Proof that I'm right
Americans eat more crap the poorer they are. Those of you who blame poor people for being fat: suck it.
Every damn thing has corn and corn syrup in it, moreso, the cheaper the food is.
Has anyone yet figured out that abuse of corn and corn syrup is ruining our nation?
poor people are fat because they don't read metafilter.
March 27th, 2007 4:58pm
Fructose isn't processed like sugar either. You don't get the same insulin response so you stay hungry instead of feeling full.
son of parnas
March 27th, 2007 4:59pm
It's not true to say that fructose isn't processed like sugar. Regular sugar (sucrose) is 50% fructose, and excessive consumption of sucrose is just as bad for you (insulin resistance, obesity, diabetes) as eating too much fructose by itself.
In short: eating lots of sugar is bad for you. Don't eat too much of it in whatever form.
March 27th, 2007 5:23pm
> It's not true to say that fructose isn't processed like sugar.
It sure is.
son of parnas
March 27th, 2007 5:26pm
^^ I have heard that from more than one person.
Of course, I also heard a great deal of FUD about how Vista sucked ass, and I am growing quite fond of it in spite of its bloated, overpriced, monopolistic price tag.
But hey, I figured I should pay them for at least one of their overpriced, bloated, monopolistic os's... why not this one?
Pictures coming soon... I almost have my glowing blue fan setup ready. It is gonna be so pimp. I may have to just get a black guy to pinch my shirt.
March 27th, 2007 5:30pm
Sorry, SoP. Quote your sources please.
You implied that fructose is bad for you and "sugar" isn't. That isn't true. Pure fructose is a little more unhealthy than sucrose, but both are unhealthy. As I said, sugar is half fructose, so if you eat two ounces of sugar you are eating one ounce of fructose. That one ounce of fructose is processed just the same way as fructose from other sources.
March 27th, 2007 5:33pm
"There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity," said Dr. Walter Willett, the chairman of the nutrition department of the Harvard School of Public Health and a prominent proponent of healthy diets. "If there was no high-fructose corn syrup, I don't think we would see a change in anything important. I think there's this overreaction."
Dr. Willett says that he is not defending high-fructose corn syrup as a healthy ingredient, but that he simply thinks that the product is no worse than the refined white sugar it replaces, since both offer easily consumed calories with no nutrients in them. High fructose corn syrup's possible link to obesity is the only specific health problem that the ingredient's critics have cited to date — and experts say they believe that this link is tenuous, at best.
Even the two scientists who first propagated the idea of a unique link between high-fructose corn syrup and America's soaring obesity rates have gently backed off from their initial theories. Barry M. Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says that a widely read paper on the subject that he wrote in 2004 with George A. Bray, a professor of medicine at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., was just meant to be a "suggestion" that would inspire further study.
"It was a theory meant to spur science, but it's quite possible that it may be found out not to be true," Professor Popkin said. "I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more."
March 27th, 2007 5:35pm
"Some of the problems associated with high fructose corn syrup:
Increased LDL's (the bad lipoprotein) leading to increasedrisk of heart disease.
Altered Magnesium balance leading to increased osteoporosis.
Increased risk of Adult Onset Diabetes Mellitus.
Fructose has no enzymes or vitamins thus robbing the body of precious micro-nutrients.
Fructose interacts with birth control pills and can elevateinsulin levels in women on the pill.
By John Mericle M.D.
March 27th, 2007 5:39pm
> You implied that fructose is bad for you and "sugar" isn't.
No, fructose is simply worse for you.
> There's no substantial evidence to support the idea that high-fructose corn syrup is somehow responsible for obesity
Responsible is a big word. Contributing factor, yes.
Source are at home. I'll get them later.
son of parnas
March 27th, 2007 5:40pm
The only HFCS here comes in boutique imported foods from the US yet Australia is, or is becoming, #2 in the obesity league.
It's carbs, pure and simple. Burn them if you've got them. If you don't need them, don't put them in the tank.
March 27th, 2007 5:44pm
So what's the solution? FDA mandates on nutritional levels? I'm not sure education will do anything - is there anyone who doesn't know sugar's bad for you?
March 27th, 2007 5:45pm
The idea that sugar is inherently 'bad' for you is a bit preposterous.
Do we not require a certain glucose? Maltose (from grain) and lactose (from milk) can also be broken down into glucose, and could be alternative methods of getting it, but I'm betting it's good to spread it all out and not get so much from one source.
We definitely ingest way too much of it from HFCS.
March 27th, 2007 5:46pm
"is there anyone who doesn't know sugar's bad for you?"
This misses the point. Things like pizza and bread have this stuff in it, and they shouldn't.
The difference between fructose and sucrose is minimal - they are both extremely easy for the body to convert to calories - too much of either is going to cause problems.
Sharkfish was trying to say is that poor people are getting fat because they eat too much junk food. Why do they eat too much junk? Because it is cheaper that eating foods that are good for you. That's the problem.
bob's your uncle
March 27th, 2007 5:52pm
Price is not the whole story. People prefer to eat the junk foods because they think they taste nicer.
When I'm at the Chinese lunch buffet, I see some people fill their plate with fried rice and a double helping of orange chicken (chicken deep fried in batter and covered in gloopy orange sugar syrup). This even though there are much healthier offerings in the buffet at the same price. There are plenty of people out there who are "allergic to vegetables".
March 27th, 2007 5:57pm
My source is the NY Times. Yours is "eZineArticles" and the author will sell you his diet for only $27.
March 27th, 2007 6:00pm
> they are both extremely easy for the body to convert to calories
You are missing the hormonal impact which is more important, especially with people downing great quantities of this stuff.
son of parnas
March 27th, 2007 6:02pm
"When I'm at the Chinese lunch buffet, I see some people fill their plate..."
You mean see some Chinese.
Come on, Chinese are cheap :)
March 27th, 2007 6:03pm
Like I said, it's all the same price. It's the overweight Americans who eat the fried, sugary food and won't touch anything with a hint of vegetable in it.
March 27th, 2007 6:08pm
Thanks sop - that is a good link - it does seem that that HFCS is evil stuff indeed...
bob's your uncle
March 27th, 2007 6:20pm
Please, the NY Times trumps the Washington Post, US Surgeon General, National Academy of Sciences and the WHO.
March 27th, 2007 6:34pm
Yeah, but SoP's article trumps all. Bwaaahaaaahaaa. STFU.
It's not that hard to look thru the literature ...
"Effects of high-fructose corn syrup and sucrose consumption on circulating glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin and on appetite in normal-weight women."
(Nutrition. 2007 Feb;23(2):103-12.)
RESULTS: No significant differences between the two sweeteners were seen in fasting plasma glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin (P > 0.05)
CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses do not differ from Suc in lean women. Further research is required to examine appetite responses and to determine if these findings hold true for obese individuals, males, or longer periods.
March 27th, 2007 6:50pm
March 27th, 2007 7:30pm
> do not differ from Suc in lean women
I'd like to see the result in overweight women. Lean women have normal functioning hormone systems so one would not necessarily expect a radical effect.
son of parnas
March 28th, 2007 12:45am
"I'd like to see the result in overweight women. Lean women have normal functioning hormone systems so one would not necessarily expect a radical effect."
If lean women aren't affected by it, then how does it make them fat?
March 28th, 2007 4:14am
> If lean women aren't affected by it, then how does it make them fat?
If you are lean there's a reason. Lean people generally don't get fat until they get older as they lose muscle mass and exercise less.
son of parnas
March 28th, 2007 9:54am
Yeah, I'm getting fatter as I get older and I was and I was pretty muscular as a teenager.
Since this seems to be dying down anyway...
Shark, you don't have to prove anything. Your boobs shoot fire.
March 28th, 2007 10:48am
I had a girlfriend that was naturally EXTREMELY thin (very tall too) all her life, including 30's and early 40's. She is now mid-40's and I saw a recent picture of her on MySpace and WOW, she's starting to gain weight.
This woman is genetically thin, but aging still "does" it to you.
Most of the naturally thin people never have to deal with fat, and so it creeps up on them and they have not a clue how to deal with it. I feel blessed then, in a sense, that my fat genes kicked in earlier and I had to deal with it on emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual levels to conquer it.
What really gets me about this topic is the skinny ones don't understand because it comes so easily to them. For most people, I'm learning, dealing with fat requires education, focus, and smarts. Some rare people can simply say "oh, I've gained a few around the waist, so I'll run around the block once or twice and it is fixed."
Most of us have to really understand our own bodies thoroughly, because it is completely OBVIOUS to me that even the professionals have not a clue, given the conflicting studies.
It really boils down to "know thyself", something we never take on until absolutely necessary, or when it is so late in the game that extreme discipline is required.
So seeing my ex-girlfriend finally gaining a few when we had many discussions about it is satisfying on some levels.
It says to me that naturally thin people are just as "dumb" as the fatties, and all their carping about "just eat less, stupid!" is really just garbage. The quality, type, timing of your diet is just as important as the amount. PERIOD. And if you say different, you are ignorant.
It's good to see you posting again, btw.
March 28th, 2007 11:38am
> I'd like to see the result in overweight women.
I'd like to see a HFCS/sucrose test on humans with a wider field as well (kudos to the research team for pointing out limitations in their study -- how many here point out the limitations to their conclusions?).
Until then, this data is more precise than fructose/sucrose tests done in vitro or on rats.
As Segei says, how did lean women get fat by eating HFCS rather than sugar? Perhaps it makes fat people fatter, has no differential effect on normal people, and so doesn't increase percentage of fat people in a population, which is a much, much different theory than "HFCS caused the obesity epidemic".
BTW, HFCS is 55% fructose 45% glucose while table sugar is 50/50. So we're talking about degrees of insulinogenic effects rather than categorical ones.
The correlation of the rise in HFCS and obesity (in US data) over last 30 years could be incidental, or it could be because of HFCS low cost (cause of subsidies) rather than any inherent metabolic trait of HFCS itself.
March 28th, 2007 12:44pm
> I feel blessed then, in a sense, that my fat genes kicked in earlier
Completely agree. It should be noted that a slightly chubby person who exercises most of their life is healthier than a thin person who doesn't. Though the mating market doesn't evaluate this externality very well.
March 28th, 2007 12:49pm
The current "aesthetic" is a woman with no hips. The guys want the tiny, petite girls with the narrowest of lower bodies and larger boobs (at least a B cup, from what I see).
So "chubby" is very difficult to determine. The fact that I'm tall means I have some distinct advantages in that I can be heavier than most women and still be seen as desirable/attractive by those who like larger/taller women.
What is interesting and relevant to this thread is that there is that "peasant"-look fear that people have--you don't want to be hippy or "thick" because then you are regulated to "those" people--people who tend toward looking like they are not wealthy, possibly poor or lower-middle class.
In the corporate world, women strive to be skinny, and therefore have to spend more money-- on good food and gyms so you can NOT look like a peasant.
"The guys want the tiny, petite girls with the narrowest of lower bodies..."
Studies don't find that, though. Tests generally show that men find most attractive women who have well defined narrow waists and consequently wider hips. It is believed to be connected with a subconscious selection for the best ability to have children.
March 28th, 2007 1:40pm
I agree that most of the studies I have seen point to hip/waist ratio as being the deciding factor in perception of female beauty among men.
Perhaps corporate-y women are leaning toward narrow hips in order to look less feminine and less like sexual objects in the workplace. In other words to look more like the good old boys and be treated as such.
Anyway, one thing I don't quite understand is ... if men will fuck any warm body (old saying), they can't be influencing beauty standards that much.
March 28th, 2007 1:49pm
Gay men influence beauty standards. The waist/hip thing is a white man's corporate thing. Wide hips are not considered as attractive as narrower hips plus big boobs. Of course, "narrow" to a black woman is...well, anything under 28-30 inches :)
Turk: JD, the difference in dating a white or a black girl is that if a black girl asks if her ass is big, you say yes.
March 28th, 2007 3:44pm
ok, fine, women and gay influence fashion. Which mean straight men have little power and shouldn't be held acountable for the vices of America's Top Model (which they don't watch).
March 28th, 2007 4:27pm