Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Constance -- someone told me that the body responds the same to sugar and artificial sweetener - a concept I can't really understand.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, For me it is a matter of taste. Products made with sugar taste better than products made with corn syrub. Try Mexican Coca Cola if you don't believe me. MB
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Thanks ecdc! Jim that's the rumor I've heard and was curious if it was the same as drinking a glass of water or more detrimental to weight.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Take a read at what the good folks at Science-based Medicine have to say>> Wow... when you read that opinon blog you would get the impression that eating a diet consisting of apples is worst for you then a diet of coke that is sweetened with HFCS because apples contain more fructose. Yes both sugar and HFCS contain glucose & fructose. But water (H2O) and Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) both contain oxygen and hydrogen but one I would drink and one I would not. So just because a compound contains the same elements does not mean it will affect the body the same. So any article that makes its claims based on that is immediately discarded in my opinion. But studies such as this one: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/" target="_blank">http://www.princeton.edu/main/...1/22K07/</a> studies the differing effects of natural sugars and HFCS on animals then freely admit they don't know why. ( they do theorize that glucose & fructose are 'unbounded' in HFCS which leads to it being metabolized differently and causing a different insulin reaction) Real scientists never proclaim absolutes. They understand that current conclusions are always subject to better data and longer term studies and the ability to aggregate more variables. So articles that state that HFCS has been absoluting proven to be safe are bogus no matter what the credentials of the author are.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So just because a compound contains the same elements does not mean it will affect the body the same. << You're comparing apples to hydrogen peroxide there. Fructose is not an element. >>So articles that state that HFCS has been absoluting proven to be safe are bogus no matter what the credentials of the author are.<< I'm DYING to see you link to one. The question isn't whether it's safe (it's not), it's whether it's less safe than sugar. And that has not been scientifically proven. As for Princeton's study, they've already debunked the living sugar out of it. A partial crosspost from a yellow submarine: >>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> More at post 357 here: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-124013-P-36.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...P-36.asp</a>
Originally Posted By crapshoot Starting in the late 70′s and early 80′s the technology (Ion Exclusion <<Chromatography) to manufacture HFCS economically became widely available and most soft drink and processed food manufacturers jumped on the band wagon, and the U.S. consumption of HFCS increased dramatically from 0 lbs per capita in 1970 to 64 lbs per capita annually in 2000.>> . . . . . T . . . . H . . . . I . . . . S . . .
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Obviously, the obesity epidemic is a complex problem. But in these discussions I always like to point out that parents are now petrified to let their kids out of the house, out of their sight. Most are terrified that their child will be snatched off the street. Kids in my era ate meat and potatoes every night, and Sugar Smacks for breakfast every morning, usually with a glass of chocolate milk. Everything was drenched in butter. But we also played outside almost constantly. Climbing, running, riding bikes for miles, at least until the street lights came on. HFCS probably plays some role in the obesity problem. But in such a multi-faceted, complex issue, trying to pin it all on just one particular ingredient is likely too simple. I think if HFCS were banned tomorrow, the effect on the waistline of our kids would be negligible. Because an hour or two a week at soccer practice does not begin to compare with the amount of physical play and exercise a kid needs, and the amount kids used to get naturally, before adults lost their minds about kidnapping.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<I'm more interested to know if drinking zero calorie artificially sweetened drinks are in any way negative for weight maintenance.>> The Problem with Ringing Your Physiological Bells - Dr. Mark Hyman (MD) Ringing the bells in your body with artificial sweeteners is not a good thing. It’s even worse when you ring the bells with artificial sweeteners and then not provide any sugar. Here’s why … Our brains know how to get our bodies ready for food. It is called the cephalic (for “head”) phase reflex. Your brain is preparing for food even before your fork or cup crosses your lips. This allows you to anticipate and prepare for the arrival of nutrients in your intestinal tract, improves the efficiency of how your nutrients are absorbed, and minimizes the degree to which food will disturb your natural hormonal balance and create weight gain. So in a way, your body is already preparing to regulate your energy balance, metabolism, weight, calorie burning, and many other things — just by thinking about food. ----> Any sweet taste will signal your body that calories are on the way and trigger a whole set of hormonal and metabolic responses to get ready for those calories. <-----Muy importante'! When you trick your body and feed it non-nutritive or non-caloric sweeteners, like aspartame, acesulfame, saccharin, sucralose, or even natural sweeteners like stevia, it gets confused. And research supports this. Studies Show Artificial Sweeteners Lead to Weight Gain An exciting study in the Journal of Behavioral Neuroscience has shown conclusively that using artificial sweeteners not only does not prevent weight gain, but induces a whole set of physiological and hormonal responses that actually make you gain weight. ( i) <a href="http://drhyman.com/blog/conditions/artificial-sweeteners-could-be-sabotaging-your-diet/" target="_blank">http://drhyman.com/blog/condit...ur-diet/</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Wow... when you read that opinon blog you would get the impression that eating a diet consisting of apples is worst for you then a diet of coke that is sweetened with HFCS because apples contain more fructose.<< You'd only get that impression if you're determined to believe something that's not true and hang onto it in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Originally Posted By nutmegpeach I suppose the point about a slightly slowed metabolism may have merit, but the point that artificial sweetners "make" you consume more calories is silly. Just because the rats ate more doesn't mean I have to. If a person's dietary self-control is no better that that of a rat, they may have more serious issues than thier HFCS intake. (currently enjoying a diet coke
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>(currently enjoying a diet coke <<< Sorry, but I don't see how that is possible. I can understand drinking one, but enjoying one is another story for another thread.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<So what's your thoughts on the Nemo Subs?>> They should serve Diet Coke on board.
Originally Posted By hopemax ><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304830704577494804105404584.html" target="_blank">http://online.wsj.com/article/...584.html</a> < Don't forget to add things like this into the conversation. For those not clicking the link, it's a study that came out last month where researches found that by breeding tomatoes to have the perfect light green color indicating they are ready to harvest, they have breed out the taste. Tomatoes sold today are less sweet than those from the past. So back in post 2, ecdc was wondering why pasta sauce and salsa sold in the supermarket was loaded with HFCS. The answer could very well be, they have to because the tomatoes no longer contain enough sugar to replicate the taste people want. I wonder if we won't find out that berries are also losing their taste. Every time, I buy berries now I am unsatisfied with their bland taste.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>An exciting study in the Journal of Behavioral Neuroscience has shown conclusively that using artificial sweeteners not only does not prevent weight gain, but induces a whole set of physiological and hormonal responses that actually make you gain weight.<< Wrong! It showed that *rats* consuming yogurt sweetened with *saccharin* gained more weight than rats that ate yogurt sweetened with sugar. That's it. The rest is speculation by the researchers, or else unwarranted conclusion-drawing by best selling author, HuffPo blogger and "functional medicine" guru Dr. Mark Hyman, the author of your link. Funny how the word "conclusively" shows up in the first sentence nearly all the results when you do a search on this study. Which leads one to suspect that a lot of these sites are run by the same rats. ;-)
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Because an hour or two a week at soccer practice does not begin to compare with the amount of physical play and exercise a kid needs,<< FWIW, all the boys on my son's competitive soccer team are lean and mean. Fat kids on the field are a rare sight, at least in my son's league. Rec level might be another story. Of course, conditioning is common in competitive youth soccer.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<Wrong!>> The point being that once the brain detects sweetness, it immediately starts introducing hormones into the system. The brain only sees SWEET, no matter what chemical form the sweetness is in.
