Diet soda creates a similar hormonal effect in terms of what it does to insulin and leptin, not to mention what the unknown fallout is from metabolising all of those artificial sweeteners. Plus I can't stand the taste of diet pop.
That said, I have a friend who has been drinking a 2 liter bottle of Diet Mountain Dew on a daily basis for better than 15 years, and it hasn't caused him any problems. He is probably more fit now than he was in high school. I guess we're all an experiment of one.
soleus wrote: cheeseburgers,
Ok, let's not get crazy here. I'm pretty certain that cheeseburgers are a nutritional requirement.
common wrote:
Diet soda creates a similar hormonal effect in terms of what it does to insulin and leptin, not to mention what the unknown fallout is from metabolising all of those artificial sweeteners. Plus I can't stand the taste of diet pop.
That said, I have a friend who has been drinking a 2 liter bottle of Diet Mountain Dew on a daily basis for better than 15 years, and it hasn't caused him any problems. He is probably more fit now than he was in high school. I guess we're all an experiment of one.
Your logic is invalid. I guess that since I didn't wear a bicyle helmet as a kid and I didn't get hurt, bicyle helmets are unnecessary.
Not trying to be logical. My point was, people can do what they want and deal with the consequences, if any.
Sagarin wrote:
Diet pop has all kinds of substitute chemicals that are potent neuro-toxins, which, of course, reveal their deleterious impact on your brain over many, many years.
HFCS and trans-fats are the two big ones that will ensure our kids become the first American generation not to have a longer average life expectancy than their parents. This will find it's way into mainstream thinking in the full course of time, but, expect serious resistance in the interim.
The Cleveland Clinic is doing some things right, and, insomuch as obesity consumes some 40% of the expense of medicine, than the obese should pay 40% of the cost as far as I'm concerned.
Eat a whole foods diet, replete with vegetables, lean meats, fish, nuts and seeds, fruit, and some alternative grains. What's so hard to figure out about this? We wouldn't be talking about health care reform if people had a clue and executed the plan. And it starts with your own kids, instilling the proper habits without being so draconian that they start "hording" the bad stuff.
What is one "alternative grain" (and you can't say quinoa). Also, what's wrong with dairy? I eat a fair amount of milk and cottage cheese, is that bad? Neither have added sugar.
wer234wer234 wrote:
Your logic is invalid. I guess that since I didn't wear a bicyle helmet as a kid and I didn't get hurt, bicyle helmets are unnecessary.
Read his post before you try to attack it dumbass. He said "I guess we're all an experiment of one" meaning that drinking diet soda didn't cause his friend any problems, so that friend doesn't have any incentive to stop.
Unholy Cumulus wrote:
What is one "alternative grain" (and you can't say quinoa). Also, what's wrong with dairy? I eat a fair amount of milk and cottage cheese, is that bad? Neither have added sugar.
brown rice, amaranth, buckwheat, some legumes and beans...
Do a google on dairy. There is conflicting evidence for sure, but I just don't think cow's milk was really meant for human consumption. At the very least, genetically engineered and hormune-infused dairy should simply defy common sense. A very high percentage of humans are lactose-intolerant, and while there are "ways around" that, it should be a signal nonetheless. Goat dairy is much better and has been linked to some centenarian populations. Whatever the case, vitamin D, magnesium, and an alkaline gut are more important factors for calcium (particularly absorption) than getting your daily milk.
I'm not telling people how to eat, just advocating a way to health and a major part of the solution to the looming healthcare crises (not the healthcare reform crises).
Having said that, personally, I would probably eat organic cottage cheese, particularly if it's a substitute for french fries or some other crappy sidedish at a restaurant.
common wrote:
Diet soda creates a similar hormonal effect in terms of what it does to insulin and leptin, not to mention what the unknown fallout is from metabolising all of those artificial sweeteners. Plus I can't stand the taste of diet pop.
That said, I have a friend who has been drinking a 2 liter bottle of Diet Mountain Dew on a daily basis for better than 15 years, and it hasn't caused him any problems. He is probably more fit now than he was in high school. I guess we're all an experiment of one.
But my sister drinks 3-4 cans of diet caffeine free coke a day and has put on 70-80 lbs over the past 5 years.
A lot of good work is being done on the US food supply. Check out David Kessler's new book and anything by Michael Pollan. It is not a coincidence that Americans eat so much junk. A lot of time and effort has gone into creating food that is very appealing and almost addictive, while being extremely cheap to produce.
Just ask your grand parents what they used to eat for lunch. Most would go to the company cafeteria and get "meat and 3". That was a small slice of meat and three veggies. Now, people go out for lunch and get a 1500 calorie fat bomb at Applebees. In fact, it is virtually impossible to order a regular entree at any national chain that isn't a gut buster. Why? Because they want to fill you up in a way your little sandwich or leftovers from home can't. That way you crave the garbage and come in everyday until you are strapped up to the dialysis machine after diabetes wrecks your kidneys.
Your calorie example is very compelling, until it breaks down, as it did in the video, when the doctor brings up the example of obese formula-fed babies. That, to me, was the smoking gun. Like I mentioned before, prior to seeing this research, I believed a calorie was a calorie as long as I was running 10+ hours a week. My mind has been completely changed.
I laughed a bit at your statement--not mocking you, I just found it funny in light of the video--that "At this point, there is really no significant research to suggest that sucrose(simple table sugar) is any worse for one than so-called high fructose corn syrup."
You're very much correct...they're both equally bad! Anyway, like I said, not mocking you, and not trying to act holier than thou. Honestly, yesterday I ate half a bag of Doritos for lunch, so I can't go getting uppity about diet quality.
Great discussion, all. Cheers.
It has been a few years, but I once had a colleague who had worked for Coca Cola doing international business development and was high up in the company (regularly traveling with the CEO and other executives).
I asked him why Coke uses HFCS rather than sugar. At the time, I had read an article that said sugar prices were too volatile so HFCS was substituted for sugar to make the production costs more predictable.
He said this was BS, that the actual reason they use HFCS rather than sugar is because it forces foreign bottlers to adhere to the correct formula. Apparently when HFCS is used, even small deviations from the correct formula will cause strong stomachaches when you drink it, effectively making it un unsellable product. I don't know if this is true or not, but I thought it was a very interesting take on the subject. This colleague was highly trustworthy and I have no reason to doubt him, but it is possible he was simply misinformed himself.
Thanks, Sir-Lance-a-lot. Really on target. I thought the MD in the video made quite a few leaps of logic (ie correlation ---> causation), but I don't do metabolic/endocrine research. That said, industrialized food by and large can barely be called "food" and should be avoided. I am fascinated by the bizarre crap that fills the grocery aisles. And there is new crap in a dizzying array of colors every year that you can "eat".
If HONEY was half the price of hfcs, you would see HONEY being used to sweeten everything on the face of the earth. Is HONEY bad for you too?
asdasdasdqweq wrote:
the actual reason they use HFCS rather than sugar is because it forces foreign bottlers to adhere to the correct formula.
It may just be mislabeling, but Coca-Cola bottled in Mexico does not list HFCS. It lists Sugar as its sweetening agent. I find bottles like this at my corner store (in actual glass bottles like in the old days).
carbohydrates (sugars) 4 cal/gram
protein 4 cal/gram
alcohol 7 cal/gram
fats 9 cal/gram
I believe the only fuel the brain uses is glucose, nothing wrong with sugar (which sugar too? there are lots of them). Sugar doesn't make people fat, consuming more calories than one burns does. If I remember correctly, when the body stores glycogen (carbohydrate/sugar) it also stores water in about a 1 gram glycogen to 3 grams water ratio. That's why when people go on low carb diets they lose so much 'weight' (water mostly)- they use the glycogen releasing the stored water.
re: very interesting study on dairy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truthaboutfood/slim/calcium.shtml
The promised land - the land of milk and honey! My new training theory is eat what your body craves, it knows what it's doing. Years ago I tried that 'eat to win' approach and it was disasterous, worst year ever. If I crave it I must need it.
Coca Cola bottlers in the USA use HFCS because it is inexpensive compared to sugar. Until January of 2008, there was something like a "sugar war" going on between Mexico and the USA, where each country placed a high tariff on the other's imports (Mexico had sugar, USA had HFCS). This made Mexican cane sugar less expensive (in Mexico), so Mexican bottlers used cane sugar in their process. Since January of 2008, the tariffs on both sides were dropped, and Mexico has started to use HFCS in their bottling because it is cheaper. Also, licensing agreements have been changed between Coca Cola and its Mexican bottlers that require them to use HFCS.
In limited markets outside of Mexico, Coca Cola offers a kosher version made with cane sugar. Apparently HFCS is not kosher.
Honey is made up of fructose and glucose, just like table sugar. The minimal difference is that the two molecules are independent in honey, with no chemical bond like with table sugar. Honey contains trace amounts of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants, so from that perspective it is very slightly better...like a slower head-on collision.
The one thing that really got to me about the video is how much processing fructose requires in the liver, and the resultant products that processing puts into the body. The creation of VLDL is a particular problem for me, as well as the jacking of triglyceride levels. I will probably never have a weight problem because of sugar consumption, but my blood work has shown me I am at risk for cardiovascular problems. Definitely not worth the sugar fix for me.
I hve found no foods in my house that say they contain HFCS. I am wondering whether it isn't used in Australia?
Runners going around their house looking for HFCS aren't going to be very successful because exercisers generally have better diet habits. Go to Aunt Flo's house and look around her fridge and see the devil.
About 100% of Asians are lactose intolerant. 75% of the world is lactose intolerant. The sugars in milk, lactose and galactose, we are just not made to digest after infancy.
Here's a test to check for any food issues you may have. Upon waking have one serving of whatever food you are testing. Wait 30-60 minutes. Notice any digestive issues? Gas? (including belching), softened stool?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/482131_sidebar2
Common food allergies: eggs, milk, corn(because HFCS is in everything).
I look at dietary guidelines this way:
1. There is an Optimal way of doing things
2. There is a Realistic way of doing things
3. There is a Harmful way of doing things
If you can be in the 1-2 range instead of the 2-3 range you will be doing yourself a whole lot of good. The problem is that cage free eggs, grass fed beef, fresh fruits and vegetables from your local farmer or market that hasn't been sprayed to death are expensive and/or hard to find in some areas.
In some instances "going organic" can even be illegal such as in the case of raw milk. Raw milk is likely better for you due to the enzymes and bacteria present but of course can be potentially dangerous hence why the sale of raw milk is banned in 22 states. I think there was a sting operation and a "bust" in Kentucky recently....pretty comical if you think about it. I mean, it's milk....
Alan