Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Fat kids on the field are a rare sight, at least in my son's league.<<< Which brings up an interesting question... Do people jog to get thin or do thin people jog. That would explain why you don't see fat people jogging, wouldn't it? I don't suppose that this contributes to this conversation unless you think about how important it is to properly word the answers to research but far more importantly how one asks the question to be researched. Any and all research will be slanted in whatever way the researcher desires. We just latch on to the one that best supports our own thoughts on the matter.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Do people jog to get thin or do thin people jog. That would explain why you don't see fat people jogging, wouldn't it?<< Well that's just it - you've hit on the exact problem with most studies around eating and exercise. Mawnck's done a great job pointing out the issue as well. That rats got fat doing something specific doesn't mean humans will. If you read most studies of eating and food, they involve statements like "subjects reporting feeling hungrier after..." or "subjects recalled...." Spot the problem? It's extremely difficult to do a genuine, double-blind scientific study on eating habits. Instead, they rely on memory and "feelings." They trust people to record their activity and actions accurately when they're at home. It's why there's one study telling us that eating a certain thing has a benefit, only to be contradicted a few years later by another study.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Spot the problem? It's extremely difficult to do a genuine, double-blind scientific study on eating habits. Instead, they rely on memory and "feelings." They trust people to record their activity and actions accurately when they're at home. It's why there's one study telling us that eating a certain thing has a benefit, only to be contradicted a few years later by another study.<< Exactly. Plus, people in a study know they're being studied, and may not behavior in the same way as they normally would. I used to be involved with running focus groups from time to time. In these artificial surroundings, you ask people about a product and try to get them to expand on their answers. In a short time, the group often begins to form agreements and seem to be asking for the same thing. See also: New Coke. So much of our behavior is difficult to track and quantify. People eat for a huge variety of reasons beyond hunger -- social, emotional comfort, stress, joy, etc.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think coffee is the most contentious. First it's bad for you. No wait, it's good for you! No wait, it's worse than we thought. No wait, it's better than we ever imagined. No wait, it's actually kinda neutral unless consumed in vats. No wait, it depends what time of day you drink it. Coffee: the Mitt Romney of foods. (Ironic, ain't it?)
Originally Posted By mawnck >>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.<< The point being, no, that's not what the study found. It found fat rats. They did not study humans or hormones or brains. They just fed rats and then weighed them. All the stuff about humans and hormones and brains was pure speculation, and identified as such.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I bet those fat rats tasted pretty sweet, though, being packed with high fructose corn syrup. Myself, I prefer organic rats.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Make of this what you will. The studies are inconclusive but indicate possible problems with HFCS, and apparently did use humans. I still think the jury's out on HFCS vs. sucrose per se, (though not on the problem of increased placement of sugar in the form of HFCS in packaged foods), but some interesting stuff here. "This article points out some of the issues: <a href="http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2007/09/10/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-pure-sugar-is-one-worse-than-the-other/" target="_blank">http://www.thegoodhuman.com/20...e-other/</a> "In soda, it has been found that by using HFCS instead of pure sugar it can make the soda 10 times richer in harmful carbonyl compounds. According to one study, carbonyl compounds are elevated in people with diabetes and are blamed for causing diabetic complications such as foot ulcers and eye and nerve damage. Another study concluded that foods with increased fructose “produced significantly higher fasting plasma triacylglycerol values than did the glucose diet in men” and “if plasma triacylglycerols are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, then diets high in fructose may be undesirable”." This article below cites: "evidence that human consumption of fructose-sweetened but not glucose-sweetened beverages can adversely affect both sensitivity to the hormone insulin and how the body handles fats, creating medical conditions that increase susceptibility to heart attack and stroke." <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182151.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...2151.htm</a> Now, that last article is referring to a study that looked at fructose vs. glucose, not HFCS vs. sugar. In the study itself (linked from that page) the authors say: "Foods and beverages in the US are typically sweetened with sucrose (50% glucose and 50% fructose) or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is usually 45%–58% glucose and 42%–55% fructose, rather than pure glucose or fructose. We have reported in a short-term study that the 23-hour postprandial TG profiles in male subjects consuming 25% energy as HFCS (55% fructose) or sucrose were elevated to a degree similar to that observed when pure fructose–sweetened beverages were consumed (19). Therefore, it is uncertain whether the adverse effects of sucrose and HFCS consumption are “diluted” by their lower fructose content relative to pure fructose. Additional studies are needed to compare the long-term effects of consuming HFCS and/or sucrose with 100% fructose." Often, HFCS is described as slightly higher in fructose than glucose but not much, while the article excerpt above gives a wider range. However, the sugar industry makes an interesting notation in this blurb about sweetener types: <a href="http://sugar.org/consumers/sweet_by_n.." target="_blank">http://sugar.org/consumers/sweet_by_n..</a>. When it mentions HFCS, it says: "It is becoming more common to further process fructose-enriched corn syrups to increase fructose content. These enhanced fructose corn syrups contain at least 95% fructose by weight." What I gather from all this is: Current studies are showing that HFCS is having adverse impacts on the body in ways that comparable use of conventional sugar does not. Note this does not speak to how much sugar is safe to eat. There's still a lot to be learned about why HFCS has the adverse impacts that it appears to have. When you eat sugar - sucrose - it's the body's job to break it down into glucose and fructose. (The larger crystals are more resistant to natural breakdown, at least outside the body.) So is it the stage of breakdown into fructose/glucose at the consumption point that matters, or is it something else about HFCS that is causing problems? I believe they're still working on figuring that out."
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost I think what really happens is that for every study/article you can find saying one thing you will find an equal number of articles and/or studies saying the exact opposite. It really depends on how hard you want to look and what you want to find. What, for example, is the present standing on eggs?
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost And don't say...if you stand on them they will break, Mr. Kar2oonMan!
Originally Posted By andyll <<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. >> A post as lacking of substance as HFCS itself. Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/26/AR2009012601831.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/...831.html</a> Consumption of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Increase Postprandial Triglycerides, LDL-Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein-B in Young Men and Women: <a href="http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/96/10/E1596.abstract" target="_blank">http://jcem.endojournals.org/c...abstract</a> High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Liver Scarring, Research Suggests: <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322204628.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...4628.htm</a> Researchers look at effects of two common sweeteners on the body - Study finds that there is a difference between the two: <a href="http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/Effects-sweeteners-on-body.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/...ody.aspx</a>
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And don't say...if you stand on them they will break, Mr. Kar2oonMan!<< I am not on trial here!
Originally Posted By mawnck I probably am setting a bad precedent here, since I definitely don't have time to track down every crackpot article that pops up in this topic, but .... >>Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury:<< A non-peer-reviewed study by an ethically questionable "watchdog" group. This one's not even credible. <a href="http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/16-institute-for-agriculture-and-trade-policy" target="_blank">http://activistcash.com/organi...e-policy</a> >>Consumption of Fructose and High Fructose Corn Syrup Increase Postprandial Triglycerides, LDL-Cholesterol, and Apolipoprotein-B in Young Men and Women:<< Not sure what you're getting at with this one. They were studying dietary guidelines. >>High Fructose Corn Syrup Linked to Liver Scarring, Research Suggests<< "Suggests" is the word here. The study was of patients with a specific liver disease, and was entirely questionnaire-based. (IE no one was on a special diet - they just ate their usual stuff and reported on it.) And they only studied HFCS, not other sweeteners. >>Researchers look at effects of two common sweeteners on the body - << Legit, but all they found was short-term results of "slightly higher blood levels of fructose". And it **is** High Fructose Corn Syrup. So not much to get excited about here.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Curious what you thought of my links, mawnck. I don't claim anything for them myself, as I just found them in a google search, but they did seem more credible than some (and admitted the inconclusiveness of much).
Originally Posted By andyll <<A non-peer-reviewed study by an ethically questionable "watchdog" group. This one's not even credible.>> 2 studies, 1 being based off FDA data. If you read the article carefully you would have seen that the corn syrup industry group admitted that they used mercury in the past in HFCS. <They were studying dietary guidelines> Read it again. This is the most damning study. They found unbound fructose, which HFCS is, increased risk factors for cardiovascular disease as compared to regular sugar. <<The study was of patients with a specific liver disease, and was entirely questionnaire-based>> This was not a study of any one food item but a study of patients already being treated to see if diet had any effect on their treatment. Based on their results I would guess they will to doing more specific HFCS studies in the future. <<Legit, but all they found was short-term results of "slightly higher blood levels of fructose". ... So not much to get excited about here.> Try "resulted in significantly higher fructose levels" which was unexpected based on the claims that there is no difference. It also effected blood pressure. Add the princeton study to those and compare it to the studies referenced in the sciencebasedmedicine.org link. Oh... that's right. There were no studies referenced in that link to back up the claims that HFCS is no different then sugar to the body.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Curious what you thought of my links, mawnck.<< Would love to peruse, but it isn't looking like the time is going to be available. From what I saw skimming them, they seem to be legit. My point to all this is, don't just accept anything that internets tell you just because you happen to agree with it. You might be wrong. For the record, when I buy soda, it's usually the sweetened-with-sugar kind. It's good, it's available, it's the same price, so why not? Just a blanket response to post 55 - Everything I said was taken straight from the links, including the phrase "slightly higher blood levels of fructose". If you read anything else into them, it was something YOU brought, not something from the articles.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<For the record, when I buy soda, it's usually the sweetened-with-sugar kind. It's good, it's available, it's the same price, so why not?>> Why? No matter how you sweeten it, soda has no healthful benefits but tons of risks. Or shouldn't I believe what I read on the internet. www.mayoclinic.ORG "The American Heart Association has specific guidelines for added sugar — no more than 100 calories a day from added sugar for most women and no more than 150 calories a day for most men. That's about 6 teaspoons of added sugar for women and 9 for men. Most Americans get more than 22 teaspoons — or 355 calories — of added sugar a day, which far exceeds USDA guidelines and American Heart Association recommendations." www.hopkinsmedicine.org A VERY COMMON FORM OF SWEETENER HELPS SOME CANCER CELLS GROW, ELIZABETH TRACEY REPORTS “Fructose is a type of sugar found naturally in fruits, but is also one component of so-called ‘high fructose corn syrup,’ a very common food sweetener that has been fingered as one major cause of our current obesity and diabetes epidemics. While evidence to indict fructose is gathered, one study of pancreas cancer cells shows that indeed, these cells get a boost from fructose.” www.stanfordhospital.org "Gardner has several ideas for why the Atkins diet had the overall best results. The first is the simplicity of the diet. “It’s a very simple message,” he said. “Get rid of all refined carbohydrates to lose weight.” This message directly targets a major concern with the American diet right now-the increasing consumption of refined sugars in many forms, such as high-fructose corn syrup. Beyond pinpointing this high sugar intake, the Atkins diet does the best at encouraging people to drink more water, said Gardner." www.hoag.org - Thursday, January 12, 2012 Last Updated: 2012-01-12 13:50:10 -0400 (Reuters Health) By Kerry Grens "NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Drinking a liter of regular cola every day increases the amount of fat in the liver and in the muscles and surrounding the organs in the belly, according to a new Danish study." Oh wait, these are all from the internet. Sweet deal.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost ^^^^Simply choose the one you like the best and that will become fact.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Next time your kid asks for a soda, go put three tablespoons of sugar on a small plate or bowl. <a href="http://www.blueandblueroofing.com/" target="_blank">http://www.blueandblueroofing.com/</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Crap, that's what happens when you try to multitask. (If anyone is looking for a roof in the Seattle area, there's your link.) Anyway, would you let your kid eat three tablespoons of sugar straight out of the sugar bowl like that? Or dump three tablespoons of sugar in a glass of water and drink it? Probably not. But that's what you're doing any time you give them a soda. The next time you are drinking a non-diet soda, picture yourself eating three tablespoons of sugar. Somehow it is more socially acceptable for your kid to have a Coke at McDonalds than it is to let them eat sugar straight out of a sugar bowl, but there's really no difference.
