Building High-Performance Muscle™
Shugart's Hammer
 
Eating Hell
 

Kurtis Frank
Contributor

Join date: Sep 2009
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 1133

Cookies are passe, now it's almond flour muffins.

  Report
 

Weevo
Level 10

Join date: Sep 2008
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 755

Haven't actually tried them yet. I like where this is going though.

  Report
 

Xab
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2009
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 887

Another winner! I'm sick to death of seeing these crap health claims. It's been decades since we disproved Ansel Keys' bullshit Lipid Hypothesis, but people still avoid eggs like they're poison and cram all the bread down their throat that they possibly can.

I'm honestly starting to think that 80% of the humans out there just don't care. They meander through college, get a degree, take the first job they find, and slowly die in a cubicle over the next 40 years. And the whole time, they just don't care. Passed up for a promotion? Oh well. Diagnosed with diabetes? Meh. Chance to travel somewhere new on vacaction? Nah, what's on TV?

I really don't get it. Human tenacity has achieved incredible things. How can so many people be nothing more than cancerous lumps on the human race? How can a sentient human being honestly just sit life out and never achieve anything?

I guess it makes sense why all the fat dietitians and retarded magazine editors can get away with what they do... if they all tell the same lie, well, that's easy enough to believe.

  Report
 

AlexC1
Level

Join date: Apr 2010
Location: West Virginia, USA
Posts: 86

Xab wrote:
Another winner! I'm sick to death of seeing these crap health claims. It's been decades since we disproved Ansel Keys' bullshit Lipid Hypothesis, but people still avoid eggs like they're poison and cram all the bread down their throat that they possibly can.

I'm honestly starting to think that 80% of the humans out there just don't care. They meander through college, get a degree, take the first job they find, and slowly die in a cubicle over the next 40 years. And the whole time, they just don't care. Passed up for a promotion? Oh well. Diagnosed with diabetes? Meh. Chance to travel somewhere new on vacaction? Nah, what's on TV?

I really don't get it. Human tenacity has achieved incredible things. How can so many people be nothing more than cancerous lumps on the human race? How can a sentient human being honestly just sit life out and never achieve anything?

I guess it makes sense why all the fat dietitians and retarded magazine editors can get away with what they do... if they all tell the same lie, well, that's easy enough to believe.


Ack, can't figure out how to post pics: http://blog.andymerrick.com/...0/03/wall-e.jpg

  Report
 

therajraj
Level 1

Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Ontario, CAN
Posts: 10767

^man I gotta see that movie people keep talking about it

  Report
 

MissPlucky
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 207

Wow.

This is downright vicious.


I enjoyed the Hammer a lot more when it wasn't about ripping into people we don't agree with.

  Report
 

floridagirl
Level

Join date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 120

Chris Shugart wrote:
In other words, if they can go into the field seeing that HFCS is clearly bad and not come out robotically saying "It's the same as sugar, and it's all about calories in, calories out. Hey, who wants a frosty Coke?", then they'll be fine.


I think that you may be mixing up correlation with causality.

The U.S. government gives agricultural subsidies for a limited number of crops: corn, wheat, soy, and rice; some numbers here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/89...

Thus corn syrup becomes cheaper to produce than sugar, and therefore HFCS makes its way into more of our processed food. Ditto soybean and cottonseed oils. Corstjeir said, "You do realize that once we started adding HFCS into everything we started getting fat?", I think that it is indicative of a problem but not necessarily with anything inherent to HFCS. "Adding HFCS into everything" is strongly correlated with the production of calorie-dense processed snack foods becoming cheaper and more widespread.

As of 2005, soda edged out white bread as the main calorie source for Americans ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/...50527111920.htm ). If we replaced the HFCS in soda with sucrose, do you think that would impact obesity rates? Or is the problem that people are drinking so much soda that it's their #1 source of calories??

When it comes to human behavior it is really difficult to isolate one lone causal factor since the human experience is complex. If someone is obese and consumes a lot of processed foods made with HFCS, is she fat because of the corn syrup? Or is it that HFCS makes its way into a lot of calorically-dense low-satiety processed convenience foods which a given obese person may be consuming a lot of?

We can't squarely point the finger at carbs, IMO, because there's not a control group with which to compare it. The people who eat a high-fat, high-protein, low-carb diet are, by necessity, eating more whole and homemade foods. That is, Little Debbie doesn't make almond meal ho-hos (though maybe that will be Shugs' next recipe? ;) ). Carbs are tightly linked with Big Agra and sociological issues such as the grocery gap ( http://tinyurl.com/2dwzmec ) which lead to obesity. The comparison you have is people eating HFCS-laden cereal for breakfast (who likely fill up their bowl rather than measuring out a measly serving) versus a breakfast of scrambled eggs with veggies. We're NOT comparing people who eat lots of HFCS versus people who eat lots of sucrose.

I'm not 100% on board with "a calorie is a calorie"; personally I had to reduce carbs quite a bit to get from slim to lean (the book, "The Ketogenic Diet" was very helpful for me here). But there is a difference between going from slim to lean, and going from obese to "normal". I think that the soda-guzzling, fast-food-eating super-fatties that Shugart likes to decry would probably lose quite a bit of weight just from keeping their calories in check. Chances are the problem isn't that their soda has HFCS instead of sucrose if they're drinking them with every meal.

  Report
 

BradenW
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2007
Location: Alberta, CAN
Posts: 48

I generally agree with floridagirl. I remember as a kid my parent's taking us to restaurants and often complaining about the small portion sizes. When was the last time you ate out and thought you weren't getting enough food?

However, you can't ignore that fructose and sucrose are by definition different molecules, and there is growing evidence that fructose has very different metabolism in the human body. Here's just one example:

http://www.nutritionandmetabol...

And that is my biggest concern ...

  Report
 

corstijeir
Level 100

Join date: Mar 2010
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3313

Floridagirl you make some good points - I'm not blaming HFCS for everything, im blaming our consumption of it. It's gotten out of hand. However if all soda's were suddenly made diet-- watch how the pounds would disappear from a lot of people.

Also if hamburger buns were made like bread was made 2,000 years ago people would lose weight then.( there is no denying that the way bread is now is horrible compared to even 100 years ago )

We have become a society of consumption, we constantly want bigger drinks, burgers, fries, etc. The root issues need to be addressed but I think before that will ever happen we have to make people hate fat people and hate all the bad foods. Just my opinion for what it's worth.

  Report
 

floridagirl
Level

Join date: Jan 2007
Location:
Posts: 120

BradenW wrote:
I generally agree with floridagirl. I remember as a kid my parent's taking us to restaurants and often complaining about the small portion sizes. When was the last time you ate out and thought you weren't getting enough food?

However, you can't ignore that fructose and sucrose are by definition different molecules, and there is growing evidence that fructose has very different metabolism in the human body. Here's just one example:

http://www.nutritionandmetabol...

And that is my biggest concern ...


Sucrose is a disaccharide, with each molecule consisting of one part fructose, one part glucose. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose. So in terms of sugar composition, table sugar and HFCS are very, very similar.

  Report
 

BradenW
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2007
Location: Alberta, CAN
Posts: 48

floridagirl wrote:
Sucrose is a disaccharide, with each molecule consisting of one part fructose, one part glucose. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose. So in terms of sugar composition, table sugar and HFCS are very, very similar.


Can't argue with that. My concern arises when we remove the hydrolysis step.

To wit: if I were to eat 100g of HFCS 55 I would get 55g of fructose. If I were to eat 100g of sucrose, I *might* get 50g of fructose, depending on my intestinal levels of sucrase. But the fact that there are carbohydrate-intolerant people that do not secrete sucrase in the intestines at all, and conditions (e.g. pregnancy) in which higher than "normal" sucrase is secreted, implies that there are likely all ranges in between, and the actual yield of fructose/glucose from sucrose is variable.

But I think we are getting nit-picky here. The fact is, people tend to do *everything* in excess, and moderation would go a very long way in reducing obesity.

  Report
 

'nuffsaid
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 524

WebEyE wrote:
You already quoted LL somewhere on this one:

Lonnie Lowery:
Think population specificity. We, bodybuilders and athletes, are a very specific population. Whole grains may indeed help someone who normally starts his day with greasy McDonald's hash browns. But our population, the physique-conscious crowd, is light years ahead of the regular population. What may be a step forward for them would be a step backward for us."


Fits in nicely, i think.



Nice quote above. And love the "Children of the Corn Syrup" caption!

I have begun reading "The End of Overeating" (thanks for the recommendation Chris!. Interestingly, this book has been mentioed in a local women's magazine).

I am gobsmacked, not so much at all the added fat and sugar to various non-home-cooked foods - I kind of expected and knew that - but the fact that these foods are sometimes cooked three or four times in fat and sugar, and that each element of these foods has added fat and sugar, salt, binders etc.

Never thought about them having fat, salt and sugar etc added more than once...foolish, perhaps.

Half-way through the book...

  Report
 

'nuffsaid
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 524

barn-e wrote:
Poor little Skynet is insulted that we're ignoring him? I'll have a go.

I'm not sure what the electron dot structure of HFCS has to do with your argument, since HFCS is a combination of two sugars. I'd be more concerned with the systemic issues. For example, the fructose part of HFCS is absorbed directly in the small intestine without transformation, unlike glucose. So yes, there is something different about fructose.

Oh wait, there's more. Fructose can be transported across cell membranes by either GLUT5 or GLUT2 transporters. Glucose can only be transported via GLUT2 transporters, so fructose is handled more efficiently than glucose. And apparently the presence of fructose will tend to increase the number of GLUT5 transporters. So yes, there is something different about fructose.

But fructose is eventually broken down to glucose, right? Sure but that only happens in the liver. Glucose tends to pass straight through the liver. Part of the process of breaking down fructose produces uric acid, which can lead to gout (maybe.) So yes, there is something different about fructose.

Have you heard of those nasty AGEs? Advanced glycation end products? They are believed to be responsible for all sorts of degenerative diseases, including eye problems in diabetics. One study observed 10x the glycation rate by fructose over glucose. So yes, there is something different about fructose.

Anybody else want to chip in?


Only to say: "Please continue."

  Report
 

CappedAndPlanIt
Level 2

Join date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 3406

How the hell are people defending HFCS here? I just dont get it.

  Report
 

carbiduis
Level

Join date: Feb 2010
Location:
Posts: 769

So, what some of you are saying is that if we take FAT-FUCK#1 (who drinks a case of pepsi everyday) and give him "throwback" Pepsi instead*(has real sugar in it instead of HFCS), he will loose weight?

If we replace ALL HFCS in ALL our foods with REAL sugar, we will see a general dip in obesity?

....yeah-fucking-right



And also, I would argue that people started getting fatter in the 80's due to the fact that highly processed food consumption increased. It doesn't matter if they use(d) real sugar or HFCS, they will both make you fat if you eat the processed foods, it's just that the manufacturers chose HFCS since it is cheaper.

  Report
 

popupwindow
Level

Join date: Jan 2010
Location:
Posts: 82

CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How the hell are people defending HFCS here? I just dont get it.



Because everyones setting up a set of strawman arguments against things like fructose. Someone says HFCS isn't significantly worse than sucrose, due to their similar chemical structures. Then people go off on these rants about the perils of fructose, when even if you have a heap of sugar like 100g in a day, 50g of that is fructose. If you had 100g of HFCS then 55g if fructose. Do you really think 5g of fructose is the difference between leanness and obesity? Sure, huge amounts of fructose aren't going to do you much good, but who's recommending that? 50g fructose a day for someone eating in caloric balance or deficit and regularly depleting liver glycogen through exercise is nothing to worry about.

So people are completely missing the forrest for the trees. If someone is drinking 6 cans of soda a day, it's not the slight extra amount of fructose due to HFCS making them fat, it's the 6 goddam cans of soda a day making them fat. Do you think if sucrose, or even dextrose (with no fructose in it) were used in those beverages that it would make people less fat? I've seen multiple people swear off fruit after this fructose alarmism. FRUIT! People are scared to eat fruit because of the fructose content. What is the world coming to at that point. That's what happens when you demonise one sub-category of a macronutrient, people miss the big picture.

You want a large scale HFCS control group? Here, I'll give you one. In Australia there is virtually no HFCS, as the corn industries/subsidies etc are different. However, there's plenty of sugar, refined carbs, high caloric density and low satiety foods, liquid calories, large serving sizes and heaps of inactivity. Yet Australians are just about as fat as Americans, maybe slightly fatter, haven't checked the exact stats. Incredible isn't it how they got fat without HFCS?

Look at the big picture, people are getting 10% of their calories from soft drink, no vegan/paleo/WW/zone/atkins/pritkins or anyone is suggesting that is okay, virtually all health groups encourage exercise, people aren't doing that. So how about we look at things that will actually make a difference like not drinking so much soft drink and being so sedentary, vs. freaking out if HFCS is uniquely fattening.

  Report
 

CappedAndPlanIt
Level 2

Join date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 3406

popupwindow wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
How the hell are people defending HFCS here? I just dont get it.



Because everyones setting up a set of strawman arguments against things like fructose. Someone says HFCS isn't significantly worse than sucrose, due to their similar chemical structures. Then people go off on these rants about the perils of fructose, when even if you have a heap of sugar like 100g in a day, 50g of that is fructose. If you had 100g of HFCS then 55g if fructose. Do you really think 5g of fructose is the difference between leanness and obesity? Sure, huge amounts of fructose aren't going to do you much good, but who's recommending that? 50g fructose a day for someone eating in caloric balance or deficit and regularly depleting liver glycogen through exercise is nothing to worry about.

So people are completely missing the forrest for the trees. If someone is drinking 6 cans of soda a day, it's not the slight extra amount of fructose due to HFCS making them fat, it's the 6 goddam cans of soda a day making them fat. Do you think if sucrose, or even dextrose (with no fructose in it) were used in those beverages that it would make people less fat? I've seen multiple people swear off fruit after this fructose alarmism. FRUIT! People are scared to eat fruit because of the fructose content. What is the world coming to at that point. That's what happens when you demonise one sub-category of a macronutrient, people miss the big picture.

You want a large scale HFCS control group? Here, I'll give you one. In Australia there is virtually no HFCS, as the corn industries/subsidies etc are different. However, there's plenty of sugar, refined carbs, high caloric density and low satiety foods, liquid calories, large serving sizes and heaps of inactivity. Yet Australians are just about as fat as Americans, maybe slightly fatter, haven't checked the exact stats. Incredible isn't it how they got fat without HFCS?

Look at the big picture, people are getting 10% of their calories from soft drink, no vegan/paleo/WW/zone/atkins/pritkins or anyone is suggesting that is okay, virtually all health groups encourage exercise, people aren't doing that. So how about we look at things that will actually make a difference like not drinking so much soft drink and being so sedentary, vs. freaking out if HFCS is uniquely fattening.



Good post. The problem with HFCS goes a bit beyond just the effects on the body.

First, economics - HFCS is so cheap and gives products a much longer shelf life. So, it is in every companies interest to pack their food with HFCS. And the result is we're surrounded by HFCS-filled shit food. Which leads to the next problem, prevalence. Its not a matter of HFCS vs sucrose vs dextrose. Its a matter of HFCS in bread, sauces, muffins, bagels, drinks, salad dressings, damn near everything you find in the supermarket.

Another part of the problem is consumer habits. People dont generally stick to strict diets, especially when beset on all sides by shit food backed with a billion dollar marketing industry designed to get them to eat it. Super-sizing came about because of the consumer habit of refusing to buy two of something (It was popcorn, I believe). The only way to get the people he was selling to to buy more was to make the serving size bigger, so they could still be having "only one" box of popcorn. Nothing before that had been stopping them from buying two of the smaller boxes, except that consumers dont generally do that. Its harder to rationalize.

Back to economics - the low cost of production and long shelf life allows for HFCS laden food to be cheap, playing on peoples sense of smart consumerism (if I can go from medium to large for only 23 cents, I'd be crazy not to! its a better deal!). And then add in the "its immoral to waste food because other people are starving" mentality and it's easy to understand why so many people overeat and, as a result, are overweight.

And again, back to normal habits - its better for people to go overboard in the anti-fuctose direction then in the "its not so bad" direction. People will rationalize what a "little bit" is, until their diet is full of it. If you recommend "moderate intake", people go overboard. If you recommend "none at all", people actually get the "moderate intake".

So, in a vacuum, no, HFCS/sugar are not "uniquely fattening", but it does carry with it some fairly unique problems.

  Report
 

AndreiG
Level 2

Join date: May 2011
Location: Holland
Posts: 80

One way to see whether there are any benefits from sugar as opposed to HFCS as opposed to neither. Just eat a lot of (depends on what your definition is) sugar for a month. Record how you feel. Have a month with no sugar. Then have a month where you eat HFCS in a large proportion of your meals. Then record how you feel.

I'm not a scientist and don't have a degree in nutrition so I cannot predict the result. But if people have doubts one way or the other surely they could become guinea pigs and try it out on themselves. Maybe it works and you feel great, maybe you will get really sick.


Personally I will try to stay away from all sugar and HCFC, even if these things are not as evil as some claim, they simply don't do anything for me...even limit the fruit I eat. Chocolate could be difficult though :)

  Report