops (not deployed...I think) designed to produce their own pesticides internally

Bt corn has been grown for 20 years now. The delta endotoxin is very insect-specific, has been studied extensively, and is even used in organic farming.

Re:HFCS

[religionofpeas]

But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds

The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.

Re: HFCS

[Zontar The Mindless]

I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system

You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.

Actually, its position varies over time--sometimes it's inside the Sun, and sometimes it isn't.

Re: HFCS

[Ambassador Kosh]

The difference with GMO is we don't know of any mechanism that would allow a GMO plant to harm you in general. When a plant is modified it generates slightly different proteins, dna and rna than normal. However, we would not survive as a species if we just absorbed those things directly into us. It would be a HUGE security compromise for the immune system. What our digestion process does is break them all down into simple molecules and that process destroys anything we do with GMO. Outside of creating a direct toxin with GMO there is almost no way to harm someone with them and even then that is quite difficult to do on accident and it is trivial to screen for known toxic proteins.

It is just inherent to how your body is built that GMO represents essentially zero risk to it. Certainly the same or less than organic food.

If you seriously think that GMO is bad for you then you would need to propose a mechanism that would allow GMO to be bad for you that Organic food does not share and then test that mechanism. So far studies have found no different in health outcomes or any such mechanism.

Re: HFCS

[blindseer]

Because a genetically modified plant is still made of the same stuff as any other plant. The proportions of these chemicals in these plants might be different but the fundamental chemistry is unchanged. If the proportions of the chemicals is different then the cause of any health issue is in the chemicals, not the genetics.

You've made a compelling argument for why GMOs should not be protected by intellectual property laws.

How you made the leap from what I wrote to anything concerning the validity of intellectual property laws is baffling.

If we're going to get rid of laws restricting the growing of plants then let's do something about opium and marijuana. We got a good start on marijuana already, we just need to push that a bit further.

You are what you eat.

Moo.

Re:HFCS

[goose-incarnated]

But the fructose and glucose in table sugar are chemically bonded together, and the body must first digest sugar to break these bonds

The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.

The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy, hence why there's more than a little difference in practice between eating HFCS and sucrose.

Re:HFCS

[Opportunist]

Cold turkey is hell. Ask any dopehead.

Re: HFCS

[Opportunist]

Somewhere in there is an Erdogan joke, but I'm too tired to find it.

Re:HFCS

[Opportunist]

We know how this ends, it costs you an arm and a leg.

Well, at least an arm.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Barring some freak side effect like a potato taking up a heavy metal from the soil the ability for a GMO to pose any health risk is non-existent. GMOs don't suddenly gain the ability to produce some crazy chemical structure.

1) Roundup-ready GMOs on average get sprayed with more Roundup than non-resistant plants would, leading to a higher load of pesticides (which get absorbed into the plant), not because the GMO produces them, but because the GMO allows them.

1.a) This overuse leading to Roundup resistance in weeds, then needing even more pesticides, has also been published for a number of years.

2) "BT" GMOs contain genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, expressing an insecticide. B. thur. is used in organic farming (spores and Cry proteins sprayed on crops) because it is deemed mostly safe to the environment, but it seems research of effects on human health is "insufficient". I would think there is a bit of a difference between a topical application that can be washed off, and a systemic production of the insecticide.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

GMOs don't suddenly gain the ability to produce some crazy chemical structure.

Uh, No! No! No! GMO's are engineered to produce insecticides in the plant itself.
GMO's are not engineered to be healthier / more vitamins / whatever; they are
engineered to get to market; to ensure that the money invested in their seed carries
all of the way through to the consumer. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- but what's
bad is the insecticide hasn't had enough time to be thoroughly tested as to its effects
on humans (or pets, farm animals, etc.).

CAP === 'lessen'

Re:HFCS

[u53r]

Damn I wish I had some mod points to throw at you. Well played.

Re: HFCS

[Bongo]

I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system

You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.

Please tell me how knowing this means I have no clue how science works.

Science is not about "knowing" things, it is about evidence. The preponderance of the evidence says that climate change is real, and that GMOs are safe. But we don't "know" these things.

The preponderance of evidence... which if all science was done by people of 100% integrity, would indeed be reassuring.

But scientists are very clever, and after they do all the hard and skilled research work, comes time to interpret and report results. And now we are into the realm of funding, and influence, and politics, and so on, where spin and bias may rear their ugly heads. For example, the filing cabinet effect, where evidence which contradicts the preferred hypothesis, simply gets interpreted as mistaken and left in the filing cabinet.

So the preponderance of published evidence, is not really in itself reassuring.

It is odd, because there are many institutions in society which used to be authorities and assumed to be right, and should be trusted, like the police. But eventually, we grew to learn that institutions may have problems, like for example, institutional racism in the police. Now science is generally still held with high regard, as it in a way, ought to be, but it is still something practiced by people, and human nature and bias and survival are still factors, so it would be odd if they did not exert influence over the institution of science as they do over other institutions.

The other weird thing is that people seem to have a hard time holding in mind these two notions at the same time:

1. pre-modern religious fundamentalists who believe their thousand year old book is absolutely true, are indeed irrational and should be criticised.

2. modern science is very successful at producing knowledge, and nevertheless, it is not all the same quality across all fields, and within fields, there are some things which are in fact better understood than others, and the social and political side of human practice does influence things, sometimes a little, or negligibly, and sometimes a lot, and you can't really know either way just basing it on one's preferred views and beliefs -- only time can tell, and sometimes, a lot of time.

And lastly:

3. the details matter, and they matter a lot -- citing consensus on climate change is very vague, as what matters is exactly what effect it will have and how severe it will be, and here you would have to look at how they actually survey the consensus and what exactly people think they are agreeing to and why -- these details matter yet climate change is politically turned into this big us vs them, "scientists vs denialists" claptrap which helps nobody -- that polarisation is deliberate and meant to make people feel bad for being on the "wrong" side -- and if you think that is scientific, then we all know of the famous bridge for sale. it is unfortunate... but many many vested interests in society are all vying for our support.

That is really for me the take home message of these "big science fraud" stories. Humanity has problems with integrity, with "removing the log from one's own eye" to put it one way, or philosophically, the issue of fallibility -- you cannot know if you are right (a fact the CC people try to get around by with saying "well gee you just want to wait while the planet burns" -- which is wrong, it does not mean waiting, but it does mean you include the risks of being wrong in your analysis, especially when unintended consequences rear their ugly head) -- so we must all proceed with humility.

And not to worry this does not put anyone into the fundamentalist 6000-year old Earth idiocy -- for they are the last people to admit their own fallibility.
 

Re:HFCS

[religionofpeas]

The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy

How much energy ? The problem is that the glucose and fructose are entering the blood stream. A little bit of energy spent on replenishing acid isn't going to do much damage prevention.

Re: HFCS

[religionofpeas]

we don't know of any mechanism that would allow a GMO plant to harm you in general.

How about a GMO plant that has been designed to withstand high levels of herbicide, allowing the farmer to spray the crops with that stuff, and it ending up in our diet ?

Re:HFCS

[goose-incarnated]

The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy

How much energy ?

Enough for the net energy extracted from HFCS to be higher than the net energy extracted from sucrose. Even in the fractional percentages this adds up due to the volume of sugar/HFCS consumed.

The problem is that the glucose and fructose are entering the blood stream.

True.

Re: HFCS

[TheRaven64]

I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system

You are wrong. The barycenter of the solar system is outside the sun.

I think that's rather the point. Science continues to refine knowledge, and past a certain point it gives approximations that are close enough that most people don't have to care that they're wrong. Assuming that the sun and moon go around the Earth is close enough that you can predict seasons, tides, and so on with a reasonable amount of accuracy. Knowing that it is the other way around gives you more accurate understanding of seasons, but is basically only important to meteorologists and people running space ships. Knowing that the complex N-body system of the solar system revolves around a point that is sometimes in the is closer to the truth, but is well past the point of utility for most people.

Similarly, we still teach Newton's laws of motion even though quantum mechanics and relativity mean that we know that they're wrong, it's just that they're wrong by an amount that is far less than the errors from measurement for anything that most people will ever deal with.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

You may ask Erdogan himself. You know, He seems knowledgeable about everything. I'm sure he is an expert on this too.

Re:HFCS

[printman]

The cells in your body can’t use fructose directly, it must first be metabolized by the liver (a process very similar to how alcohol is metabolized) which has all sorts of secondary effects. There’s actually a really good presentation you can watch from UCSD that shows how it all works and why large amounts of sugar and HFCS are the cause of so many health issues today.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a self negating sentence.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

False, the acid is catalytic

Re:HFCS

[Hal_Porter]

Excellent video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: HFCS

[halivar]

And not to worry this does not put anyone into the fundamentalist 6000-year old Earth idiocy -- for they are the last people to admit their own fallibility.

I'm a Calvanist, you insensitive clod!

Re:HFCS

[jellomizer]

Sadly enough what people do and don't believe from science crosses the political spectrum.
For the most part if Science says that something is Bad then the Conservatives have an issue with it.
If Science says that something is good or at least neutral, then Liberals have an issue against it.

While there is and has been corruption within the scientific community. It usually amounts to stopping researching a topic, before the final results come in, or if the results come in and you don't like it, you try an other angle.

Sadly with our countries leadership, they seem to put more weight in the scientists who are paid for and under pressure to find evidence towards their employers goals, vs scientists who are paid by a grant without any expected results as a benchmark.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you buying food not labeled as you like? Who points the gun at your head?

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe what I say or you are stupid. That's the stuff religions are made of right there.

Re:HFCS

[kaybee]

They are definitely both pretty bad in any significant quantities (quantities which are common for most Americans).

Re: HFCS

[Ambassador Kosh]

Studies can and have trivially checked for herbicide and pesticides in the food and from what I remember it was not significantly different than organic foods. Remember there are many old herbicides and pesticides that are classified as organic that farmers use and some of them are really not that safe.

Re: HFCS

[Immerman]

Look around - glyphosphate and many other pesticides and herbicides get absorbed into plant tissues, especially when used at extremely high concentrations.

Oh? Exactly how many species of roundup-resistant corn are there?

Have you not noticed Monsanto repeatedly suing farmers whose crops have been involuntarily pollinated by their crops? Not to mention the fact that if you're growing Monsanto crops, you are legally required to buy new seed every year, rather than being able to replant saved seed as traditionally done.

Personally I think a lot of the problems with GMOs could be alleviated by eliminating patents on DNA - remove the immediate profit motive, and you remove both the both the legal threats and the motive to design crops for non-humanitarian purposes.

Lots of toxic things are used in organic farming - natural does not mean safe. All "Organic" protects *you* from is certain classes of synthetic toxins, it's real benefit is reducing environmental pollution. And delta endotoxins have in fact been found to have rather serious effects on mammals, though generally not in naturally-formed crystals for some reason.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is another interesting conundrum. Yes, sugars are bad for you, but people started living longer with sugars in their diet. So would the disease be a consequence of the longer life? Is that bad?

Re:HFCS

[drinkypoo]

Cold turkey is hell. Ask any dopehead.

It's all right with swiss cheese and a little horseradish

Re: HFCS

[drinkypoo]

You are what you eat.

Almost. You are what you don't poop.

Re: HFCS

[drinkypoo]

Correct except for bananas. They never tasted like artificial banana, which is a synthesis of only one of the flavonoids in a banana.

Re:HFCS

[Kogun]

Just stop. Your basic facts about HFCS makeup and metabolism are wrong and therefore I assume the rest of what you are saying is shilling.

Unlike what you said, HFCS has four common versions with different quantities of fructose: HFCS-42 has 42% fructose. There is also, HFCS-55, HFCS-65, and HFCS-90, containing 90% fructose. Soft drinks typically use HFCS-55 or HFCS-65, but of course there's nothing on the labels to indicate which version of HFCS is being used.

Also, unlike what you said, fructose is not metabolized identically. Unlike glucose, fructose is metabolized nearly entirely in the liver, which is where the triglycerides are coming from (re: the article).

Disappointed that whoever modded you up didn't at least check Wikipedia first.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

My two main issues with GMO are:
1) it promotes mono-culture (there is a BEST seed that everyone uses), and
2) only the modifications themselves need to be shown as safe (for the FDA), not the new organism in totality.

That second point is kinda scary as adding a new protein to an organism can have far reaching consequences, but they only need to show that the new protein isn't bad for people eating it, not that the organism, when exposed to the new protein doesn't produce something unsafe. That is a big distinction.

Mono-cultures are dangerous because a single event can wipe out an entire crop worldwide, look at bananas:

Cavendish bananas entered mass commercial production in 1903 but did not gain prominence until later when Panama disease attacked the dominant Gros Michel ("Big Mike") variety in the 1950s. Because they were successfully grown in the same soils as previously affected Gros Michel plants, many assumed the Cavendish cultivars were more resistant to Panama disease. Contrary to this notion, in mid-2008, reports from Sumatra and Malaysia suggest that Panama disease is starting to attack Cavendish-like cultivars.

Note: this isn't a GMO issue, it is a mono-culture one, but it happened once (Gros Michel), and it looks like it will happen again soon (Cavendish). As a side note, the switch to Cavendish is why banana flavor doesn't taste like banana, that flavor was based on the sweeter Gros Michel.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

With diabetes, it can easily cost you a leg, too. Maybe both.

Re: HFCS

[religionofpeas]

Maybe, but it is an example of a mechanism that would allow a GMO plant to harm you, even if it hasn't been a problem so far.

Re:HFCS

[Opportunist]

Found the millennial without taste in music.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

>> The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid
> The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished

This is not correct. The bond is cleaved by sucrase, an enzyme which is not consumed in the reaction.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

this does not put anyone into the fundamentalist 6000-year old Earth idiocy -- for they are the last people to admit their own fallibility.

Admitting one's own personal fallibility and admitting the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures are not incongruous.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

> Excellent video
> [Sugar: The Bitter Truth]

Not excellent; debunked.

Re: HFCS

[SCVonSteroids]

Ok guys, stop it. Everyone knows WE'RE the center of the Universe.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

No conundrum. Sugar is good for the calorie-depleted. Sugar is bad for the calorie-stuffed.

Re:HFCS

[LeftCoastThinker]

AFAIK it is not about the energy required to produce more acid, but the time constant required to produce said acid. Your stomach carries some acid at all times, but it takes ~2 hours to digest a meal in the stomach, more if it is a lot of meat or other hard to digest food. During that digestion, acid is continuously produced to break down the meal. If you ate some table sugar with that meal, it is not going to get broken down instantly, but rather it will gradually get broken down with the rest of the meal as acid is available.

As far as eating HFCS vs table sugar on an empty stomach, again it depends on the amount, but in general, they are about the same assuming there is enough pooled stomach acid to convert the table sugar immediately.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your DNA being permanently altered.

Re:HFCS

[Hal_Porter]

That was actually an interesting read.

Re: HFCS

[religionofpeas]

or exhale....

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they should put a fucking label on it.

We will label GMOs but in exchange you have to wear a label indicating you are a dumbass moron.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, how ignorant can you get? You think GMOS alter your DNA??

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

This is authoritarian logic

You tell em. GD nazis, always opposing the forced labeling of things.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the diabeetus doing that to you.

Re:HFCS

[sexconker]

Literally none of them are poisons.

Shut the fuck up, you clown.

Re: HFCS

[lactose99]

Yet all the cow-funded commercials I see keep saying Eat Mor Chikin. Its so hard to find a trusted source these days

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, its that Jesus guy dude, get your FakeNews(tm) straight!

Re:HFCS

[sexconker]

The bonds get broken when the sucrose gets into contact with an acid, so basically as soon as it hits your stomach. That's why there's little difference in practice between eating HFCS or sucrose.

The acid is consumed by the process and must be replenished, which takes energy, hence why there's more than a little difference in practice between eating HFCS and sucrose.

Acid isn't consumed in breaking up fructose and glucose.

Re:HFCS

[sexconker]

I knew what this video was going to be before I clicked it. It's almost entirely horseshit. So of course it's the most commonly referenced source whenever anyone brings up sugar.

Re: HFCS

[sexconker]

Yarva Demonicus Erdogan.
Change, change the form of man.
Free the prince forever damned.
Free the might from fleshy mire.
Boil the blood in heart of fire.
Gone, gone the form of man,
Rise the demon Erdogan!

???

Re:HFCS

[sexconker]

Found the millennial without taste in music.

You repeat yourself, sir!

Re: HFCS

[sexconker]

What a stupid claim. I know for a fact that the Sun is the center of our solar system and the Earth rotates around it based on the sceince of Astronomy. Please tell me how knowing this means I have no clue how science works.

Well, based on the "sceince" of astronomy, I "know" for a fact that the sun, Sol, is the center of the Solar system not because of science, but by definition. The center of the Solar system is Sol. That's why it's the Solar system. It is the system of Sol, the star that is our sun.

Further, Earth does not rotate around Sol, Earth orbits the Barycenter of the Sol system, which is very close to the Barycenter center of Earth and Sol, which is fairly close to the center of Sol.

Thank you, come again!

Re: HFCS

[LeftCoastThinker]

Setting aside the AGW argument, it is entirely possible that everyone who ate GMO corn (or pick your GMO crop) will have liver failure in 20 years (or pick your unintended consequences, hell, we could accidentally kill all the bees with a insecticide producing plant or an accidental cross pollination of said plant in the wild). The near term side effects are fairly well know. The risks when released from the lab are un-knowable. The long term health effects are only poorly understood at best because to get real results, you need 20 years of testing. The truth of the matter is that we have been doing just fine with crop yields and commercial farming. I believe the stat is that if the US alone actively farmed all currently available farmland and we didn't pay farmers to plow crops under or not plant fields, we could not only feed ourselves, but every hungry person in the world (people that can't grow enough food on their own). GMO is a solution looking for a problem, and doing it in a dangerously unquantifiable way.

If strawberries are too expensive because of the labor to pick them, the solution is not to grow 5lb mutant strawberries, the solution is to invent methods of growing and harvesting that lend themselves to automation or sell growing kits for people to grow their own in a small green house or some other of a thousand options.

Re: HFCS

[LeftCoastThinker]

First off, I generally agree with your post, with the exception of point one. I find it highly ironic that you later quote that very book (Mathew 5:7 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.)

Your assumption is predicated on the false narrative propagated by the God haters that belief in the Bible is blind faith. While is it certainly true that many people do blindly believe (and by the way, blindly believing that one should love every person as they love themselves, being faithful to their spouse, not stealing, lying or murdering are hardly things to be scorned) not all believers have blind faith, many have reasoned faith. There are many of us that have arrived at our faith through skeptical investigation. If you are a true skeptic, a true seeker of truth, you need to read "Case for Christ" https://www.amazon.com/Case-Ch...
If you chose to continue in your bigoted ignorance, just be aware that it is your personal choice and not a reflection on the reality of the matter.

Re: HFCS

[jeff4747]

(which get absorbed into the plant)

Citation required. At least if you're going to be claiming that absorption lasts long enough for it to be present when the plant is eaten.

I would think there is a bit of a difference between a topical application that can be washed off, and a systemic production of the insecticide.

Yes...there's far lower quantities of BT in the GMO version, and we get to control which parts of the plant produce BT instead of hosing down the entire plant.

Re:HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

The question is still volume. If 20g of sugar or 20g or HCFS has a .01% energy difference to the human body in totality, does it
really
fucking
matter?

Re: HFCS

[chronoglass]

If strawberries are too expensive because of the labor to pick them, the solution is not to grow 5lb mutant strawberries, the solution is to invent methods of growing and harvesting that lend themselves to automation or sell growing kits for people to grow their own in a small green house or some other of a thousand options.

unless, of course, it IS the solution, and study bears that out. Stating that it is "wrong" doesn't mean it's not worth investigating.

obligatory xkcd https://xkcd.com/1901/

Re: HFCS

[chronoglass]

i don't think you actually googled it, maybe you bing'd or yahoo'd it?
first (non promoted) link on my search comes up with this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

im pro GMO, but let's all be honest with ourselves here

Re: HFCS

[chronoglass]

retraction.. i suppose it doesn't specifically refer to gluten.. just the recall

the more you know

Re: HFCS

[ChrisMaple]

If you think you "know" anything, you have no clue about how science works.

So you know that, do you?

Re: HFCS

[Maxo-Texas]

First- It was CRY protein allergy- not gluten allergy. Sorry about that- it was late.

Second "allergic taco shells" turns up dozens of pages of responses so I don't think you googled very hard.

Here are a couple.

http://www.culinarylore.com/fo...

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/fl...

As I said, LABEL IT.

Then people can make an educated choice. If you sell GMO food at a slightly lower price people will buy it.

Stop trying to force them to eat it. Stop trying to hide it.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. This is the ONLY argument against GMO foods. Anyone with a brain knows GMOs by themselves are harmless, but until we can convince Monsanto execs to drink a glass of Roundup, that question is still on the table. And considering the mountains of evidence showing that pesticide chemicals DO show up in the food we eat, it is a very real and valid concern.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

At least three times as many studies have found high levels of pesticide in our foods though. Go read more.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lack of ability to use Google does not constitute a lack of evidence. You just really suck at Googling :) I searched for it and found several studies about it. Maybe don't ignore the scientific evidence?

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

At least three times as many unscientific studies have found high levels of pesticide in our foods though. Go read more if you want you IQ to drop.

Fixed that for you.

Re: HFCS

[Immerman]

Are there candy flavors that actually *do* taste like what they claim to be?

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

Enjoy your DNA being permanently altered.

I'm not having my DNA altered, so...

Wait, was that a threat?

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

Personally I think a lot of the problems with GMOs could be alleviated by eliminating patents on DNA - remove the immediate profit motive

If you want to destroy capitalism, or if you just want to end patents on plant varieties, that's fine. But neither of those are specific to GMOs.

Lots of toxic things are used in organic farming - natural does not mean safe.

I didn't mean to suggest that - I'm pointing out that it's an issue that's only tangentially related to GMOs. As with the previous quote, you can't use X as an argument against GMOs if X applies to both GMO and non-GMO farming fairly equally.

And delta endotoxins have in fact been found to have rather serious effects on mammals, though generally not in naturally-formed crystals for some reason.

I couldn't find a reliable source for this, but I'm open to being convinced.

All "Organic" protects *you* from is certain classes of synthetic toxins, it's real benefit is reducing environmental pollution.

Well, it changes the mix of chemicals you're exposed to, yes. As for the last part, you realize that some of the main benefits of GMOs are reduced use of sprayed chemicals and diesel, right? Heck, the reduced topsoil loss from no-till farming alone probably makes GMOs more environmentally-friendly than many organics.

Have you not noticed Monsanto repeatedly suing farmers whose crops have been involuntarily pollinated by their crops?

No, because that doesn't happen.

Not to mention the fact that if you're growing Monsanto crops, you are legally required to buy new seed every year

I know this is a nitpick, but you can always purchase non-patented seed and reuse that to your heart's content, or plant seed you saved from before you planted the patented stuff, or possibly even just purchase a license to replant. You aren't 'trapped'. But, yes, as with any other patented product, you need permission to make copies.

rather than being able to replant saved seed as traditionally done.

People stopped doing that with corn when hybrid vigor was discovered. And what's with the Luddite overtones? When farmers bought tractors (and kept having to buy new ones) they stopped breeding their own work animals 'as was traditionally done' - was that a bad thing?

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I stick with chocolate. It's the most honest candy flavour.

Re: HFCS

[Immerman]

Pretty big leap from eliminating GMO patents to destroying capitalism. And last I heard you can't patent plant varieties unless they're GMOs. Eliminating GMO patents simply reduces the worst excesses of capitalism as applied to one of the most potentially dangerous technologies our species has ever developed.

And I'm not arguing against GMOs in general - I specifically said many GMOs actually seem quite beneficial. But when discussing commercial GMOs it's disingenuous to ignore the reality of how genetic modification is actually being used - i.e. most commonly to allow farmers to radically increase the amount of toxins they apply to the crops.

I found several papers googling "delta endotoxin dangers", you're welcome to investigate. But like I said, it sounds like the forms produced directly by plants don't show serious problems.

"some of the main benefits of GMOs are reduced use of sprayed chemicals" - two words: "Roundup resistance"

Re: HFCS

[Bongo]

Well, I apologise.

The post I wrote was aimed at one group of people.

It's the people who spin science as being the antidote to religion and superstition. And that meme also shows up in climate change, where advocates claim that, if you don't accept "the science" then you are an irrational blind believer — I see articles which "point out" that Evangelical Christians are one of the largest groups which reject climate change. And so it is like how climate change "denialists" are often described as "flat Earthers".

So when I was writing that post, I was trying to address that view. But to do that, perhaps clumsily, I was trying to make clear, by exaggerating, that I was definitely not in the blind belief camp, even though, yeah, I was posting about the issue of fallibility in science.

Ie. that people can actually be rational and question consensus science, without being flat earthers, or for that matter, being the same people who believe the world is 6000 years old. Which is why I kept mentioning the "it's 6000 years old" part of religion. Like how we qualify "Muslim extremist" rather than just "Muslim".

So I went with the exaggerated separation of the two, but that largely because it is already so separated in many people's minds, and that's because of all the deliberate political spin, which is trying to throw all climate change critics into the "irrational", "right wing", "religious fundamentalists" bucket.

Now rather, to your point, which I accept. And actually I not only agree, I'd like to elaborate on it if I may.

See, religion is very old, and that presents a difficulty whenever religion is mentioned in conversation and debate.

Humanity is arguably 200,000 to 2 million years old, and we have developed through time, through a number of distinct cultural stages. The philosopher Jean Gebser for example, splits it into six stages: archaic, magic, mythic, mental, integral.

But we can use just three: pre-modern, modern, and post-post-modern (I skip post-modern as that deconstruction was a messed up, false start, blind alley).

Point is, the structure of our thinking and perceiving and judging and valuing, changed and allowed more complex forms of social grouping to emerge. We didn't just go from small tribes of 150 people, to living in megacities of 20 million, without altering how our minds worked.

So here's the thing: religion is old and has been around through all these stages, and consequently, the world's religions contain all these stages, within them, in one form or another.

So for example, the age of Abraham, which is the age of giving laws -- that law-giving function was a new way to organise social systems. It was a huge advancement over pagan ways, and this law-giving shows up in other parts of the world also, albeit in different guises. Social order, harmony, and submitting to the good of the group, and repressing one's selfish impulses, and becoming of service. Which yes, can be in the spirit of service to a higher power.

So religion is old, and people who reject it, can always point to the archaic (although technically, the mythic-membership parts, which arose a few thousand years ago), and claim that, see, religion is irrational blind faith and something to be eradicated. Hellooo Dawkins.

So religion is old, yes, but then came modernity -- the Western Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, yadda yadda. And around the time that happened, the Church was powerful, and, in part, what the new doctors and philosophers of modernity were rebelling against, were the rigid dogmatic and oppressive aspects of the dominant institutions -- including the Church. So whilst these new thinkers were busy creating modern art (the Renaissance) and modern science, and modern medicine, they simply skipped over altogether the concept of modern religion -- and so in the West, religion, at that moment, was thrown in the trash can.

That was an unfortunate move, as it blocked religion at the pre-modern stage, trapping it in the past. The reject

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no reason not to question scientific consensus, but if you refute it you must do it on scientific grounds.

This is why the flat-earthers, creationists, global warming deniers etc. fail - they object on emotional, religious, or political grounds and don't have any convincing evidence to refute the science they reject.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. The hydrogen ion is consumed breaking apart the molecule.

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, would you guys quit talking out of your asses? The acid (stomach acid, hydrochloric) has nothing to do with it.

You're on the Internet. It's not hard to type "sucrose digestion" into Google and learn something.

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

Pretty big leap from eliminating GMO patents to destroying capitalism. ... Eliminating GMO patents simply reduces the worst excesses of capitalism

That's fine. If you were just an anti-capitalist using fears of GMOs as a politically-convenient tool we could skip the minutiae of GMOs and go for the root cause.

And last I heard you can't patent plant varieties unless they're GMOs.

Plant Patent Act of 1930? I'm sure that was a response to Luther Burbank making Roundup Ready cherries in the 1920s. /s

how genetic modification is actually being used - i.e. most commonly to allow farmers to radically increase the amount of toxins they apply to the crops.

It allows increasing the amount that can be used at one time, but because one large dose is more effective than two half-sized ones the total amount used can actually decrease. That's why per-acre herbicide use hasn't changed much since GMOs started being used commercially.

I found several papers googling "delta endotoxin dangers"

I found several web pages, and all were of the kind that lead to the kind of profound ignorance you've shown in the last two items I quoted. Again, I'm open to being convinced, but only by reliable (preferably peer-reviewed) sources.

"some of the main benefits of GMOs are reduced use of sprayed chemicals" - two words: "Roundup resistance"

That's not even an argument, I have no idea what you're alluding to. Resistance was predicted before anyone even started working on GMO crops, everyone in modern agriculture is aware of the potential problem the and current plans to mitigate it (e.g. refuges), nobody in agriculture believes it's going to cause anything worse than farmers rotating what kind of herbicide-resistant crop they plant. I can't wait for you to explain what you meant.

Re: HFCS

[Bongo]

Sure, but have you actually made a real effort, and tried to find the best arguments and evidence against global warming, which may be out there?

Re: HFCS

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate change is open ended. Itâ(TM)s always changing. Man made global warming is a hoax. Follow the money and youâ(TM)ll want more sunny.

Re: HFCS

[Immerman]

Huh, hadn't heard of the Plant Patent Act before - "excluding sexual and tuber-propagated plants" probably has somet6hing to do with keeping it out of the news.

I agree - so keep looking for *papers*. And lay off the ad-hominems when you can't even be bothered to look for what I suggested. I can't help it if your Google profile doesn't lead them to offer you papers on the first page.

>"some of the main benefits of GMOs are reduced use of sprayed chemicals" - two words: "Roundup resistance"
What's confusing? Resistance is edited into crops, specifically to increase the amount of toxins that can be used, the exact opposite of the benefits you're touting.

Yes, reducing the need for any-cides is a potential benefit - but it's not what's getting the major investments. And, as I already pointed out, for the most part they amount to having the plants make their own toxins rather than spraying them. Which absolutely helps with the runoff problem, but also makes it impossible to wash away before eating. And there's also the risk of crossbreeding into wild relatives, which we've already seen with several GMO traits. Which can be a major problem if they poison important links in the ecology - like bees or butterflies.

Basically most of the groups editing crops appear to be doing so with an eye only to short-term profits, with little to no consideration for long-term unintended consequences. And the power they're wielding is great enough that they can cause massive damage that will be all but impossible to reverse. (And don't even get me started on gene-drives...).

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

Huh, hadn't heard of the Plant Patent Act before ... I agree - so keep looking for *papers* ... lay off the ad-hominems

I realize I'm being harsh (though technically they aren't ad-hominems), but I'm trying to communicate how badly mis-educated you are on this subject. You seem like an intelligent person, but nearly every verifiable fact you've mentioned is wrong, misunderstood, or one that I don't know for certain and you refuse to back up with an actual citation. Like this:

What's confusing? Resistance is edited into crops, specifically to increase the amount of toxins that can be used, the exact opposite of the benefits you're touting

A basically correct fact, but a completely incorrect interpretation. For example, take a farmer with weed problems:

Using conventional crops (ones produced by irradiating seeds), he might spray the maximum dose of an herbicide that won't kill his crops (say 60 lb). But because this doesn't kill the off completely, two months later he has to repeat, using another 60 lb to hold them off until harvest. So he applies a total of 120 lb of herbicide.

If he planted a GMO crop (with a single gene from another plant inserted deliberately) that's resistant to the herbicide, he can now spray 100 lb. This kills off the weeds completely, but leaves his crop untouched. So he never needs to spray again that year.

So yes, the GMO "increase the amount of toxins that can be used" at one time, but counter-intuitively reduces the amount that gets used overall. And none of that has anything to do with in vivo production of bt pesticide - it's the sprayed herbicide that would be used anyway.

As a bonus, it reduces the amount of fuel used (lower CO2 emissions) as well as the labor and wear-and-tear cost on equipment. If even lowers the amount of pesticide residue because the amount of time between spraying and harvesting is increased, giving it more time to break down naturally, and because the 'food part' hadn't even formed yet when it was sprayed.

Re: HFCS

[werepants]

If you are a true skeptic, a true seeker of truth, you need to read "Case for Christ" https://www.amazon.com/Case-Ch...

I personally found "A Case For Christ" to be really weak, overall. I think that any attempt to "prove" the validity of Christianity is pretty misguided, actually, and will always be doomed to failure.

That said, I consider myself a Christian, and I'm a "practicing" one by many of the definitions you might care to use. I just find it kind of silly to expend so much effort on establishing historicity of anything in particular from scripture. It's comparable to arguing about whether there really was a good Samaritan, for instance - the point of the parable wasn't the historicity of Samaritans or a particular guy who helped someone, it was the moral meaning, which doesn't change at all if the story is fictional.

Re: HFCS

[LeftCoastThinker]

Arguing about the historical existence of the good Samaritan is essentially unknowable, you either take it on faith or don't.

Jesus was a real person who historically existed and tens of thousands of people were first hand witnesses to his supernatural acts, including coming back to life after being 100% dead. Anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or just plain ignoring historical fact. The key question is who he was. Was he who he said he was, was he demon possessed (as claimed by the Pharisees who also recognized his supernatural power), or was he an insane megalomaniac master illusionist with followers willing to propagate his deception, keep his secrets even after he figured out a way to die, cause a solar eclipse as he was dying, along with an earthquake (it was spectacle enough to convince the pagan Roman soldiers the he was actually the son of God) and simultaneously shredding the temple veil that was guarded at all times and then come back to life and then disappear in a cloud never to be seen by his closest friends again. Saul/Paul saw him on the road to Damascus and he appeared to a few in visions, but not to the 11 original Apostles who were all subsequently martyred for their beliefs... You would think that Judas would have spilled the beans when he betrayed Jesus, but he didn't.

The point of knowing the facts behind your belief grounds you in reality and gives you reasoned faith, which is far stronger and more durable than blind faith, which may get you to heaven, but which may be eroded by modern Atheists, Agnostics, mystics, etc. Blind faith is the reason that most people today think that science supports Atheism and religion is diametrically opposed to science (except that most scientists from the last 400 years were devout Christians).

Re: HFCS

[werepants]

Arguing about the historical existence of the good Samaritan is essentially unknowable, you either take it on faith or don't.

Arguing about the historical existence of the good Samaritan is pointless, because that wasn't why Jesus told the parable. Having "faith" that the good Samaritan existed is missing the point.

The point of knowing the facts behind your belief grounds you in reality and gives you reasoned faith, which is far stronger and more durable than blind faith, which may get you to heaven, but which may be eroded by modern Atheists, Agnostics, mystics, etc.

The "facts" you've cited in defense of the historicity of various miracles surrounding the death and resurrection of Christ are missing the point similarly to the good Samaritan issue above. First of all, there are perfectly mundane answers to all of those observed phenomena, and generations of arguing between dogmatic Christian "literalists" and dogmatic anti-theists have failed to produce any conclusions one way or the other. It's just another iteration of an endless cycle of unproductive argument. What you are calling "reasoned faith" is just blind faith with icing - that is, a bunch of rationalization and reinterpretation to produce a veneer of empiricism around scripture. Really, it's an attempt to build a rhetorical argument with evidence so compelling that people must succumb to belief - but that's not how Christ won hearts, so why do Christians try to operate that way today? Faith cannot exist without the possibility of doubt.

Blind faith is the reason that most people today think that science supports Atheism and religion is diametrically opposed to science (except that most scientists from the last 400 years were devout Christians).

People today think that science supports atheism because Christians have publicly opposed fundamental, central theories of biology, geology, and astrophysics in their rejection of evolution and the big bang theory. Christians have done this to themselves, not because of blind faith, but because of trying forcibly assert the superiority of their worldview.

The type of argument that Strobel puts forth in A Case for Christ, and which you put forth in your earlier reply, is pretty much the weakest argument (and the least supported) of all arguments for the Christian faith. "Jesus existed, so you must become a Christian". Charles Manson existed, and we've got much more evidence (and plenty of eyewitness accounts) about Joseph Smith's miracles - so why don't we believe in their philosophies? Do you see Buddhists or anybody else doing the same thing? It's absurd. You attempt to re-frame the faith discussion into the realm of an empirical system of thought which did not exist for the first ~1600 years of the church's history. You are bringing apples and oranges to a gun fight.

Instead, follow Christ's model. A real biblical "literalist", in my mind, would be someone who has sold everything he has and given it to the poor. The way Christ and early Christians reached people was not through their unassailable rhetorical proofs, but through their subversive beliefs and practices showing poor and sick people had just as much (or even more) intrinsic worth than the monarchs and the rich merchants. The best argument for Christianity is that Christ's teachings have the power to address the most dysfunctional parts of human nature, and heal broken people. In my mind, that's what a real "rational" faith looks like - it admits that matters of faith are inherently unprovable (isn't that why a "childlike faith" is promoted in the Bible?). Simultaneously, faith can be empirical because you put the principles to the test in your own life - is forgiveness and prayer for your enemies a better way to live than holding on to bitterness? Is it better to give to the poor than to buy ourselves more gadgets? Is love truly a more worthwhile pursuit than wealth or power? In Christian terms, that's the power of personal te

Re: HFCS

[Immerman]

That does seem to be one of the big promises in the marketing literature - but from what I can find it sounds like it's not really the reality. In part because weeds are evolving resistance as well, meaning that farmers need to use ever-increasing amount of Roundup to get the same results. That's not the *recommended* tactic, but it's the cheap and easy one, so it's what gets used.

Re: HFCS

[yndrd1984]

That does seem to be one of the big promises in the marketing literature - but from what I can find it sounds like it's not really the reality.

I'm sure marketing over-promises, like always. On the other hand you already know what I think of your sources.

In part because weeds are evolving resistance as well, meaning that farmers need to use ever-increasing amount of Roundup to get the same results. That's not the *recommended* tactic, but it's the cheap and easy one, so it's what gets used.

OK, we'll assume that the regulatory plan fails miserably, no other similar product for another herbicide appears, and farmers keep being short-sighted to the point of absurdity. The worst that happens is that weed get resistant to Roundup, farmers switch back to conventional crops and other herbicides (that nothing is resistant to because people haven't been using them) and we end up in the same place we were in in 1990. Keep in mind that Roundup has plenty of competition - as soon as the increased cost of buying Roundup (on top of the premium for the seeds) is more than the savings in labor/fuel/etc then they'll switch back without hesitation.

I put some sugar

[Anonymous Coward]

On my DAMN balls, for u to suck

There's even more evidence

[postbigbang]

Read some of crusader Gary Taube's books to find out how institutions like Harvard and many more succumbed to industry research money that makes sugary foods an integral part of today's diet and yes, the ubiquitous Food Pyramid. Bought.And.Paid.For.

Sugar's an addictive drug, like opoids, nicotine, even social media and gaming. This is one of the US's favorite business models: addiction-- Profit!!

Re:There's even more evidence

[reboot246]

The love of money is the most addictive. Nicotine, heroin, opioids, sex, and all the others pale in comparison.

It makes me wonder if the same universities are doing the same thing today with other "research" - bought and paid for.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Z80a]

Not wanting to sound like a internet wacko, but i bet there are certain things about soy that those institutions are hiding.

Re: There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how people will beg, borrow, or steal to get some drugs they're addicted to, I think you might have overestimated the addictiveness of money.

Re: There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Bankers go begging everyday in wholesale money markets to borrow. Or they just steal, as in Wells Fargo ...

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Organizations like Harvard also succumbed to promoting eugenics, forced sterilization, lobotomies, and more recently, climate change and social justice. Organizations like Harvard aren't primarily driven by industry money; people at those organizations are simply drunk with power and self-importance.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

There are - it's called "I need a break through result in order to publish in the highest tier scientific journals or I won't get funded".

Doing great experiments and researching valid questions is not enough to be a researcher these days, you need GROUND BREAKING results that has NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE.

I'll leave it up to you to reach a conclusion.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything the Sugar industry can do, the Tobacco industry does it better! Smoking is good for your health, was once the line.
I wonder if diabetics and harmed individuals can do a Tobacco like class action as more sugar research gets uncovered.
In Australia, the sugar and junk food industry had a health and nutrition website canned. Fruit loops and coco pops were NOT going to get a 5 star recommendation. Oh dear.

Re:There's even more evidence

[CrazyBusError]

Not just that.

Read up on John Yudkin, who warned everyone about this exact issue in the 70s and whose life was systematically destroyed in retaliation by the sugar industry.

Re:There's even more evidence

[jbmartin6]

Probably because I can't get heroin without money.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Accumulation of currency above everything else is the end game.
Period.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes me wonder if the same universities are doing the same thing today with other "research" - bought and paid for.

*cough*Global Climate Change*cough*

Re: There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

So you realize that private stakeholders (e.g. petrochem companies like Exxon) have been found to have buried their own research suggeting AGW is a serious problem and paid off fringe academics to tout bogus studies that undermine actual credible, peer-reviewed ans publicly finaced studies, right?

So pretty much exactly the opposite of what you are alleging.

Re:There's even more evidence

[ChrisMaple]

Just look around, problems with soy in large quantities are easily found. For one thing, it's feminizing.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Like men should never eat it?

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a myth. I'm surprised they referenced it on Big Bang Theory, they're usually more careful about the science.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

> Read some of crusader Gary Taube's books

Taubes should be getting lots of fructose, given all the cherry-picking he does.

Re:There's even more evidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Sugar's an addictive drug, like opoids, nicotine,

I'm listening....

even social media and gaming.

And you've lost me. "It's an addictive drug like heroin or tic-tac-toe." Nope, I'm out.

Wasn't my fault

[boudie2]

Started out as a kid, before I knew it was hooked on Cap'n Crunch. Within a few years it was harder stuff - twinkies, mars bars, ju jubes. There's no end. Before it hit me, I was buying up chocolate bunnies after easter and binging on them for days and was looking forward to Christmas only for the delicious Turtles. And they say it's not a drug. They're crazy.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Amateur. Get back to us when you've sucked d*** to support your habit of drinking water hyper-saturated with pure cane sugar.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Immerman]

And they're eager to leverage one addiction into many - witness the many caffeinated sugar drinks. Heck, they used to make Coca Cola with actual cocaine.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[blindseer]

I got addicted to Frosted Flakes in the Army. I never had Frosted Flakes as a kid, Mom just wouldn't buy it. When in garrison we'd be given our choice of cereals at the dining facility and I'd just pick what I grew up with, shredded wheat. It started with the day we had field chow and they ran out of shredded wheat. When in the field we didn't have much of a choice, it was often just Frosted Flakes or nothing.

I didn't know what it was at first. I thought I just had a certain enjoyment of field training and sleeping under the stars. I looked forward to breakfast, which is normal since running around in the woods carrying a 50 pound rucksack can make a man tired and hungry. I then found myself eating Frosted Flakes when in garrison. When in the field I'd volunteer for chow duty so I could hide a box of Frosted Flakes for myself since sometimes we'd run out before I could eat, the people serving the food always ate last. Do you understand that? I volunteered for chow duty so I could eat Frosted Flakes!

After my discharge I found myself eating Frosted Flakes every day for breakfast. One bowl at first. Then two. Then three. Some mornings I'd empty the whole box. It got real bad. I had to stop. So I quit cold turkey. It was real hard, I craved Frosted Flakes so bad.

I still catch myself reaching for the Frosted Flakes at the grocery store only to stop myself at the last second. I had to stop going down that aisle. I can't even eat shredded wheat any more since it's next to the Frosted Flakes on the shelf. Now I only dare go as far down the aisle to get some oatmeal for breakfast. Sometimes I absentmindedly go down the aisle and I catch the sight of that tiger on the box calling for me to pick up the box and put it in my cart.

Friends don't let friends eat Frosted Flakes.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[DNS-and-BIND]

You ever stop to think maybe you're just weird? Tons of people eat frosted flakes without getting obsessed.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[steveha]

I completely believe your story.

I used to make myself an iced mocha drink every day. I had the recipe perfected: my favorite espresso beans, the right amount of Hershey's syrup, a particular brand of vanilla soy milk I liked, and ice. So good. About 400 Calories (more properly: kcal) and almost all of the Calories from sugar.

I looked forward to drinking that every day. Some days I had two.

Then I read a book called Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle that convinced me that refined carbs were a bad idea in general, and sugar a bad idea in particular. I had heard/read a lot of conflicting things about diet ("sugar is bad for you! no, fat is what you must avoid!") and this book didn't have any single shocking new thing, but put all the pieces together convincingly.

At the time my blood triglycerides level was worryingly high. From the book, I believed my diet was a major contributing factor, and I needed to stop enjoying my daily iced mochas.

When I stopped I really missed them. When I wasn't allowing myself to have them I started to really crave them.

I started drinking my espresso shots straight-up. No sugar, no milk, just espresso into my mouth. I figured: lots of people like black coffee; maybe I could learn to like it. After about a month I got used to the taste of coffee and started to like it. These days I drink strong coffee instead of straight-up espresso just so it takes a bit longer to drink and I have more time to enjoy it.

My blood triglycerides level went back down, by the way.

I think you had a more extreme case of this than I did, but I felt similar cravings and I totally believe your story.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Opportunist]

Drinking? Come back when you're at shooting.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[blindseer]

You ever stop to think maybe you're just weird? Tons of people eat frosted flakes without getting obsessed.

Don't take my little story too seriously. I exaggerated some for effect but Frosted Flakes are damned addicting. It is still something of a craving, that's true, but I can control myself. I rarely eat it any more, I pretty much lost any desire to just gobble it up. It's something of a comfort food now, something to eat when I've had a bad day or something.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[n329619]

Um, it's really nothing more than baked corn chips with sugar coating.

I don't think it's really addiction, but the lack of really tasty food. Eating shredded wheat sounds about the same as eating potato raw. Both have a unique taste but not that great.

Maybe you should try to buy, make or cook food that is better tasted, or at least better than frosted flakes, then you'll stop the crave and become a food expert.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[houghi]

You are Funny, because it is true. Try to light a cigarette on TV and the world collapses, but a kid eating sugar and getting a lot of energy? Now that is cute:funny (and not true).
Try to cut on sugar for a week. That means reading and understanding the labels. Harder than you think.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[boudie2]

And they're eager to leverage one addiction into many - witness the many caffeinated sugar drinks. Heck, they used to make Coca Cola with actual cocaine.

The good old days. Apparently back at that time Coca-Cola was green. Even today they're the only company that can process cocaine to take out the active ingredient and use it for flavoring.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[boudie2]

Frosted flakes? They're Grrr-eat!! If you think they're a kick in the pants, try Froot Loops. You'll be tripping.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[boudie2]

Ever seen the sugar in ketchup? No wonder it's so good on French Fries .... sugar & salt combined! It's everywhere.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[drinkypoo]

Bitchin' Hot Cocomoka
1 can mae ploy coconut cream
3 heaping tablespoons quality cocoa (ghirardelli's majestic cocoa is... majestic)
1 shot amaretto (optional but not really)
2 shots espresso
2 heaping tablespoons erithritol
~1/2 tsp stevia powder (to taste)

Combine in saucepan, heat on medium and whisk until steaming. Serves 2-4 depending on greed. Stupid chocolatey. Fairly low carb. Stevia and erithritol may both actually help you regulate blood sugar levels, and are the only alternate sweeteners I'm aware of with no plausible negative effects.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[religionofpeas]

Try to cut on sugar for a week. That means reading and understanding the labels. Harder than you think.

I've been sugar free for a few years now. It's pretty easy, because I avoid all the aisles with boxes and packages. Most of my food is home cooked fresh meat, vegetables, nuts, fruit, fish, eggs and dairy. Generally unprocessed, or minimally processed.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

> I can't even eat shredded wheat any more since it's next to the Frosted Flakes on the shelf.

Have you tried Frosted Mini-Wheats..? :-9

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Cocaine is a less harming ingredient than sugar. Legalize cocaine, forbid sugar.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

The good old days. Apparently back at that time Coca-Cola was green.

He's talking about the bottle, kids.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Capn Crunch... when i went to college that is what most students survived on...

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. Then I started crushing and snorting the Flakes. Lost my job. Started stealing Flakes and liquefying them in milk and shooting up. Rock bottom was waking up in a flake den, covered in box tops...

Re:Wasn't my fault

[boudie2]

Yeah, got carried away for a minute. Bottle was green originally.

Re:Wasn't my fault

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting story, thanks.
About Calorie vs. calorie, (or Cal vs cal). You spelled it with a capital C which actually means kcal.

So the way you wrote it was pretty darn proper before you wrote down your parenthetical "(more properly: kcal)".

Don't you love being right?

Re:Wasn't my fault

[steveha]

About that.

There is a book with the not-at-all-pretentious title Games for the Superintelligent that contains various brain-teasers and such. In the introduction, a guy explained that he calculated how many calories it would take to bring a glass full of icy cold drink up to body temperature (which would happen after drinking it); then he got a diet book and looked up how many Calories were in one glass of the drink (gin and tonic or whatever his preferred booze drink was). He found the diet book number was lower than the number from his calculations, and therefore claimed that he ought to be able to lie on a hammock drinking his favorite drink and shedding Calories like mad. Easiest diet plan ever. He ended this with something like "P.S. I tried it and it didn't work."

I was just a kid when I read this and it bugged me for a long time. If he did the math right, why didn't it work? Eventually I figured out that the diet book was giving him numbers in Calories, and he did his temperature change calculation in calories. So there was a factor of 1000 difference between the two numbers, and the food value of his booze was significantly more Calories than his body used to warm the drink. No wonder "it didn't work".

Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[hambone142]

Everything in moderation.

My sister raised her kids on candy, cookies and baking goods. She wanted to please them but they all ended up with a lot of cavities and they're fat. Along with the sugar is fat. Lots of it. They love to smother things with cheese. Also the baked goods have a lot of fat (mostly butter). When we were raised, our mother liked to bake and the products were pleasing delicacies It was fun but I got more cavities than I should have.

Now, I drink a couple of sodas per day but not to excess. I get some exercise and don't eat high fat foods. I'm doing fine. Just had my checkup and my physician commented that my cholesterol and blood work looks fine.

I despise artificial sweeteners. They leave bad aftertaste IMHO.

Again, moderation is the key. Sugar ain't all that bad.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Skuld-Chan]

Have you ever looked at ingredients for stuff? Sugar is in EVERYTHING. Even stuff you wouldn't expect - like milk, or most peanut butter.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually... it is. And a couple 12 oz sodas a day is not moderation.

If you are prone to diabetes, you'll get it with those plus the rest of the sugar snuck into your diet.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Desler]

A couple of sodas a day is moderation? lolwut? Just one 12 oz. Coca-Cola has over 40 g of sugar. Even only 2 cans a day is over 80 g of sugar and that’s not even remotely a “moderate amount.”

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Desler]

You didn’t know that milk had sugar in it? You’re joking, right?

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with half a brain knows milk has sugar. It’s called lactose. Holy shit, you’re stupid as fuck.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Skuld-Chan]

No I didn't until I was older - I'll bet if you asked your kids if sugar was in milk they either say no or I don't know.

What is the big deal?

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No I didn't until I was older - I'll bet if you asked your kids if sugar was in milk they either say no or I don't know.

Doubtful. Every kid I’ve ever met could actually read which is all it takes to know that milk has sugar in it.

What is the big deal?

That you’re an ignoramus? You must have been in the Special Ed. classes since I learned about lactose in elementary school.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends what you mean by sugar - milk naturally contains some lactose, which it not the same as sucrose / glucose / fructose. Milk can contain those too, if it's chocolate milk :-) Plain milk also contains fats, and the fats it contains are at least as dangerous to you if consumed to excess - skim milk can be a more sensible choice.

It's sensible to distinguish between foods which naturally contain a sugar and those where sugar is added. It's not too hard to find peanut butter which doesn't contain sugar, for example (I don't understand the need for sugar in peanut butter).

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy decent peanut butter it's practically 50/50 protein and fat

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[religionofpeas]

I drink a couple of sodas per day but not to excess.

A couple of sodas (assuming the regular sugary kind) is excess. The WHO recommendation is not more than 25 grams of sugar per day. One can of regular soda is typically already 30 grams or more (depends on the brand and country).

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really eats a high sugar diet? You, apparently, with your "couple of sodas per day" on top of whatever else you may ingest.

Re: Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[bestweasel]

Most ready-made meals have added sugar. Every flavour of crisps/chips except plain and most frozen chips/fries have added dextrose.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[philmarcracken]

Your sister could have fed them sugar and just counted calories, they wouldn't be fat. I can't say the same about cavities. There are only 3 types of(eaten) food energy; carbs, fats and protein.

They all 'pay' different amounts of calories. So saying one makes you fat is like saying you only earn money with $20 bills.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Counting calories isn't really a viable/healthy choice with kids, because calorie needs fluctuate dramatically with growth.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything in moderation ? Sugar is poision... why would I want that in moderation ?

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Opportunist]

You'd be surprised just what of our food contains sugar in one form or another. IIRC they made a test with some burger joints and the only thing that did NOT contain sugar there were the sugar-free sodas and the salad, provided you forgo dressing.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[religionofpeas]

Your sister could have fed them sugar and just counted calories, they wouldn't be fat

Spoken like someone without kids. If your children are complaining all day that they are hungry, are you going to stop them from eating because they hit the calorie count for the day ? How do you figure out an proper calorie count for a growing kid ? Some days they are more active than others, some days they may be sick, other days they may be going through a growth spurt.

Calorie counting is not a practical method. A much better method is give them healthy wholesome food that they can eat to satiety.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Calorie counting is not a practical method.

It is also completely wrong. Calories are measured by burning food. But fire can consume stuff we don't digest. Dried grass has a high calory count, but only a cow can get fat from those calories. Humans don't digest cellulose like cows - but the energy content is high.

Also, not all calories makes you fat. Eat large amounts of sugar, and you get fat. Eating sugar is easy. Eat large amounts of fat, and you just shit it out. The body have limited capacity to process fat. You usually feel full when eating lots of fat - the reason why low-carb diets works so well. (It is easy to stop eating when you don't feel like eating more anyway.) Force-feed yourself more fat and you either throw up or spend some unpleasant time on the toilet.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[bickerdyke]

To stop this before this gets nasty: Please specify if you're talking about the lactose that is supposed to be in milk or loads of added sugar because people think choclate "milk" is still healthy.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Zontar The Mindless]

Go back to the US after spending a few years overseas. You will be astounded by how sickeningly sweet nearly everything tastes.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[BadDreamer]

You eat a high sugar diet. Two sodas a day is excessive amounts of sugar.

And you keep going on about fat, as if you feel that is somehow bad. In combination with sugar it is, but alone it is not.

You'd be better off moderating your sugar intake than staying away from high fat foods.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Trailer Trash]

No I didn't until I was older - I'll bet if you asked your kids if sugar was in milk they either say no or I don't know.

What is the big deal?

Dude, in case you're *not* joking - milk has a naturally occurring sugar called "lactose" (I know all "sugar" is the same, by the way). It's not added except by the cow.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[SunTzuWarmaster]

This. I count calories reasonably well and the calories my kid eats are off-the-chain crazy. As an example, at 9 months old she weighed in at ~23 pounds (big, but not exceptional) and was generally developing well. Here is a reasonably typical mealplan for her:
  - 8 oz milk, 2 eggs (400 calories)
  - rice cake, 8 oz milk (200 calories)
  - banana (?!), 8 oz milk (250 calories)
  - mini-quesadilla || 2 cups Cheerios, 8 oz milk (400 calories)
-----
~1250 calories for the day.

There is a bunch of stuff as part of the above list that I don't understand (how the fuck do you eat a pound of banana at 23 pounds total bodyweight?!). The flip side is that there isn't really anything objectionable on the list - she is eating meat, cheese, milk, and fruit. I'm pretty lazy and really only feed her when she complains that she is hungry or before bedtime (sleep through the night!).

She would do a diet plan like that for, like, 2 weeks. Then she would spend a week sleeping 15 hours/day or so on 800 calories. Then she would grow 2 inches. I don't understand how I could possibly figure out the proper nutritional requirements for that amount of variance. Also, its not like there is a conversation about how she has had enough to eat... Her word choice was exclusively limited to the set of [mama, dada, baba].

During this time I am/was on a quasi-strict 1000-calorie/day diet and never ceased to be amazed that she was eating more @23# than me @160# (although to be fair she runs around literally 100% of the non-sleep, non-eat hours).

Parent poster has the accurate picture - just stuff the kids full of water, apples, PB sandwiches, eggs, and oats/Cheerios until they stop complaining - any sensible effort in child nutrition is wasted.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever looked at ingredients for stuff? Sugar is in EVERYTHING. Even stuff you wouldn't expect - like milk, or most peanut butter.
 
Even SALT. Yes, a typical box of table salt (I'm looking at you, Windsor Salt) - have a look. Sugar. WTF.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[drinkypoo]

That youâ(TM)re an ignoramus? You must have been in the Special Ed. classes since I learned about lactose in elementary school.

I didn't. Someone should probably explain to you that different states and even different school districts within those states have different educational standards and plans. It might help you understand that not everyone was taught the same things in school.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[drinkypoo]

You'd be surprised just what of our food contains sugar in one form or another.

Practically all processed foods include sugar. The really insidious thing is using HFCS to replace vegetable oil, because it keeps longer and has similar textural effects in some foods. They use citric acid to kill the sweetness. Citric acid is a fine thing in small quantities, actually good for you. In large ones, though, it's the opposite.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Had to quit sodas as teeth are under heavy acid attack. You can "lose" your teeth and no easy way to replace them (they just become smaller, so hard to replace even with fake teeth, and too expensive anyways)!

Captcha: forested

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

He apparently was also not taught to read. A milk carton label shows you it has sugar.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[steve90]

So true - I've only been to the US twice but I vividly remember that even stuff that you wouldn't think should be sweet like bread and tomato sauce tasted sugary.

Re: Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, milk has naturally occuring sugar??? Next youâ(TM)ll be telling me broccoli, carrots, onions, and spinach contain sugar!!!!!!!!!

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[drinkypoo]

He apparently was also not taught to read. A milk carton label shows you it has sugar.

I don't know about you, but I didn't spend a lot of time reading product labels as a child. I did read the dictionary and encyclopedia for fun, but product labels were just a bit too boring for me.

We all know now that milk contains a sugar called lactose, but this particular subthread is about whether we should have known as children. Please try to stay on topic.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that what you said means that if you count calories, you can only absorb less than 100% of what you measure going in?

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[TheCastro1689]

Sugar is totally added to milk, especially lower fat milks, but even Vitamin D milk has added sugar.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not claiming to be some vegan saint when it comes to sugar intake... but I would consider 2 sugar drinks per day to be excessive. If that's the only bit of sugar in your diet then it's not terrible, but consider that sugar is added to almost everything that you don't cook yourself.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, pretty much the entire world knew milk had sugar in it when the ignoramus above was a child.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[drinkypoo]

No, pretty much the entire world knew milk had sugar in it when the ignoramus above was a child.

[citation needed]

Since you're the expert on who is and is not an ignoramus, I'll assume that this is because you've done extensive research on who knows what, and who knew what when, and providing a citation should be trivial for you. You know, giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[boudie2]

But chocolate milk IS good for you.
Chocolate milk contains no more sugar than unsweetened apple juice and only a very small amount of caffeine found naturally in cocoa. Its balance of protein and carbohydrates makes it an ideal post-workout recovery drink, and just like white milk, chocolate milk contributes to the health of our teeth.
https://www.dairygoodness.ca/m...

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Show me where a high fat diet is bad.

Eat fat, live longer?

People Who Follow Low-Fat Diets Have Higher Mortality Rates, Study Says

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh ffs, when well people learn. 1 calorie from X may not processed the same way as 1 calorie from Y. The do not have to be equally treated by the body. Check peer reviewed literature. Counting calories is just the next manipulation to sell you crap.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so maybe you can explain how the body handling different food sources differently could let you absorb MORR than a calorie from each calorie on the label?

Cuz if you're trying to cut calories, counting the number you take in is guaranteed to supply your body with that number OR LESS.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Your sister could have fed them sugar and just counted calories, they wouldn't be fat.

This is dangerously untrue. Humans are biochemical machines, not physics equations or incinerators. Different inputs trigger different bodily reactions. Sugar (and artificial sweeteners,) for example, kick off insulin. Insulin prompts the body to store fat. High and constant insulin promotes insulin resistance, which promotes more insulin, leading to a vicious cycle.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Your sister could have fed them sugar and just counted calories, they wouldn't be fat.
> This is dangerously untrue.

It's completely true. Study after study after study has shown that the composition of the diet from various food macronutrients (protein, carbs, fat) makes no difference to weight loss or gain - only the amount of calories appears to be a factor.

Now, that doesn't mean different diets won't have different positive or negative effects on your body, but in general, for a healthy individual barring food allergies or diseases like coeliac, a varied diet of reduced calorie intake (less than you burn) will result in weight loss - always.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[bickerdyke]

Which is why pure apple juice isn't good as a regular drink either!

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[boudie2]

Probably better off eating an actual apple. Everyone has their own nutrition standard. Mine is "won't kill me". Chocolate milk? Won't kill me, it's in the diet. With exceptions. Pepperoni? Will probably kill me, so I just limit it to pizza.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet a professor of nutrition managed to lose 27 pounds eating mostly sugar and junk food - just to prove the point that calorie count is what matters.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Won't kill me" strikes me as a pretty low bar!

Mine is: RDA of essential nutrients, variety of foods, sufficient calories.

Re:Who really eats a "high sugar diet"?

[Trailer Trash]

Sugar is totally added to milk, especially lower fat milks, but even Vitamin D milk has added sugar.

Not where I get it. The ingredients are milk and vitamin D. Chocolate milk has added sugar.

Just as bad...

[calmdude]

Just as bad is the egg and dairy industries. They spend millions on phony research that tells people that dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol don't increase serum cholesterol. They do. They create faulty studies where they take people with already high cholesterol and feed them these foods, and it doesn't go up much because cholesterol levels horizontally asymptote. Take someone with an LDL of 50-70 (ideal, hunter-gatherer levels), feed them saturated fats and/or cholesterol, and cholesterol skyrockets. The other trick is to do cross sectional cohorts which the american heart association and the american college of cardiology have repeatedly said are inherently flawed because there is a "wash out" effect in these cross-sectional populations. But of course, there's a huge market out there for "ketogenic" diet, which is not the clinical form of ketogenic diets that was created in clinical settings to help with intractable seizures in epilepsy patients where they are fed MCT oil and vitamin pills, instead it's just Atkins diet being called "Keto". All of these recent studies "debunking" previous, well-established studies are from industry, just like all the sugar studies sponsored by industry, as well as the cigarette studies sponsored by industry (doctors used to PRESCRIBE cigarettes to pregnant women, that's how fucked up it was!). If you like sugar, listen to the lies that sugar industry tells you. If you like fat, eggs, and butter, listen to the lies that the egg and dairy industry tells you. Heck, if you like cigarettes, go back and read the countless studies that were poorly designed but showed incredible benefits (you won't find them on pubmed because they were expunged, but you can look at the archival journals). The unbiased, unsponsored science is clear: you should limit or ideally avoid fat (particularly saturated fat), all dietary cholesterol, processed sugar, refined or processed grains, and salt. Eat whole unprocessed foods with plenty of spices, herbs, and non-sodium seasonings, all the while not eating an excessive amount of calories and maintaining a healthy mixture of micro and macro nutrients.

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like fat, eggs, and butter, listen to the lies that the egg and dairy industry tells you.

I don't know. I'm an ovo-vegetarian, smoke cigars three or four times a week, and every day for breakfast I take four eggs and a tablespoon of butter and make an omelette with blue cheese and chives. I had my blood work done a couple of months ago and I'm sitting at around 110 mg/dL as bad cholesterol goes.

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why did you include salt?

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever works for you dude. Eating fats upon fats upon protein works great for me. Salt + butter + not-carbs, and I am great. Add carbs into any of that, your "processing" doesn't even begin to factor into it, and all get it is fat, sick (constant allergy/flu-like symptoms) and depressed probably from the first two.

My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks. Apparently that's simply the way my body was designed to eat. Might not be the way your body was designed to eat, that's all fine and dandy, good luck with figuring that out. But they're going to have to pry the salt and saturated fats from my cold dead hands.

The only thing I know for sure is that when it comes to food, I really can't trust studies. Take any stance you want, and somebody has a study to "prove" it. Such useless BS. Dr Atkins nailed it when it comes to the uselessness of nutritional science in America in the mid-to-late 1900s, and I sure am glad as hell he spoke up.

The sugar industry and the AHA and FDA have already been responsible for so many thousands upon thousands of man-years lost to diseases like type II diabetes, do you really want to keep shoveling that shit for them? Haven't people figured out why health care costs are so bloody much higher than the rest of the world? Hint: it's what you put in your mouth, and it ain't butter.

Re:Just as bad...

[religionofpeas]

Take someone with an LDL of 50-70 (ideal, hunter-gatherer levels), feed them saturated fats and/or cholesterol, and cholesterol skyrockets.

Hunter gatherers didn't eat meat or eggs ?

Re:Just as bad...

[TimothyHollins]

My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks.

Keto doesn't do anything for dieting, that's not how it works or what it's "designed" to do. It's used as a panic-move energy source for your brain when you are out of bloodsugar since fats cannot pass the blood-brain barrier.

If you started at 235lbs then you were at the upper echelon of overweight at least (unless you're 7"+ tall), and basically any change in diet would reduce your weight.
This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.

Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just as bad is the egg and dairy industries. They spend millions on phony research that tells people that dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol don't increase serum cholesterol. They do.

This is irrelevant, because high cholesterol is not dangerous. If your blood cholesterol is high, lots of cholesterol is being transported. Excess cholesterol is excreted though, no real problem unless you have a rare cholesterol-related condition. Those people are the only ones needing 'to do something about their cholesterol levels.' Ordinary people without this condition don't need to. (They can still get obese - but that is not a cholesterol problem.)

The only connection between cholesterol and heart problems, is that women with very low cholesterol levels have a slightly higher risk of heart problems. With higher levels of cholesterol, the risk get a bit lower. For men, there is no connection at all. The cholesterol-heart curve for men is completely flat. Yet, people are conned into using statins to lover their cholesterol for no benefit (and slightly increased risk of heart attack.) Add to this that statins have side-effects of their own.

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

My first venture onto a keto/atkins diet, I had my blood pressure drop from medium high to "wow you're doing just fine", my triglycerides went from 390 to 95, weight from 235lbs to 190lbs, and I got completely off all diabetes-related medication - all within the span of 10 weeks.

Keto doesn't do anything for dieting, that's not how it works or what it's "designed" to do. It's used as a panic-move energy source for your brain when you are out of bloodsugar since fats cannot pass the blood-brain barrier.

If you started at 235lbs then you were at the upper echelon of overweight at least (unless you're 7"+ tall), and basically any change in diet would reduce your weight.
This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.

Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.

Wow, you have constructed a nice army of straw men! I will not bother to knock them down as you are doing a great job of that, but I will toss you this lifeline: Everyone who exercises and loses weight by burning stored body fat has some measurable level of ketones, full stop. So you are saying that burning stored body fat is un-natural and destroy muscle?

Re:Just as bad...

[Sesticulus]

Okay, so not an outlier. I dropped a couple of inches of waist and maybe 15 lbs. going keto. I'm now I'm 5-10 and 160lbs, but was not obese before. I also dropped triglycerides from "you're going to die tomorrow" to normal and brought up my good cholesterol to normal levels. Everything they can measure in a blood test got better. I've been eating this way for ~7 years. No problems with muscle mass. I have more endurance and strength than I had on a more traditional diet. Energy level is more consistent, I sleep better, the acid reflux went away (and comes right back if I have a big carb meal so I know it wasn't weight), and I'm not fucking hungry all the time. Stuff I didn't even realize was a problem got better. Bacon, eggs, butter, sausage, a little cheese, and nuts are the staples in my diet.

Not saying it's for everyone (the wife does terrible on a high fat/low carb diet), but some folks do really well on it.

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a well-known problem and is the reason why so much diet research is shit - when you include extreme outliers in your study (you take a bunch of obese people for your tests) you can expect results simply from taking them away from their pre-existing diet. I.e. if you take a 300lbs man away from his regular schedule, he will lose weight just from that. If you feed a 300lbs man print ads from your local newspaper, he will lose weight simply because he doesn't have enough time to eat like he usually does. But consuming print ads will not do much for a normal person.

Finally, no body is designed to eat ketons on a regular basis since the construction of those is destructive to your muscle mass and overall health.

That just proves you haven't actually read any of the studies. They do this thing called a control group, and that gives them something to compare 2 or more groups against each other. It's all relative in the end, and double-blind is impossible unless your human subjects are all unconscious and unaware of what you are feeding them, but it's the best possible way to conduct any scientific research so there you have it.

Bodies don't really "eat" ketones, they are mainly produced internally. Glucose is too by the way, though it often isn't since there is excess in the typical diet already. Though you most likely will not believe it, ketone metabolic processes are generally more efficient than glucose and result in fewer free radical by products.

But by all means don't take my word for it. I spent over a year reading various biology textbooks and research papers before deciding what I want to believe.

And finally, it's a poor panic-move to feed the brain if it takes several weeks for your body to adapt. Your liver can produce glucose much easier as I understand it. Ketones are simply the preferred fuel when conditions and resources permit. It's a complex interaction throughout the body with insulin and several other signal hormones.

Re:Just as bad...

[drinkypoo]

Actually it turns out eating too much protein is bad, too. It inhibits weight loss and can cause kidney problems. But the fat is still fine, and mixing fat with carbs is still the worst. French fries are the devil's dicks. (Of course it's plural dicks. He's the devil.)

Re:Just as bad...

[TimothyHollins]

Keto doesn't give you muscle mass problems when you ingest it, it's the body's own way of producing keto-bodies that is the muscle-destroying variant. It will also cause horrific breath.

Now, when you say you went on keto, does that mean you also started counting calories and lowered your daily intake? And perhaps started exercising a bit more?

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm another datapoint. Keto with intermittent fasting (cycling fasting and feasting) is magic.

Cholesterol? Fixed.
Waistline? Shrunk.
Energy Level? Sky-high.

Read and learn, tons of articles: idmprogram.com/blog

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

I second the scary strawmen critique. How do meat-eating cultures survive? Read this: http://www.diagnosisdiet.com/all-meat-diets/

Re:Just as bad...

[backwardsposter]

Everybody is different. But I found the same success as above. Cut out all carbs and you'd be surprised I think but just try it for your self

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is irrelevant, because high cholesterol is not dangerous. If your blood cholesterol is high, lots of cholesterol is being transported. Excess cholesterol is excreted though, no real problem unless you have a rare cholesterol-related condition

Yes. Active people never accumulate cholesterol in the blood vessels. The cholesterol number for them is irrelevant.

Re:Just as bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at studies that only look at mortality in relation to diet. I find these to be the most useful.

Re:Just as bad...

[ChrisMaple]

How many people do you know who are not over 7 inches tall?

German Dr. M. O. Bruker can tell the tale ...

[Anonymous Coward]

He knew this since the 40s, and in the following decades, published studies with over 50,000 patients that themselves went over several decades.
The sugar industry alternately called him a Jew, a Nazi, then a Jew again.

I only heard of it in the 2000s, through one of his books ("Zucker, Zucker") shortly before he died.

Re:German Dr. M. O. Bruker can tell the tale ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I only heard of it in the 2000s, through one of his books ("Zucker, Zucker") shortly before he died.

So I gather that Zuckerberg means Mountain of Sugar. More reason to avoid him and his environs.

The Way Of The Wolf.

[Templer421]

Yeah...I EAT MEAT!

Low Carbohydrates and pretty much any meat I want.

I just WORKS!

vegan diet kills you.

[will_die]

First it was liquor and tobacco were bad for you now it is also sugar. How is anyone to live a vegan lifestyle?

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Anonymous Coward]

My spiritual health is more important than this corporeal form.

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Anonymous Coward]

My spiritual health is more important than this corporeal form.

why do you put your most important data on cheap floppies?

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Vegans don't have to eat refined sugar or other simple carbs. Just pork chops.

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Opportunist]

Culinary tip: A bowl of salad becomes much more nutritious and tasty if, just before serving, you replace it with a steak.

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloody, raw steak. Mmmmmuph!

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[greylion3]

How does liquor/tobacco/sugar have anything to do with a vegan lifestyle?

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Eldaar]

As a vegetarian who eats a lot of vegan food, my response is: what?

Eating vegan can be quite healthy, although some nutrients are difficult, if not impossible, to get from a natural vegan diet.

The best way to eat is to eat minimally processed whole foods: fruits, veggies, nuts/legumes, eggs, and cheese. It's ok to have some grains, but they're not necessary and not all that healthy.

As far as macronutrients go (fat, carbs, and protein), we only need fat and protein from our diet. Our body doesn't need carbs, though it does need sugar (glucose, specifically) - but it can make sugar on its own.

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not both?

Re:vegan diet kills you.

[Opportunist]

Why the salad, it's just empty vitamins.

Poor rats.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do they have to imprison and assault animals in the name of science? Why can't they get volunteers? They need to figure out how to communicate with animals first, before forcing them into experiments.

The Best Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat only bread and fish. Drink only water and wine. I call it the Jesus diet. Have you ever seen a Jesus statue that wasn't lean with 6 pack abs? Of course, longevity only ensured for 30-35 years, YMMV.

Re:The Best Diet

[religionofpeas]

The Jesus diet: eat anything you want, as long as you created it yourself.

Re:The Best Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

the Jesus diet . . . YMMV

INRI?

(unrelated lowercase letters for the filter)

Re:The Best Diet

[jbmartin6]

That isn't fair since the EOL in this trial was an act of God

Re:The Best Diet

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Eat only bread and fish. Drink only water and wine. I call it the Jesus diet. Have you ever seen a Jesus statue that wasn't lean with 6 pack abs? Of course, longevity only ensured for 30-35 years, YMMV.

Longevity not verified for more than 33 years. The actual cause of death was unrelated to diet.

It could be time travel related. It is near certain he was born 4 or 6 years before he was born. (Based on the executions ordered by King Herod that fell on a particular well recorded Jewish feast day).

Re:The Best Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat only bread and fish. Drink only water and wine. I call it the Jesus diet. Have you ever seen a Jesus statue that wasn't lean with 6 pack abs? Of course, longevity only ensured for 30-35 years, YMMV.

Don't forget to follow the Jesus exercise regimen too. Flipping over tables and chasing people with a whip (John 2:15) is a highly effective program for those not wanting to spend money enriching the caesars of Crossfit (TM).

Re:The Best Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Eat only bread and fish.

Nope. Bread is equally banned in any healthy diet. The prescription for me is two slices of whole wheat bread a day, only if you're really craving.

Re:The Best Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus did come back from the dead. Perhaps we should call it the resurrection diet.

Re:The Best Diet

[Anonymous Coward]

Bonus benefit of the Jesus diet: You get at least one extra life.

Re:The Best Diet

[ChrisMaple]

The cause of death was the result of him being a raving loon. That could have been the result of bad diet.

Lockem up!

[Tablizer]

This can affect the health of millions of people. They should be put on trial and jailed when found guilty.

Another reason Net Neutrality has to go!

[Anonymous Coward]

Industries need more control to protect their profits. "Facts" like these are costing shareholders money and spreading them should be illegal.

Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Vegan Cyclist]

If carbs are so bad, why aren't endurance athletes all dying in droves, instead of generally being leaner and healthier? They eat HUGE amounts of carbs.

Or what about the majority of the 'less developed' world, where carbs and starches are the vast majority of calories? Why aren't they all dying of heart disease?

But when those people move to places like America, and end up eating less carbs but more fat and protein, they get sick like Americans?

A real head-scratcher there.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sugars are a subset of carbs.
Athletes favor eating complex carbs over simple carbs like sugars.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. It's amazing that people with a net calorie intake near zero when you take into account exercise (endurance athletes) or food eaten (poor people in less developed countries) wouldn't end up with illnesses that come from over-eating ANY specific kind of food.

Iff all the macronutrients you consume are being used to keep your body alive there isn't going to be enough left to cause other issues. That being said, there are plenty of cases of marathon runners giving themselves diabetes through constant carb loading with simple sugars.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[wickerprints]

What scientists (and athletes) have known for some time now is that a calorie is not just a calorie, and a carbohydrate is not just a carbohydrate. The nature of the nutritional source matters, even if the end product of its metabolism is the same caloric energy equivalent. And the reason, quite simply, is because different nutrients are converted to energy through different metabolic pathways in the body. In the past, the importance of this fact was not well-appreciated; even though some researchers had sought to point this out, they were largely regarded as being on the fringe of mainstream nutritional science. Much has changed, however, with the elucidation of these specific pathways and the more recent revelation of the relationship between the human gastrointestinal system and the microbiome that it contains.

To address your specific points, the energy content of a "complex" carbohydrate (e.g., what we commonly think of as starches or long-chain polysaccharides) is extracted more slowly than a simple carbohydrate (e.g., what we think of as "sugars" which are generally mono- or disaccharides). Comparatively, insulin levels do not rise as quickly in the digestion of the former; there is more "processing" to be done by the body to break those long chains down and ultimately get to the glucose that cells then directly utilize to create ATP. So the first lesson is that anything that slows the rate of gastric emptying, or the rate at which blood glucose elevates after a meal, is going to have a beneficial effect on insulin regulation. The second thing to understand is that fructose is a pentose sugar that is exclusively metabolized via the liver, unlike glucose. Sucrose (table sugar) is composed of one glucose and one fructose molecule. High fructose corn syrup is essentially sucrose with a higher proportion of fructose, making it sweeter (as fructose is sweeter than glucose). Complex carbohydrates are not high in fructose. But we now have ample evidence that the consequence of long-term, excessive fructose consumption in a low-fiber diet causes liver damage in the form of hepatic steatosis and inflammation. The liver and pancreas work overtime and can't keep up. In fact, this is precisely what foie gras is: overfeeding geese with corn mash until their livers turn to fat, except in humans, this result is self-induced due to the neurochemical effects of sugar consumption.

Regarding endurance athletes, I would not say that they are necessarily healthier: they have optimized their bodies for physical exertion (higher VO2max, lower resting HR, greater muscular efficiency, higher lean muscle to fat ratio, etc), but this does not exactly translate to better overall health as measured by factors like total longevity and disability-free lifetime. In fact, we know that many of these athletes suffer from long-term health complications as a result of their training and competition, such as arthritic disease. In any case, if we are talking about how they are able to consume vast quantities of food yet remain lean, this is simply a matter of energy consumed versus energy expended. Yet the quality of the diet remains important even if there are no obvious signs of metabolic damage--sure, they might not get a fatty liver because gluconeogenesis kicks in, but even they know that they can't just drink 10 liters of soda to carb load.

The main driver of obesity in the United States is gross overconsumption of food relative to the energy needs of the average sedentary American. This is the imbalance in the basic caloric equation (energy in > energy out). And I say it is "gross" not in the "yuck" sense, but in the "it's REALLY WAY over the top" sense, because we're seeing people eat upwards of 3500-4000 calories per day when their expenditures are in the 2000 range. The secondary driver, which is what we might think of as "kicking the liver while it's down," is the extreme preponderance of calories from refined sugars, which do not trigger the satiety response as quickly as the equivalent energy co

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[religionofpeas]

To address your specific points, the energy content of a "complex" carbohydrate (e.g., what we commonly think of as starches or long-chain polysaccharides) is extracted more slowly than a simple carbohydrate (e.g., what we think of as "sugars" which are generally mono- or disaccharides)

There's actually not much difference. Even a complex carbohydrate like bread or pasta will start to raise blood sugar within 15 minutes.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Hognoxious]

Starts to rise, but doesn't spike up and then crash. So yes, a difference.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[religionofpeas]

Starts to rise after 15 minutes, peaks around 1 hr, drops after 2. Pretty much all carbs do that.

Weight for weight, a slice of bread peaks your blood glucose higher than table sugar.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[avandesande]

There are several top ultra-marathon runners that do low carb....
http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/12099/944-zach-bitter-is-an-ultramarathon-world-champion-fueled-by-lchf/

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[avandesande]

Not for me. A bagel or a couple of pancakes will leave me ready to pass out in an hour or two. Eggs and bacon I am good all day and can skip lunch if I want.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Vegan Cyclist]

You've clearly not spent much time with athletes, we eat a LOT of sugary food. Forgetting that, explain why energy gels, which are pretty much liquid sugar, are an essential item? Why aren't the top runners keeling over from a heart attack after each race despite consuming the equivalent of many tablespoons of sugar? (Yes, this is dramatic, but it stands that athletes, despite consuming loads of sugar, rarely suffer from heart disease during their careers.)

Is sugar causing heart attacks, or is this article flat-out wrong? Because we have people in their late 30's having heart attacks with an increasing frequency, and almost none of them are endurance athletes who eat a lot of sugar. So you CAN eat sugar and not increase your rates of heart disease. So it likely isn't a central part of the cause, because many of the biggest consumers of sugar aren't showing any sign of the effects.

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Vegan Cyclist]

Agree with pretty much everything you've written, not sure why my post was modded down..

The point being: sugar itself is definitely not 'the cause' as the article suggests. The athletes I know consume a LOT of sugar, as I post above, energy gels are an essential food, which is basically just liquid sugar. Marathon runners and road racers would all be dying of heart attacks during the event given the tone of the article. It's just not true, and like you said, sugar can 'kick you when you're down', but so can a LOT of other things. Sugar may be "linked to heart disease", but singling it out is pretty insincere.

(Bonus points for encouraging people to eat more fiber, something like 97% of the US population don't eat enough. There's an epidemic that needs attention.)

Re:Why aren't endurance athletes all dead?

[Hognoxious]

Not if it's decent bread.

Sugar Killed David Cassidy

[Anonymous Coward]

And did you know his father, Jack Cassidy, died by burning alive^W to death in his home. Cigarette was blamed.

Lessons learned: 1) sugar kills, and 2) cigarettes kill.

Obligatory Onion.com

[Tablizer]

https://www.theonion.com/study...

Mass Murderers

[Anonymous Coward]

The people suppressing information like this for their own profits should be labelled MASS MURDERERS, and history should remember them that way. If they are still alive, they should be punished for their crimes against humanity.

Same applies to the folks at Exxon who knew decades ago what their product would do to the world.

Don't forget the Tobacco industry.

sugar is worse than tobacco...

[gosand]

Read Taubes' book The Case Against Sugar. Some of the same people who "worked" the PR for Tobacco did the same for the sugar industry.

Do you know why people can inhale cigarette tobacco so easily and deeply? It's by using tobacco blends, and by soaking the leaves in .... sugar.

Tobacco was for adults. Sugar is for everyone. It's part of every special occasion, it's now woven into the fabric of our society. Tobacco is expensive, sugar is cheap.

And most importantly, we all know tobacco is harmful. We all think sugar is harmless.

50 years ago?

[nospam007]

Fuck, they're still doing it RIGHT NOW!

The unanswered question...

[Not-a-Neg]

Just how much sugar was the study considering "high amount"? Everything from water to the air you breath is toxic at "higher" concentrations/quantities. As far as I am concerned this news is nothing but FUD from sugar hating Liberal fascists until it is clarified what the report considered to be "high" amounts of sugar.

Stay healthy!

[williamreview1]

Our lives are full of lies, you know https://williamreview.com/inst...

Watch what you eat

[dreadlocks]

Much of the prepared food we eat is engineered for maximum firing of the satisfaction areas of the brain. From our hunter gatherer days, when food was not on a shelf, the body came to relate high energy foods as something that tasted good. You weren't sure when the next meal was coming along, so the one you were eating now better be loaded with energy to cover you for awhile. High energy foods are high in fat and sugar. That's why a plate of green beans doesn't taste as good until you slap some butter on it. That's why ice cream tastes so damn good (fat+sugar)..... the food companies have carefully engineered the ice cream to have just the right amount of fat and sugar through focus group after focus group to hit the pleasure center with a nice kick.

I can see why this can be addictive. The brain gets a chemical satisfaction response, just like with a drug, so why not keep it buzzing happily?

In the end, it comes down to knowing your body and how it deals with caloric intake vs what is burned. Some people have inefficient digestive systems and can eat without weight gain. Some have efficient systems that extract more energy from the food, so they need to reduce the amount of that food to avoid weight gain. If the food amount is difficult to reduce, then eat food with less calorie density (more veggies). I try to eat a balanced diet (with an occasional treat) and exercise regularly. I've been disciplined (or lucky) to be the same weight for the last 25 yrs.

More Obligatory Onion

[Anonymous Coward]

FDA Official: "Just Eat a Goddamn Vegetable"

This is news?

[galbreath]

We've had this article up since May of this year: https://www.nerdfitness.com/bl... The history of sugar, and what they're doing today to take advantage of current market trends.

Hard to find no-added-sugar peanut butter

[PeterM from Berkeley]

It's actually amazingly difficult to find peanut butter that doesn't have added sugar. Recently I was in the store and had to grab 4 or 5 brands before I found one that didn't have sugar in it, and the print is small enough to be hard to read.

An amazing amount of work input simply to not be sugared up.

Re:Hard to find no-added-sugar peanut butter

[j-beda]

Most 'health food' stores stock plain peanut butter (often in bulk), with a single ingredient: peanuts. I have even seem places that have a grinder with a hopper you can fill with the peanuts yourself and freshly grind it.

Your stomach acid does NOT break sucrose down

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Sir,

    You are factually inaccurate. It is not acid which cleaves sucrose into fructose and glucose. Instead, an enzyme in the small intestine called sucralase does this, and splits a water in order to do it. It doesn't take significant energy.

Reference:
http://healthyeating.sfgate.co...

Re:Your stomach acid does NOT break sucrose down

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is "sucralase"?

Saturated fat

[jp_832]

You can't blame the sugar industry for the extensively peer-reviewed "science" that proclaimed saturated animal fats to be dangerous.

When are the so-called "experts" going to be imprisoned for this fraud which has led to so many deaths due to heart disease and Type II diabetes?

The white crystal addiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Think cocaine is bad for your brain? Then you might want to change the way you think about sugar. Eating high-sugar foods lights up your brain on an MRI "like a Christmas tree," Dr. Mark Hyman, M.D.