Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Neither. There wasn't enough money in honey stick sales to motivate him.<<< Nope. Walt was often quoted as saying..."not enough money in honey sticks to make me a big ole bungload of cash!" He was also quote..."while sitting on a bench eating peanuts and watching the "daughters" ride the merry-go-round, I wondered, what could I create that would load my bung with cash?" Followed by the most famous one..."I must remember when I get back to the office to ask Roy how much a bung will hold".
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<If Walt would have thought of selling churros back in the day ...>> Yeah, too bad Walter Knott jumped on the idea of churro sales before Disney ever did.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <-- finds it depressing that Knott"s jams and jellies are now owned by Smuckers, and that. 90% of all jams and jellies are made not with sugar, but with high fructose corn syrup -- an elixir spawned from Satan himself.
Originally Posted By Manfried People should look up the science of sugar before blindly posting what are political rants about something.
Originally Posted By YumaJohn Since this discussion seems to be all over the place, I wanted to address something that was brought up several hundred posts ago. A frequent point of discussion on these boards is the cost of meals and souvenirs in the park and what Walt would have thought. This discussion seems to be quite irrelevant to Walt's opinion. While it is true that prices are quite high at the parks they are not out of line with prices at other theme parks and could be considered downright cheap compared to the prices at most major sporting events. This is a relatively new phenomenon that was unheard of in Walt's day. Look at the prices for a dodger dog in 1975 and look at the price today. It would be foolish for Disneyland to not charge these prices. They know they can get them and it is not in the least unexpected. There is NO WAY of knowing what Walt would have charged today because he has been dead for 46 years. When he was alive there was an entirely different pricing trend.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Manfried -- you're on the 'sugar is sugar' bandwagon huh?<< You mean the bandwagon with all the scientists on it? Yep! Guys shilling books and supplements on HuffPo don't count. Wait, what was the topic again?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 This is a non-polemical (from "fine cooking.com") discussion, with some science, article on sugar vs. high fructose corn syrup. The problem isn't so much cane sugar (sucrose) vs. HFCS (though that may be a partial problem, as the article explains), it's that HFCS is seeping its way into EVERYTHING, including things you'd never suspect, that you don't consider a "sweet." So most people are eating far more of it than they realize. Corn is also consumed via beef now, because it's what we feed cows to fatten them up quicker than grass, which is what they ought to eat. <a href="http://www.finecooking.com/item/24865/corn-syrup-vs-high-fructose-corn-syrup" target="_blank">http://www.finecooking.com/ite...rn-syrup</a>
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Princeton University study re: high fructose corn syrup. <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/" target="_blank">http://www.princeton.edu/main/...1/22K07/</a> <A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain>
Originally Posted By CDF2 Disneyland concessions were never inexpensive or underpriced - they were always priced similar to baseball games or movie theatres, etc. You have a captive audience so why should you give them a price break?
Originally Posted By Manfried Folks, it's still a sugar. It does not matter how it is made. And when it comes to weight gain it is one thing: caloric intake plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it is from high fructose corn syrup or sugar or fat or bacon or corn dogs or Dole Pineapple Whips. Eat less and walk more and quit blaming one item and turning it into a really stupid self righteous political ploy.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Corn is also consumed via beef now, because it's what we feed cows to fatten them up quicker than grass, which is what they ought to eat.<<< Wait...I'm 64 years old and as long as I can remember corn has been fed to cattle. My memory goes back to when I was 10 years old and helped on my uncles farm. It is hardly a new thing overtly put in there recently to throw us off the track. Just another special interest scare tactic to control the minds of the consumer and it seems that the smarter we get the dumber we become.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost What does everyone think that silo's on a dairy farm were used for, hiding old playboy magazines? Well, that too!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Princeton University study re: high fructose corn syrup.<< Uh, no. >>The researchers concluded “over-consumption of HFCS could very well be a major factor in the ‘obesity epidemic,’ which correlates with the upsurge in the use of HFCS.” It might be. But to my mind, these experiments hardly prove it.<< <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/03/high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-sugar-princeton-study.html" target="_blank">http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...udy.html</a> >>after reading the paper, I would note that the experimental design, statistical analysis, and interpretation of the results in Bocarsly et al 2010 are deeply flawed. Indeed, the elementary flaws in the statistical analysis and the absence of any discussion of the glaring paradoxes in the results combined with a much higher rigor of analysis and interpretation in the senior authors’ previous papers raises several ethical questions ...<< >>This paper has an unusually rich number of errors in statistical design and analysis, selective picking of results that match what can only be a preferred outcome, and outright misrepresentation of the design and results. The senior authors, the editor handling the paper, the editor-in-chief, the reviewers, the Princeton University press release team, and any science blogs and journalists that uncritically parroted the press release should simply be ashamed.<< <a href="http://where-is-the-beef.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-eviler_22.html" target="_blank">http://where-is-the-beef.blogs..._22.html</a> >>I can hardly believe that Princeton sent out a press release yesterday announcing the results of this rat study. The press release says: “Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.” How they came to these conclusions is beyond me. ... as summarized in Table 1 in the paper, the researchers did only two experiments that actually compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose on weight gain, and these gave inconsistent results.<< <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/" target="_blank">http://www.foodpolitics.com/20...ats-fat/</a> >>"The debate about which one is better for you is a false debate, because neither of them is good for you," says Elizabeth Abbott, author of the forthcoming "Sugar: A Bittersweet History."<< <a href="http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-25/health/corn.syrup.sugar_1_high-fructose-corn-syrup-corn-refiners-association-audrae-erickson" target="_blank">http://articles.cnn.com/2010-0...erickson</a>
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I'll tell you what is the primary cause of obesity in this country...sitting on their butt playing video games. Never contracting a muscle other then in their thumbs. Parents riding their snowflake children in strollers until they graduate from college and then buying them a car, letting them live at home while they wait for just the right high paying job to open up instead of getting out and working at whatever they can until their break comes. There are so many things that go into this problem that to try and point out a single food product as the culprit is just another case of transferring blame away from ourselves. Sugar dealers want you to believe that the "corn" based equivalent is totally harmful and you should therefore stick with good old, reliable sugar.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I'll tell you what is the primary cause of obesity in this country...sitting on their butt playing video games. Never contracting a muscle other then in their thumbs.<< Wrong, the primary cause is the fact that Americans are quick to blame anything or anyone other than themselves for their failures. It's not video games, it's not soda, it's not sugar, it's the lack of personal accountability. Instead of blaming others, people need to take a good hard look within...
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Why is it when people complain about people being lazy and sitting on their butts all day they always bring up that they must be sitting on their butts playing video games? Video games aren't the only thing you can do while sitting. They could have easily been reading, penning the next great American novel, composing a big Tony award winning Broadway musical, or theorizing an equation that'll make it possible for everyone to have their own cloned version of Johnny Depp.
