This is seriously disturbing. Does anyone else see something wrong with the “arguments” against HFCS that are being thrown around? Is there anyone out their thinking critically? SOS!
[quote]brancron wrote:
This is seriously disturbing. Does anyone else see something wrong with the “arguments” against HFCS that are being thrown around? Is there anyone out their thinking critically? SOS![/quote]
Sorry for blanketing HFCS under the processed foods label. TO me, one in the same and in frustrates me to no end. No off the top of my head without going back through my books at home would I have anything to cite, and even then it may or may not be HFCS specific.
SO I suppose, if you really need understand that HFCS is more horrific than refined sugar, becuase of the negative impacts that the high amounts of corn we ingest produces well then i bow out graciously. Corn is everywhere…which is where my topic went since we are talking about HFCS.
[quote]brancron wrote:
This is seriously disturbing. Does anyone else see something wrong with the “arguments” against HFCS that are being thrown around? Is there anyone out their thinking critically? SOS![/quote]
Its not arguments, there have been alot of studies done showing the effects of it
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Grendle wrote:
Found this while seeing if there were different forms of fructose. Like Corn fructose is somehow different than apple fructose.
HFCS has a bunch of glucose attached to it from the enzymatic processing. It’s not really the same thing as fructose:
Corn syrup starts as corn “starch,” which is a long chain of glucose molecules bound together. The first step in making the corn syrup is separating the individual glucose molecules, and this is done using an enzyme.
It is a process similar to what goes into our digestive system when we eat starch. The next step uses a specialized enzyme that converts glucose into fructose. Not all the glucose gets converted, and the percentage of fructose in the final product depends on its intended use.
The typical corn syrup you find at the store is about 55 percent fructose (45 percent glucose), which is similar to honey. It is called a “high” fructose corn syrup (HFCS) because standard corn syrup is mostly glucose.
The “evil of HFCS” is that it’s easier to get more calories by consuming products with it, thus making you fatter.
Science question, do you need insulin to store nutrients? Supposedly and insulin spike will cause your body to store proteins carbs and fat. If there is any truth to fructose not causing the proper surge in insulin, wouldn’t that mean fat is not being stored? despite the fact that the liver is converting it to fat in the blood?
[/quote]
That was an error in the article on fructose. Forsythe left out the third pathway for fructose in the liver: ATP production. There are 3: glycogen, fatty acid synthesis, and ATP production. She conveniently left out the third. See the diagram I posted in the article discussion on the last page.
The bottom line is total calories: restriction makes you leaner, maintenance maintains, and excess causes you to gain muscle or fat, depending on your activity levels.
Al queda supports HFCS.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That was an error in the article on fructose. Forsythe left out the third pathway for fructose in the liver: ATP production. There are 3: glycogen, fatty acid synthesis, and ATP production. She conveniently left out the third. See the diagram I posted in the article discussion on the last page.
The bottom line is total calories: restriction makes you leaner, maintenance maintains, and excess causes you to gain muscle or fat, depending on your activity levels.
[/quote]
Hi,
I was just wondering why it matters that she left out ATP production in her discussion? I was hoping you could explain how this was convenient for her…other than the fact that it doesn’t seem all that relevant to her article at all.
Thanks PRCD
-Cloth
[quote]Cloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That was an error in the article on fructose. Forsythe left out the third pathway for fructose in the liver: ATP production. There are 3: glycogen, fatty acid synthesis, and ATP production. She conveniently left out the third. See the diagram I posted in the article discussion on the last page.
The bottom line is total calories: restriction makes you leaner, maintenance maintains, and excess causes you to gain muscle or fat, depending on your activity levels.
Hi,
I was just wondering why it matters that she left out ATP production in her discussion? I was hoping you could explain how this was convenient for her…other than the fact that it doesn’t seem all that relevant to her article at all.
Thanks PRCD
-Cloth[/quote]
I think I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots. Here’s the relevant portion of the original article:
[quote]Why fructose is a problem for dieters:
If you have a lot of fructose in your diet, it only has one place to go: your liver. If your liver glycogen levels are full, which is the case all times of the day except before you eat breakfast, then that fructose is turned into fat!
Since your liver doesn’t want to store this new fat, it ships it to other parts of your body; places you don’t want it, like your abdomen or lower back.
Do you now see why too much fructose in your diet can be one of the biggest reasons you can’t shrink those last few fat cells?[/quote]
I believe it’s part of a Government long term population control program. I mean which is easier to control cows or wolves? Cows are mindless bloated creatures that go where you prod them to.
Wolves on the other hand are lean, intelligent and dangerous. So which would you rather try and subdue a herd of cows, or a pack of wolves? So you introduce in massive quantities a useless nutrient deficient, caloric bloated ingredient into almost everything a consumer buys.
Then couple that with the no child left behind act and you got yourself generation after generation of a bloated and stupid population that you can sway whichever way one should choose. I mean lets face it they’re not really going to waste all the money making retards genius’ are they?
So why not under-challenge and under-educate all of our lower income possible genius’ and save a buck or two, oh and lets make em fat as well so they can’t fight back!!! I don’t think al quaeda is the only group that supports HFCS.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That was an error in the article on fructose. Forsythe left out the third pathway for fructose in the liver: ATP production. There are 3: glycogen, fatty acid synthesis, and ATP production. She conveniently left out the third. See the diagram I posted in the article discussion on the last page.
The bottom line is total calories: restriction makes you leaner, maintenance maintains, and excess causes you to gain muscle or fat, depending on your activity levels.
Hi,
I was just wondering why it matters that she left out ATP production in her discussion? I was hoping you could explain how this was convenient for her…other than the fact that it doesn’t seem all that relevant to her article at all.
Thanks PRCD
-Cloth
I think I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots. Here’s the relevant portion of the original article:
Why fructose is a problem for dieters:
If you have a lot of fructose in your diet, it only has one place to go: your liver. If your liver glycogen levels are full, which is the case all times of the day except before you eat breakfast, then that fructose is turned into fat!
Since your liver doesn’t want to store this new fat, it ships it to other parts of your body; places you don’t want it, like your abdomen or lower back.
Do you now see why too much fructose in your diet can be one of the biggest reasons you can’t shrink those last few fat cells?
[/quote]
I think you should revisit your biochemistry textbook. The proportion of substrates consumed in the CAC to provide ATP for liver cells, as opposed to fatty acid and glycogen synthesis is not great.
You should also take heed to what someone else said about your diagram, which is also on that same page. Just because fructose and glucose metabolism converge does not mean she is wrong. Important regulatory enzymes (phosphofructokinase for instance) are bypassed in fructose metabolism.
-Cloth
[quote]johnward82 wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
As for the ketchup and things, certified organic products cannot have HFCS in them. (At least for now. There is some pressure to make organic HFCS which is a complete joke.)
I thought that, HFCS could be organic as long as it was produced from say, organic corn and such. The term organic has become way too loose and to me anyway, means nothing. Eat whole foods. If your great grandmother doesnt see that its food, dont eat it. You will find foods taste better, the way they are supposed to.
It shouldnt even have to be said that processed foods blow.
[/quote]
Yeah, “The Omnivore’s Dilema” & “Good Calories, Bad Calories” should pretty much be required reading for any t-nationer. Between Pollan’s first hand accounts n’ Taube’s exhausting listing of studies it pretty much makes these sorta threads a mute point.
That said, you’ll pry my Heinz ketchup & A1 steak sauce from cold lifeless hand, even if they do have HFCS in them.
[quote]Cloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That was an error in the article on fructose. Forsythe left out the third pathway for fructose in the liver: ATP production. There are 3: glycogen, fatty acid synthesis, and ATP production. She conveniently left out the third. See the diagram I posted in the article discussion on the last page.
The bottom line is total calories: restriction makes you leaner, maintenance maintains, and excess causes you to gain muscle or fat, depending on your activity levels.
Hi,
I was just wondering why it matters that she left out ATP production in her discussion? I was hoping you could explain how this was convenient for her…other than the fact that it doesn’t seem all that relevant to her article at all.
Thanks PRCD
-Cloth
I think I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots. Here’s the relevant portion of the original article:
Why fructose is a problem for dieters:
If you have a lot of fructose in your diet, it only has one place to go: your liver. If your liver glycogen levels are full, which is the case all times of the day except before you eat breakfast, then that fructose is turned into fat!
Since your liver doesn’t want to store this new fat, it ships it to other parts of your body; places you don’t want it, like your abdomen or lower back.
Do you now see why too much fructose in your diet can be one of the biggest reasons you can’t shrink those last few fat cells?
I think you should revisit your biochemistry textbook. The proportion of substrates consumed in the CAC to provide ATP for liver cells, as opposed to fatty acid and glycogen synthesis is not great.
You should also take heed to what someone else said about your diagram, which is also on that same page. Just because fructose and glucose metabolism converge does not mean she is wrong. Important regulatory enzymes (phosphofructokinase for instance) are bypassed in fructose metabolism.
-Cloth[/quote]
I looked at Harper’s Illustrated Biochemistry. Page 181 discusses metabolism of large quantities of fructose (HFCS), which does lead to the production of more fatty acids. However, this doesn’t mean that these fatty acids will be converted into fat.
In a state of calorie restriction, these fatty acids will stay in the liver and be converted back into glucose via gluconeogenesis for energy. Fructose does admittedly bypass the regulatory enzymes you mentioned, but this is secondary to the caloric deficit or excess.
Under low levels of fructose consumption, i.e. normal fruit intake, this isn’t even a problem except in certain people who have a fructose intolerance.
All the scientific proof in the world is uneccessary if you just take a look around. Most people’s diet contains LOADS of HFCS. All of these people are getting fat. And not just fat. They are getting obese.
To the point of serious health risk! People are just carrying around loads of blubber because they eat processed junk and fastfood all day. All of which contain HFCS.
If you just eat clean real food all the time, assuming you aren’t already obese, you can maintain at the very most around the 16% bodyfat mark. You’d be consuming calories that actually counts as nutrients, and therefore could never look “processed food fat”.
[quote]mthomps wrote:
All the scientific proof in the world is uneccessary if you just take a look around. Most people’s diet contains LOADS of HFCS. All of these people are getting fat. And not just fat. They are getting obese. To the point of serious health risk! People are just carrying around loads of blubber because they eat processed junk and fastfood all day. All of which contain HFCS.
If you just eat clean real food all the time, assuming you aren’t already obese, you can maintain at the very most around the 16% bodyfat mark. You’d be consuming calories that actually counts as nutrients, and therefore could never look “processed food fat”.[/quote]
People are indeed becoming fat fucks, but it undermines the importance of the problem to assert that there’s something particularly evil about HFCS and that its ubiquitousness indicates some sort of conspiracy. The overconsumption of simple carbohydrates (all types of sugars) is what’s causing obesity.
I just finished a bowl of Kellog’s All-Bran. I checked the ingredients list and found (GASP!) high fructose corn syrup listed after baking soda. Should I be concerned? No. There is less than 1g of sugars per serving of the stuff. Why is HFCS in my All-Bran? To make me obese? No. It enhances moisture control, retards spoilage and extends product freshness, among many other things.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Cloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Cloth wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That was an error in the article on fructose. Forsythe left out the third pathway for fructose in the liver: ATP production. There are 3: glycogen, fatty acid synthesis, and ATP production. She conveniently left out the third. See the diagram I posted in the article discussion on the last page.
The bottom line is total calories: restriction makes you leaner, maintenance maintains, and excess causes you to gain muscle or fat, depending on your activity levels.
Hi,
I was just wondering why it matters that she left out ATP production in her discussion? I was hoping you could explain how this was convenient for her…other than the fact that it doesn’t seem all that relevant to her article at all.
Thanks PRCD
-Cloth
I think I’ll leave it to you to connect the dots. Here’s the relevant portion of the original article:
Why fructose is a problem for dieters:
If you have a lot of fructose in your diet, it only has one place to go: your liver. If your liver glycogen levels are full, which is the case all times of the day except before you eat breakfast, then that fructose is turned into fat!
Since your liver doesn’t want to store this new fat, it ships it to other parts of your body; places you don’t want it, like your abdomen or lower back.
Do you now see why too much fructose in your diet can be one of the biggest reasons you can’t shrink those last few fat cells?
I think you should revisit your biochemistry textbook. The proportion of substrates consumed in the CAC to provide ATP for liver cells, as opposed to fatty acid and glycogen synthesis is not great.
You should also take heed to what someone else said about your diagram, which is also on that same page. Just because fructose and glucose metabolism converge does not mean she is wrong. Important regulatory enzymes (phosphofructokinase for instance) are bypassed in fructose metabolism.
-Cloth
I looked at Harper’s Illustrated Biochemistry. Page 181 discusses metabolism of large quantities of fructose (HFCS), which does lead to the production of more fatty acids. However, this doesn’t mean that these fatty acids will be converted into fat.
In a state of calorie restriction, these fatty acids will stay in the liver and be converted back into glucose via gluconeogenesis for energy. Fructose does admittedly bypass the regulatory enzymes you mentioned, but this is secondary to the caloric deficit or excess.
Under low levels of fructose consumption, i.e. normal fruit intake, this isn’t even a problem except in certain people who have a fructose intolerance.
[/quote]
Agree with everything you just said. I just think it is a bit daft to say the author is wrong because she left out ATP synthesis as an end product of glucose metabolism. She wasn’t wrong; it just wasn’t relevant.
-Cloth
I think the whole concept of hiding highly processed nutrients in all different types of food is resonsible for alot of bad health. HFCS may not be bad under certain doses, but they are in everything. Often with other things like soy protein.
You can have a breakfast serial, goto subway, get a salad and find that they put HFCS and soy protein in the chicken “breast”, along with a whole bunch of other crap.
Its surprising how many full blown problems and potential problems dissapear once you remove processed foods from you diet. Send all the cheap processed food to places that need it.
[quote]brancron wrote:
I just finished a bowl of Kellog’s All-Bran. I checked the ingredients list and found (GASP!) high fructose corn syrup listed after baking soda. Should I be concerned? No. There is less than 1g of sugars per serving of the stuff. Why is HFCS in my All-Bran? To make me obese? No. It enhances moisture control, retards spoilage and extends product freshness, among many other things.
[/quote]
It’s the ‘many other things’ that should cause for alarm. Especially when there are much healthier alternatives that are not in use all due to profit margin.
[quote]Grendle wrote:
brancron wrote:
I just finished a bowl of Kellog’s All-Bran. I checked the ingredients list and found (GASP!) high fructose corn syrup listed after baking soda. Should I be concerned? No. There is less than 1g of sugars per serving of the stuff. Why is HFCS in my All-Bran? To make me obese? No. It enhances moisture control, retards spoilage and extends product freshness, among many other things.
It’s the ‘many other things’ that should cause for alarm. Especially when there are much healthier alternatives that are not in use all due to profit margin.[/quote]
Should you really want to base your diet around foods that wont rot, spoil, go bad? Why not just eat some toasted styrofoam oaties
I don’t understand what the talk about HFCS in ketchup is all about. The only thing I can think of that I’ve ever eaten with ketchup are KD, fries, grilled cheese and scrambled eggs. Other than the eggs, if you’re eating that stuff, HFCS in your ketchup is the least of your worries. Eggs taste much better with Louisiana Hot Sauce, anyway.
Ingredients: Cayenne Peppers, Vinegar, Water
Some brands change the order around and add salt or xanthan gum, but it’s easy to find them with just those three. Many, many foods taste infinitely better with some of that on top.
@johnward82
Given your outspokenness on the issue of eating natural, I can’t help but wonder; what’s in the two cups you’ve got in your avatar? Rum and unprocessed Coke? 
eff HFCS eff sugar
[quote]brancron wrote:
mthomps wrote:
All the scientific proof in the world is uneccessary if you just take a look around. Most people’s diet contains LOADS of HFCS. All of these people are getting fat. And not just fat. They are getting obese. To the point of serious health risk! People are just carrying around loads of blubber because they eat processed junk and fastfood all day. All of which contain HFCS.
If you just eat clean real food all the time, assuming you aren’t already obese, you can maintain at the very most around the 16% bodyfat mark. You’d be consuming calories that actually counts as nutrients, and therefore could never look “processed food fat”.
People are indeed becoming fat fucks, but it undermines the importance of the problem to assert that there’s something particularly evil about HFCS and that its ubiquitousness indicates some sort of conspiracy. The overconsumption of simple carbohydrates (all types of sugars) is what’s causing obesity.
I just finished a bowl of Kellog’s All-Bran. I checked the ingredients list and found (GASP!) high fructose corn syrup listed after baking soda. Should I be concerned? No. There is less than 1g of sugars per serving of the stuff. Why is HFCS in my All-Bran? To make me obese? No. It enhances moisture control, retards spoilage and extends product freshness, among many other things.
[/quote]
I really think you are underestimating just how bad this stuff is for you. Your body doesn’t even recognize it as a nutrient. Like stated earlier, its man made processed syrup thats sweeter and cheaper than sugar, so potent that your body can’t do anything with it but story it as fat. And ugly fat at that. Mounds of it, stored above and below your muscles.
Eating too much oatmeal or sweet patatoes doesn’t cause fat to get underneath your muscle, which causes fat guys to have abs but a huge round stomach at the same time.
Even if you load up on carbs (real carbs with real nutrients) you can’t get obese.
You need to investigate peoples diets that you know that are obese. Look at their cupboards. Look in their fridges. Its all in pretty boxes with health claims and an ingredients list that looks like it could be sources for a science journal.
Yeah if the only thing you eat with it is a bowl of cereal with ‘1 gram’ of it per serving you probably won’t get obese. But peoples diets are made up of products (note products, not food) that contain this shit in everything they eat. And when everything you eat, or atleast half, has this stuff, You are in for major health problems and an ugly body.