Posted on 01/25/2014 8:05:47 PM PST by Armen Hareyan
High Fructose corn syrup and msg are 2 things that cause me either headaches (msg) or make me feel run down. High Fructose corn syrup is in everything. MSG is used to enhance flavor, in short so the manufacturer does not have to use more ingredients. Cattle are fed the corn syrup to fatten them up.
I believe aliens are using high fructose corn syrup to fatten us up.
Good post.
It’s always nice to bump into someone who has gotten past that “calories in/calories out” buncombe.
It really isn't the individual's fault for getting obese. It's primarily the food manufacturer's fault. Processed food is loaded with chemicals (yes, many are organic) that trick the body into craving more of the same, but of low nutritional value. Lots of these chemicals, such as HFCS cause growth of "bad" bacteria in the intestinal tract that thrive on these chemicals. We're dumping stuff into humans that cause runaway fat and that triggers the body into craving more. I don't blame fat people for their condition, as it is really difficult to resist cravings.
The cure is to alter the imbalance of chemicals, via probiotics and a curtailing of ingredients that overwhelm people's ability to resist craving non-nutritional food. Helps to avoid all processed foods.
Yeah, that way you don't have to pay any attention to that thermodynamics buncombe. Denying science makes believing so much easier.
HFCS causes this to happen but regular old table sugar (sucrose) does not? How does that work?
If George Soros is responsible for the events in Ukraine, let’s also make him responsible for national obesity!
“Yeah, that way you don’t have to pay any attention to that thermodynamics buncombe. Denying science makes believing so much easier.”
In “Why We Get Fat,” the author explains the misapplication of the law of thermodynamics that alone supports the calories in/calories out error.
I’m not denying science; I’m just asking for correct science.
I can’t find the articles I had that explain the phenomenon. They’re out there if googled. Anyway, here’s one article on why HFCS is not the same as regular sugar.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/
Explains how HFCS is composed of glucose and fructose in unbound form of molecules, being a primary difference. One thing I didn’t know after reading this article is that there are contaminants like mercury due to the way HFCS is made, interesting and another reason to stay away from the stuff.
In my reading of Taubes, it's seem pretty obvious that he is denying the thermodynamic perspective. But more important, the people who read his books come away thinking they can consume more energy than they burn and not gain weight. Taubes is similar to many others out there touting their solutions for managing weight. Demonizing one macronutrient over another is a proven method for selling diet advice - while the more obvious idea that calories are the problem seems to be something that few are willing to pay for.
Taubes is a journalist, not a scientist. And although he has managed to cultivate a loyal following, the solution to the problem is fairly simple. Consume less energy than you burn and you will lose weight....or, burn more energy than you consume and you will lose weight. But like I said, no one wants to pay for simple.
Yeah, just like hydrolized sucrose. Your gut quickly breaks that bond and metabolizes the glucose and fructose from sucrose in exactly the same manner as glucose and fructose from HFCS. Your body doesn't know from which source it came from, nor does it care. The GI of sucrose and HFCS fall into the same range 55~60.
If you believe that HFCS is bad for you then you must also believe that regular old table sugar is bad for you. The chemistry doesn't lie, but there are a lot of people out there who lie about the chemistry.
At one time they found trace amounts of mercury in some HFCS, but I don't believe that's an issue any longer. The fear of HFCS isn't based on sound science, but it sure does generate a lot of money for those who are able to spread fear about it.
I realize that regular table sugar is also not good, however I do believe that HFCS is far worse. Regular sugar is digested slower and differently. For instance, from that article indicated from the link I presented to you:
"Regular cane sugar (sucrose) is made of two-sugar molecules bound tightly together– glucose and fructose in equal amounts. The enzymes in your digestive tract must break down the sucrose into glucose and fructose, which are then absorbed into the body. HFCS also consists of glucose and fructose, not in a 50-50 ratio, but a 55-45 fructose to glucose ratio in an unbound form. Fructose is sweeter than glucose…
Since there is there is no chemical bond between them, no digestion is required so they are more rapidly absorbed into your blood stream. Fructose goes right to the liver and triggers lipogenesis (the production of fats like triglycerides and cholesterol) this is why it is the major cause of liver damage in this country and causes a condition called “fatty liver” which affects 70 million people.
The rapidly absorbed glucose triggers big spikes in insulin–our body’s major fat storage hormone. Both these features of HFCS lead to increased metabolic disturbances that drive increases in appetite, weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, dementia, and more."
“In my reading of Taubes, it’s seem pretty obvious”
In my reading of your note, it seems pretty obvious that you didn’t read Taubes. If you had, you would know that he does not lead anyone to think that they can consume more energy than they burn and not gain weight.
Don’t worry about it, though. You just keep repeating what you heard at some party as though you had read it in Taubes’s books. Truth don’t mean a thing these days, right, matey?
This is the fear mongering that I mentioned in a previous post. Sucrose and HFCS have essentially the same glycemic index (55~60), so to claim that the absorption of HFCS is faster than sucrose - in any significant manner - cannot be supported by science. Even the satiety profiles for both are essentially identical. The claims made in your link/post are the worst kind of junk science.
If what they claim were true - and if they were honest people, they'd also be claiming that the formula of HFCS used primarily in processed foods and baking (42% fructose and 55% glucose) is better for you than regular old table sugar. It has less fructose after all......but they make no such claim. Doing so would detract from their argument that HFCS is, somehow, worse for you than table sugar. The science doesn't support them, but that fact won't stop them from trying to sell their nonsense.
Taubes' problem with thermodynamics is well documented. I knew this before picking up his Good calories, Bad Calories book so I was paying particularly careful attention. But you believe what you want to believe. The fact is he promotes the Atkins diet, which is a diet not based on scientific evidence. It does, however, sell a lot of books. It accomplishes this by telling naive people that they can eat as much as they like of some foods and still go on a weight-loss diet. The foundation of many of these diets is a serious restriction of calories from carbohydrates which, in reality, results in a reduction of total calories consumed. Eliminating or seriously reducing your caloric intake of carbohydrates severely limits your food choices given the preponderance of foods high in carbs out there today. The Atkins diet is just another low calorie diet.
I will add that restricting carbohydrates has helped a lot of people lose fat, while improving their metabolic health. Even though it only works in some cases, I don't doubt that carbohydrate restriction can help obese people significantly trim body fat. The reason for this is not fully understood, but there is no evidence that insulin plays a causal role in this process.
The idea proffered by Taubes, that carbohydrates is the primary cause of obesity because elevated insulin levels causes fat storage in fat cells, isn't supported by science. Taubes and his carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is wrong and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact from numerous fields of research.
Over the past century, the only macronutrient to consistently increase in our diet is fat. At the beginning of the 20th century, almost 60% of our total calories came from carbohydrates, with much of that being from white four - you know, a processed carbohydrate like Taubes claims is responsible for obesity. How is it that carbohydrates can be responsible for obesity today but not 100 years ago? Could it be that our agrarian culture back then forced people to work like hell so they didn't get fat? Obesity, and the afflictions that result from obesity, were rare back then. I'd bet Taubes hopes he never gets asked that question. Taubes also needs to explain why obesity isn't present in other cultures where the high carb diet has been the norm for centuries. The people of Guam, if I remember correctly, are one of the highest per capita consumers of carbohydrates in the world, yet sport one of the lowest rates of obesity with the highest average life span. Go figure.
Another reason I know Taubes is a charlatan is the fact that he supports Robert Lustig in his demonization of sugar. Lustig is a quack, and anyone with an understanding of biochemistry knows this to be true. Even so, Taubes fully supports his contention that all sugar is “toxic,” “poison” and “evil.” Quacks of a feather, I suppose. The average guy with no understanding of human nutrition will read Taubes and think that he really knows his carbohydrate metabolism. He doesn't. Taubes’ arguments are convoluted at best, but he does an excellent job of appearing to make sense, even though what he says isn't backed up by the most basic principles of medicine.
You just keep repeating what you heard at some party as though you had read it in Taubes’s books
Right. Earlier you said I’m not denying science; I’m just asking for correct science. Let me understand you.....when you want correct science you go to a journalist who has absolutely no training in any of the life sciences?
Really?
Like Taubes, you're uniquely unqualified to be lecturing anyone about the truth.
They forgot spoons.
The list excludes spoons and forks.
Well, if pencils cause misspelled words, and guns cause crime, why aren't spoons and forks listed?
5.56mm
GMTA!
I think the fact that so much food has sugar in it is a huge problem.
I’ve been sitting on this for a few days now, trying to figure out some way to reply with kindness and civility, and possibly even productively.
I couldn’t.
“Taubes’ problem with thermodynamics is well documented.”
Repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.
“I knew this before picking up his Good calories, Bad Calories book”
You may have picked it up, but you didn’t read it. I have chosen to believe that because I do not wish to believe that you are wittingly repeating falsehoods.
“The fact is he promotes the Atkins diet, which is a diet not based on scientific evidence.”
Sorry, but in repeatedly asserting that a given text says what it does not say, you have lost the right to claim that scientific evidence supports your position.
That said, Taubes goes far past simple carbohydrate reduction.
“by telling naive people that they can eat as much as they like of some foods and still go on a weight-loss diet.”
Another falsehood repeated.
You know, even though you apparently believe these things to be true, and are therefore not technically lying, I think you still share a portion of the responsibility.
“The foundation of many of these diets is a serious restriction of calories from carbohydrates which, in reality, results in a reduction of total calories consumed.”
In that sentence you segue from the obvious to the stupid.
“The Atkins diet is just another low calorie diet.”
The Atkins diet is not at issue.
“Even though it only works in some cases, I don’t doubt that carbohydrate restriction can help obese people significantly trim body fat. The reason for this is not fully understood, but there is no evidence that insulin plays a causal role in this process.”
Well, now, that’s scientific. If A is true, B will occur. Okay, B occurred, but there’s no reason to think that A is true.
Taubes is right: it’s a religion with you people, and you are incapable—intellectually and emotionally—of accepting that obesity might be a matter of lipid regulation rather than moral turpitude.
“The idea proffered by Taubes, that carbohydrates is the primary cause of obesity because elevated insulin levels causes fat storage in fat cells, isn’t supported by science.”
Yes, it is.
“Taubes and his carbohydrate hypothesis of obesity is wrong and there is overwhelming evidence of this fact from numerous fields of research.”
He’s right, and there is no evidence to the contrary.
(Blah, blah, blah, error and logical catastrophe omitted.)
“when you want correct science you go to a journalist who has absolutely no training in any of the life sciences?”
A layman reporting on correct science—with proper citation—is preferable to the narrow-minded dogma of the Church of the Immoral Fatso, which incessantly keens like a grieving banshee that every fat deposit is punishment for the loathsome perversion of over-eating…than which no sin is greater. Every fatso is guilty! Every fatso must be punished! All scientific findings to the contrary must be treated like leftists treat liberty!
“Like Taubes, you’re uniquely unqualified to be lecturing anyone about the truth.”
Well, I think that’s about the lowest of the known logical fallacies. I figured you’d get there sooner or later.
I did not major in a related field, but I did have sixteen semester hours of college and graduate level chemistry and molecular biology, and have read widely in the ensuing couple of decades.
I have also had personal experience with it. I know what does and does not cause me to lose weight. I lost a significant amount of weight, and kept it off for many years, until I became too ill.
It’s really not that hard to see the problem with the “calories in/calories out” nonsense. If not for the bigotry of the Church of the Immoral Fatso, science would be free to acknowledge the truth.
If normal people maintain a normal weight on a normal diet, and the vast majority did until recent decades, then why do some people become obese on a normal diet? The Church of the Immoral Fatso, of course, insists that all such reports are lies, and that the immoral fatsos were secretly over-eating. All scientific evidence to the contrary—and there’s a bunch—is simply denied.
Selah.
I’m not going to post here again. I’m old, you’re obnoxious, I don’t want to, and I don’t have to.
That's a pretty dishonest statement that won't fool anyone. You've been busy Googling the internet trying to find something to dissuade me from the fact that you don't have any idea what you're talking about, which is why you so willingly swallow the junk science Taubes is selling.
Repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.
Wow. Three days of Googling and that's all you could come up with? Your Googling certainly delivered numerous legitimate scientists who also made the same observation that I have: Taubes' manifesto clearly states that carbohydrates make us fat, the first law of thermodynamics notwithstanding.
You may have picked it up, but you didn’t read it.
Right. And if you could cite anything from his book that proves my understanding of his misunderstandings wrong, you'd offer them up here. But you have nothing to offer because you really don't know what in the hell you're taking about. Like I said earlier, the guy sounds like he knows what he's taking about so he must know what he's talking about....right? Your critical thinking skills might actually be worse than your knowledge of carbohydrate metabolism.
Sorry, but in repeatedly asserting that a given text says what it does not say, you have lost the right to claim that scientific evidence supports your position.
Then school me. If you have such a firm grasp of this then show me where I'm wrong and Taubes is right.That is, if you can.....or you can just continue being sorry.
That said, Taubes goes far past simple carbohydrate reduction.
Yes, he does. But because he gets the simple stuff wrong, he gets the hard stuff wrong too. You've taken math, right? Same principle applies here.
Another falsehood repeated.
Huh? Are you sure you read his book? This is exactly what Taubes is telling people. He's a vocal advocate of the Atkins diet, after all. And that's exactly what the Atkins diet tells people. When you were studying his treatise, and applying your considerable training in human nutritional biology to fully understand what he's saying, did you ever come across this part?
In Taubes' unscientific world (and apparently yours, too,), it is the consumption of carbohydrates that make us gain body fat, rather than total calories consumed. And it is this fat, he claims, that causes us to overeat. Yes, he's telling you that we can get something from nothing which is in direct conflict with the first law of thermodynamics.
Taubes does the same thing the grant money grabbers do. He eschews sound science and, instead, embraces observational data, logical fallacies, and all kinds of straw men - i.e. junk science.
In that sentence you segue from the obvious to the stupid.
You never even bothered to engage your brain before writing that snark. The Atkins diet works (or any diet for that matter) because it causes people to consume less energy than they burn, or burn more energy than they consume. Those are your only two options. Unless, like Taubes, you believe thermodynamics has been repealed.
Well, now, that’s scientific. If A is true, B will occur. Okay, B occurred, but there’s no reason to think that A is true.
Carbohydrate restriction works in some people. I believe it works because those practicing it end up consuming less energy and lose weight. Can you offer a reason that doesn't defy what we know to be factual? Give it a shot. Share with us your understanding of how this occurs in your own words. I'm sure that would be elucidating.
of accepting that obesity might be a matter of lipid regulation rather than moral turpitude.
Right. If only he had some legitimate science backing up his lipid regulation hypothesis. The brain is the only organ that regulates body fat in humans. Fat tissue cannot do it. The pancreas is also unable regulate body fat mass. Taubes is wrong. And he will stay wrong until legitimate research is done showing that fat and/or insulin can regulate body fat mass.
Even beyond the science, Taubes doesn't use simple logic. If only Taubes had an explanation for why we weren't obese a century ago when this nation consumed a huge percentage of their total calories from processed carbohydrates. If only he had an explanation for why other cultures with diets high in carbs don't have anywhere near the issues we have with obesity. These are things he cannot explain away no mater how hard he spins.
If only we taught basic human nutrition in our schools we wouldn't have so many people making these diet charlatans rich by following their advice while watching the obesity rate continue to increase. If only....
I don't know what's more incredible....watching guys like Taubes get rich from presenting assumptions as facts, that are all based upon junk science or no science, or fools emotionally defending their nonsense.
Yes, it is.
LOL. How could anyone argue with such an in depth defense of his work complete with so many peer reviewed references? If elevated insulin levels cause obesity I'm sure you can link us to the numerous studies showing that people who consume large amounts of caffeine experience a higher rate of obesity than those who don't. Caffeine consumption causes a significant insulin response in the human body, so this should be established science if Taubes is right. Let me know if you ever find something linking caffeine driven insulin spikes with obesity.
A layman reporting on correct science—with proper citation—is preferable to the narrow-minded dogma of the Church of the Immoral Fatso, which incessantly keens like a grieving banshee that every fat deposit is punishment for the loathsome perversion of over-eating…than which no sin is greater. Every fatso is guilty!
Now I get it. You're overweight and can't manage to beat the bulge. And, like so many others, you are eager to find something else to blame. Wow. You're so eager in fact, that you'll willingly believe explanations that defy established science. Taubes can offer up citations all day long, but do you really have the training and knowledge to know if what you're reading is legitimate, and supports his contention, or if he's simply throwing crap against the wall hoping something will stick and you'll send him more of your money?
All scientific findings to the contrary must be treated like leftists treat liberty!
This is another problem of yours. You're unable to differentiate legitimate science from junk science. Just because you read it on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
The rest of your post is nothing but anecdotes, but it's obvious your experiences have biased you to the point that you've lost your objectivity and balance. The calories in/calories out explanation is the reason we're fat today, but were not fat a century ago. Anyone with your background should know that our genetic composition isn't going to change in just three or four generations. There are all sorts of physiological challenges people have to deal with, some of which make it much more likely that they will become overweight or obese. However, for the vast majority of overweight and obese people, it is simply a matter of calories in and calories out. That's why there were no obese people freed from the German concentration camps or found in the POW's who were starved by the Japanese.
Science should always challenge the conventional wisdom, but it should be done legitimately. Unfortunately, Taubes explanations don't hold water, but they are making him rich. Not bad for a once broke journalist who studied aerospace engineering.
Res ipsa loquitur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.