General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFructose and HFCS: Once again the "skeptics"* are wrong.
All sugars are not the same. Sorry.
(*For those who actually practice skepticism, you were waiting for scientific validation of the thesis one way or the other, so I'm not talking to you)
Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html
Americans get most of their fructose in foods that are sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid sweetener made from corn starch, and from sweetened drinks, syrups, honey and desserts. The Department of Agriculture estimates that Americans consumed an average of about 27 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup in 2014. Fructose is also found is in most baby food and in fruit, although the fiber in fruit substantially slows the body's absorption of the sugarand fruit contains other healthy components that protect the brain and body, Yang said.
To test the effects of fructose and DHA, the researchers trained rats to escape from a maze, and then randomly divided the animals into three groups. For the next six weeks, one group of rats drank water with an amount of fructose that would be roughly equivalent to a person drinking a liter of soda per day. The second group was given fructose water and a diet rich in DHA. The third received water without fructose and no DHA.
After the six weeks, the rats were put through the maze again. The animals that had been given only the fructose navigated the maze about half as fast than the rats that drank only waterindicating that the fructose diet had impaired their memory. The rats that had been given fructose and DHA, however, showed very similar results to those that only drank waterwhich strongly suggests that the DHA eliminated fructose's harmful effects.
Other tests on the rats revealed more major differences: The rats receiving a high-fructose diet had much higher blood glucose, triglycerides and insulin levels than the other two groups. Those results are significant because in humans, elevated glucose, triglycerides and insulin are linked to obesity, diabetes and many other diseases.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)corn syrup.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)jomin41
(559 posts)Ka-ching...Ka-ching...Ka-ching...Ka-ching
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)jomin41
(559 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Whether you're a self-appointed volunteer who actually believes the bullshit you post or an employee of their PR office is irrelevant. Very nearly your sole function on this board is to dispense the talking points of the GMO industry. It doesn't matter if you also occasionally get a fact straight, because all you ever do is instrumental, it's always pushing the agenda. You post about almost nothing else except a bit of other propaganda abusing the idea of "skepticism." So what's your connection to the GMO industry? Will you be honest? It may not involve your being directly employed to do this but certainly you've developed either a direct contractual relationship or an emotional one due to earlier experiences.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That has nothing to do with any industry. If you can prove me wrong, I will acknowledge it. Can you?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)You mean, you abuse a term for which you show no understanding by repeating it the same way religious nuts use "god."
I asked you a simple question: Who do you work for, whom did you work for, or what connection do you have to the GMO industry? No one can make you say the truth. Yet you don't answer.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I have no connection to anyone in any GMO industry.
Your inability to discuss the matters at hand is noted, yet again.
Why do you think it's ok for the OP to spread misinformation?
And why do you think it's ok for you to spread Vandana Shiva's misinformation?
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-myths-of-vandana-shiva/
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Your tedious repetition of the word doesn't make it so.
Vandana Shiva can defend herself very well!
http://vandanashiva.com/
Your tendency to adopt the McCarthyite style is also noted.
You have a way of non-denial denial. When you post here, are you working for anyone? Are you writing on behalf of a specific interest that you share in defending the present food production system, as an employee, shareholder or other stakeholder? What's your claim to expertise? When did you study these subjects? (Because your simple posting of links doesn't establish that, see?)
(By the way, to your other insinuation: I don't live on this board, always ready to pounce with the exact same bullshit talking points always on the same narrow set of subjects, like some people suspiciously do. So it may be days or longer before I reply.)
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And you have been shown that. She lies constantly. Why are you promoting something that cannot be defended with evidence and science? Why are you defending people who clearly lie to make money off of the vulnerable? That is not ok.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/25/seeds-of-doubt
So you want to play logical fallacy games? Look. I can discuss the matters at hand, and show that the science supports my claims. My background does not matter. The fact that you don't understand that is part of the problem. You want to dismiss the real world via a back door that has no purpose.
Either show that you understand the issues, or don't. I don't think you can. When I post something that you think is inaccurate, prove it. This is not hard stuff.
You have promoted scam artists like Shiva at DU, and you attack me with pure ugly nonsense that appears to have no real purpose, and on an OP that pushes disinformation. It's time for you to take a long look in the mirror.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)People can read and judge for themselves who is a scam artist.
Seeds of Truth A response to The New Yorker
http://vandanashiva.com/?p=105
Your background need not matter, if you had anything to offer. Hell, if you're an actual practicing scientist, you could say so.
Repeating that you are right does not make you right, nor does your constant abusive repetition of "science" or "evidence" mean you are right, and your McCarthyite style only makes it all look worse for you.
The way you so consistently show up to say the same wrong things over and over is what makes you suspicious as someone who's probably on a payroll or otherwise carrying an interest to do this. That is something you have never definitively denied, only in selective fashions that further raise suspicion.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's really not anyone else's fault.
And you post nonsense from the scam artist herself as evidence of what? That she doesn't like the truth being told about her?
Oh, and silly sarcasm doesn't help your case. It just shows that you can't discuss the issues.
You do what you accuse me of doing, and it's rather humorous. Or it should be. I don't have to deny things. That is juvenile silliness. Either support your claims, or go away. You and i both know you can't support your claims, so...
Name one lie I've made, specifically, and prove that it's a lie. Thank you.
You have been shown several made by Shiva, and yet you persist in defending her. Why is that? What are you gaining by defending her?
https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/vandana-shiva-fanatic-or-fantasist/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)He should get s job spreading FUD...he is good at it. Never mind we just laugh.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Too bad your obsessive repeats make no sense at all.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You might fool the already fooled, but no one else is going to buy your act, since you can't support your fictions.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Keep ignoring simple chemistry. It's sad to watch.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It is hysterical. You beed a letter of recommendation?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Thanks for noticing
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I'm not so sure about the pipe cleaner, though.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You honestly believe I care about your so called personal attacks
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:59 PM - Edit history (1)
The irony is noted in the fact that you had say it instead of show it.
Indeed.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Deal logically with some of the people here, but I appreciate your taking HuckleB on so I don't have to!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)"Logically." When have you ever bothered to try that? What is logical about anything Jack has posted?
You posted this, right?
http://www.sciencegymnasium.com/2013/12/5-mind-blowing-things-science-still.html
Should we discuss your anti-vaccine posts?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=837746
Logic?
Poor Jack.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)they are going to come and take you away!
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)a caffeine-infused underwear wedgie? You sure work yourself into a dither whenever any of us refuse to drink the high fructose kool-aid you always push!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Your vast expertise boiled down into pithy inarticulate noise. Why do you care so damn much if some of us try to limit chemicals, pesticides, and carcinogens from our diets? Why do you care if I don't want to eat your GMOs or prefer to buy organic food? It's no skin off your nose what I choose to eat. Or not eat.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)If you had ever bothered to attempt to discuss or understand anything, you might have appoint, but you have not, so you have no point.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That's for sure. Why do you think it's ok for the OP to spread misinformation?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why can't you show that I am wrong? That's something you should seriously ask yourself. Also, why do you think it's ok for the OP to promote misinformation?
sense
(1,219 posts)Always the same posters, always shilling and calling anyone with a brain stupid, deluded or woo woo followers. I can't fathom why they're allowed to continue to bully here.... or maybe I can.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And your ad hominem attacks are ok?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)outright lie about us?
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Quite a while back, a new guy with cancer asked a question there about alternative health and they were just as mean to him as they are here.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The fictions you promote are mean to everyone.
sense
(1,219 posts)I expect this site to be progressive and yet, any discussion that is not fully supportive of big ag, big pharma, gmo's, etc. is shut down. They arrive together, yet pretending they are not, to support each other, posting "science" funded by the above and slamming all who won't drink their kool-aid.
We need to think outside the corporate box, instead of buying into the very crap that's made so many on the planet ill. Not to mention made the planet itself ill. More processing, more poison, more drugs but no cure isn't the way to go for the 99%. All it does is make the obscenely wealthy even more so.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Scary.
sense
(1,219 posts)Right on schedule.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You want this site to promote scams. That's not ok. Fix yourself and get back to us.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And you probably should have figured out that the study has nothing to do with HFCS. It was just added as click-bait by the crap source, and the OP decided to pretend that it did, and then attacked people who care about the actual science with baseless nonsense.
Whoops.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)GMO guys claim consensus. But that's not evidence. And the consensus most often cited is not of scientists.
--imm
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)This new reference of yours uses a bait and switch to try to give the impression that there's a consensus on GMOs something like the wave of near unanimity of climate scientists. But it meanders over to the AAAS poll for evidence(?) and then the meta studies with the feed lot, antibiotic fed slaughter. Might as well poll a Trekkie convention. Nothing new from you.
They even reference Cook and Nuccitelli!
--imm
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)No one is surprised.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)But it somehow fascinates you.
--imm
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Nicely done.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)--imm
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)The only thing that HFCS and sugar have in common is that they are both devoid of nutrition. We don't need to eat them at all.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That could have negative effects...
djean111
(14,255 posts)There is sugar (glucose) in a lot of foods. I do not add sugar to anything. Keeping it on hand for friends who put sugar in tea and coffee, I once threw out a half a bag (4 lb. bag) of sugar when I realized, by looking at the coupon printed on it, that it was about seven years old. I didn't think it had gone bad, but maybe stale or something.
Got to 70, with no health problems so far.
My truck (big old Dodge Ram, the power steering went out years ago and I drove it with no power steering for about eight years. Used to laugh when someone borrowed and I warned them, and they made a face when they realized how much harder it is.) was broke down for a while last summer - I walked a three mile round trip to the grocery store maybe every other day, in heat that "feels like 110", lugging heavy groceries home in a two wheel cart - and just got sweaty.
Still lift heavy stuff when I need to - two days ago I helped my much younger next door neighbor pick up his lawn mower and put it in his car trunk. I took the heavy end - evidently a lot of people have bad backs. Yeah, I know lots of things are genetic and just luck There is sugar (glucose) in a lot of foods. I will stick with that, and pure Stevia for sweetening. I have this same discussion with my grandson, about sugar.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Be afraid! Be very afraid!
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)That substance is always Gm, and it is an exocitin that parlays the brain's wiring into a confusion.
Fruit is a far better alternative than something with HFCS and MSG. And fruit has the benefits of vitamins and minerals, unlike 92% of the crap that is marketed with HFCS and MSG.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Yes, fruit sugars are better than refined sugars.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Fruit is always better. Derp.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)In fact there is quite a bit of research that shows that organic fruit is healthier than pesticide laden fruit.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)genetically modified is 5 digit starting with 8. I always check to make sure it's organic.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Hmmmmmm.
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Easy enough to remember! Thanks.
CurtEastPoint
(18,650 posts)One little letter missing!
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-04-fructose-hundreds-brain-genes-wide.html
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)The fructose content in HFCS42 is actually lower than the fructose in content in sucrose, and HFCS55 is nearly identical.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)I'm a label reader (allergies) and it can literally be found in a majority of prepackaged foods.
If sugar (sucrose) was in everything, there would probably be the same complaint. So, I'd like to see the same study run with table sugar.
As it stands I'll wait and see. (skeptically)
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)High fructose corn syrup is called that because corn syrup normally contains little fructose. HFCS is treated to increase the fructose content by converting the glucose into fructose.
It seems like an odd discussion. We basically all know that high sugar intake is a bad way to go....
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The OP's claim that someone or another is "wrong" about something in is rather odd, as no one claims sugar is good for you, and this study does not compare types of sugars. Oh, and it appears that the OP apparently claims that sugars are different based on this study. Umm. What?
And, on edit: Of course, the click bait headline doesn't reflect what the actual study shows:
http://www.rickilewis.com/blog.htm?post=1028092
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 26, 2016, 12:53 PM - Edit history (1)
No matter what the study actually shows! "Real skeptics" ignore the reality of the science, don't you know!!!!!
I do like how the OP added an asterisk, and it turned out to be quite prescient.
I mean who cares what our bodies do to glucose!
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)A high-fructose corn syrup researcher answers his critics
http://grist.org/article/interview-with-princeton-hfcs-researcher-dr-bart-hoebel/
My niece had really terrible acid reflux for months until her doctor told her to stop eating foods with high fructose corn syrup in them. It stopped within a few days after she's switched to BBQ sauces made with sugar, drinks sugar coke etc. She also lost almost 25 lbs and has kept it off.
If some of these man made substitutes are proving to be harmful we should stop consuming them. But since huge profits are at stake the fight will continue to keep selling products with HFCS in them.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Actually the multiple fallacies there. That researcher is not supported by most peers, north most other research. Whoops.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)We heard the same thing about Robert Folk, Galvani, William Harvey, Crick and Watson and many others.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
puffy socks
(1,473 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Science has debunked it, as it has never been replicated, and the clear problems with the study have been outlined by many people.
Next.
PS: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup-another-overhyped-study/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)puffy socks
(1,473 posts)I also remember scientists claiming lead wasn't bad for us. It was natural.
In fact Standard Oil co paid a scientist to lie and then black list CC Patterson.
A funny way to attempt to discredit scientific proof from a prestigious University. A link to an author trying to market her books . I'm surprised you didn't cite the Corn Refiners Association
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And it has never been repeated. And you don't know why that's a problem.
Keep laughing. You are promoting fictions that will only serve to harm the planet.
How do you not know the problems of a lack of replication? How do you not understand what cherry picking is?
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/high-fructose-corn-syrup-just-sugar/
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)regardless the form, Americans consume far too much sugar (and for that matter, salt)
AxionExcel
(755 posts)...and lots and lots of people have a way harsh bad reaction to to the crud. Many suspect it's a major culprit in the epidemics of diabetes and obesity.
...and of course the glyphosate being pissed all over the planet willy nilly is showing up just about everywhere: wells, aquifers, beer, wine, breakfast cereal, and even tampons for crying out loud.
This data is all over the net, so you'll not need to look too far. Beware of the heavily funded Big Ag, Big Chem, Big Pharmaceutical and Big GMO propaganda sites. Big bucks are at stake here, and so the CORPORATE PROPAGANDA is thick, and there are trolls all over the freaking intertoobs.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Like trolls who make outrageous claims about things with no legitimate scientific proof to back their assertions.
Like those trolls.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)worse.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)evidence to the contrary?
Where is this evidence?
In addition, I would say some chemicals used in organic farming are worse that glyphosate, and some are just as good, such as BT, but apparently this safe to consume organic pesticide is a dangerous poison when corn is genetically engineered to produce it so you don't have to spray it on fields several times a season, which saves on things like fossil fuel and chemical production/extraction, and hence less pollution.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)In the residual levels that most people consume, yeah, it's relatively safe.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)https://doccamiryan.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/toxicity-table-20161.pdf
http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2016/03/what-does-a-gmo-label-tell-you-about-herbicide-use/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/
--------------------------
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The residual levels you speak of are measured in parts per billion, while salt is typically measured by the teaspoon.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Aaron Blair, a scientist emeritus at the National Cancer Institute and lead author of the study, told Reuters,There was sufficient evidence in animals, limited evidence in humans and strong supporting evidence showing DNA mutations and damaged chromosomes. The WHOs International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published their study of glyphosate on March 20, finding that the popular herbicide may contribute to non-hodgkins lymphoma.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/world-health-organization-wont-back-down-from-study-linking-monsanto-to-cancer/5439840
AxionExcel
(755 posts)"People who consume too much high-fructose food can in time become overweight and develop high blood pressure, dyslipidaemia with fatty liver and insulin resistance -- symptoms that doctors group together under the name metabolic syndrome..."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150617135038.htm
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And the reality is that the IARC is ludicrously wrong.
https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/10/iarcgate-for-dummies-three-reasons-this-who-agencys-glyphosate-campaign-is-a-scandal/
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Indeed.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)I didn't post the chart..
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:26 AM - Edit history (1)
Trying to divert the reality that the world's scientists do not agree with the IARC, and that the evidence of serious problems with the IARC's "findings" is becoming more and more clear does not change that reality.
Wake up.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)FDA to Begin Testing for Pesticide Glyphosate, Probable Human Carcinogen, in Food
PORTLAND, Ore. The Food and Drug Administration will finally begin testing food for glyphosate, the worlds most commonly used pesticide, according to Civil Eats. This marks the first time that a U.S. agency will routinely test for glyphosate residue in food. It comes after the Government Accountability Office released a report condemning the FDA for failing even to disclose its failure to test for glyphosate in its annual pesticide residue report.
Pesticide Spraying
Photo courtesy EPA. This photo is available for media use.
The World Health Organization found that glyphosate, commonly known as Roundup, was a probable human carcinogen, and glyphosate has been named as a leading cause of massive declines in monarch butterflies.
In the wake of intense scrutiny, the Food and Drug Administration has finally committed to taking this basic step of testing our food for the most commonly used pesticide. Its shocking that its taken so long, but were glad its finally going to happen, said Dr. Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. More and more scientists are raising concerns about the effects of glyphosate on human health and the environment. With about 1.7 billion pounds of this pesticide used each year worldwide, the FDAs data is badly needed to facilitate long-overdue conversations about how much of this chemical we should tolerate in our food.
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2016/glyphosate-02-17-2016.html
arikara
(5,562 posts)probably stacked full of Monsanto shills.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)FDA obviously does not know the levels in food.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)No one knows the levels yet.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)this from a brief google search:
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applications/documents/A1021%20GM%20Maize%20SD2%20Glyphosate%20residues.pdf
This article here has loads of sources, many primarly from the government, about glyphosate toxicity:
https://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)so lets see - The FDA set limits for amounts of glyphosate that can be in food but has NEVER tested the levels in our food. That is totally disgusting and in the pockets of corporations. They are now being forced to test the food by the Government Accountability Office.
FDA to Start Testing Monsantos Glyphosate in Food
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/18/fda-test-food-glyphosate/ (if you don't like this link, there are many others about this)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Jim__
(14,077 posts)I was wondering about DHA:
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)You do realize cane and beet sugar also contains fructose, yes?
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Even Hershey's feeling the pressure to stop using GMO beet sugar.
They have switched to cane sugar .
http://www.startribune.com/hershey-dumps-sugar-beets-because-of-gm-concerns/363498311/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And this is not going to be good for the environment. Oh, you don't know the realities of sugar cane production? Of course you don't.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Like all of our "non organic" food. Why I only buy organic sugar.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)between organic and conventional.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)In Louisiana, there was glyphosate in the rain. Now that is really scarry. Stay out of the rain folks esp. the first minute as that's when you get all the radiation (and maybe now the glyphosate).
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)environment, where are you getting your information on that?
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)for it to actually compare any sugars. On it's own this isn't telling us much.
mopinko
(70,127 posts)more research to show, not research to know.
please people, get familiar w the scientific method if you are gonna post about such.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Rhyming
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)about this DU place. So much misinformation being touted daily. I need a site with a more educated populace, me thinks My head feels like it is spinning..Am I on Natural News by accident?
Carry on....
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And so many others have simply stopped correcting pseudoscience based posts.
Now it appears that mere derision is all that is needed to ignore actual science.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Global climate change is scary. The effects provoked by US militarism is scary. The prospect of a Republican dominated political system is scary. A US policy establishment controlled by global corporate elites with no concern for anything other than self-enrichment is scary. But some progressives embracing a little pseudoscience on DU isn't all that frightening.
I'm highly skeptical of your supposed strict adherence to scientific principles in all things.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)her parents believed in faith healing growing up, and also tried to treat her with "alternative medicine".
http://www.kgw.com/news/health/denied-medical-care-because-of-religion-she-now-wants-her-parents-prosecuted/142977047
These types of beliefs aren't harmless, but cause actual harm, other examples include the measles outbreaks that have been occurring lately, pseudoscience is never harmless because it illustrates a lack of critical thinking on the part of believers and can lead to bad public policy if enough people believe in it. Quacks are allowed to profit off the suffering of others, sometimes in some of the most atrocious ways, etc.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)but appealing to emotionalism doesn't make nonsense any easier for me to swallow.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Also, some of the things that could be helpful to mitigate climate change are opposed by those who support pseudoscience.
And, as already noted, people die, stay sick, and are scammed out of money by pseudoscience. As a progressive, I find those things intolerable.
So, yeah, I find it scary.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Now the levels of pesticides in bread are double that in fruits and vegetables. Eat organic people!
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Including "organic" plants. Why do you put those pesticides in your body if it's a bad thing?
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)
Don't spread misinformation. It's not ok.
https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/
http://acsh.org/news/2016/04/21/organic-fertilizer-is-great-at-killing-bees/
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Compare those to natural pesticides. The most commonly used naturally occurring insecticide is Bt, or Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium found in soils.11 Bt is effective at killing boll weevils, cabbage loopers, and corn ear worms and its not toxic to humans.12 Two of the other most common OMRI-approved insecticides are neem oil (derived from the seeds of the neem tree) and insecticidal soaps. The active ingredient in insecticidal soaps (which desiccate insects exoskeletons) is potassium salts no danger to people there. Neem is so benign that it appears in some brands of toothpaste. I have yet to see any dental hygiene products containing Chlorpyfiros.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/myths-busted-clearing-up-the-misunderstandings-about-organic-farming/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Heck, that piece was debunked before it ran by the piece it supposedly replies to....
Also, it's very clear that you didn't read the piece I linked, or you would have known better than to post that nonsense.
The Reality of Organic Pesticides
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/organic-pesticides/
The Problems With Organic Pesticides
http://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2013/06/organic-pesticides.html
12 highly toxic pesticides approved for use in organic farming
https://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/11/12/the-risk-mongers-dirty-dozen-12-highly-toxic-pesticides-approved-for-use-in-organic-farming/
Try to learn something. You will actually be able to help the planet if you do so. Right now you are not helping.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Christie is your girl. You guys love to use her studies. Here she is out in the field sniffing mushrooms.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And the rest of the information I've provided further shows your claims to be without justification.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And I am reminded of it each and every time the topics of food safety or medical science arise.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And the ugly attacks upon those who prefer evidence over hyperbole.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)...and present a few of the more annoying traits subcultures tend to share.
In closed groups like DU, one's status within the community is often measured by one's perceived authenticity. The more authentically liberal you seem to be, the higher the social ladder you climb. This isn't a conducive environment for a free exchange of ideas, because the status of those at the top is completely dependent upon the presumed truthfulness of certain assumptions. Tout the benefits of psychotropic drugs and you threaten the social status of REAL LIBERALS obsessed with the pharmaceuticals industry. Question the the anti-GMO panic and you threaten the social status of REAL LIBERALS who may or may not have jumped the gun on that whole "organic and local" thing. A number of posters have so invested their sense of authenticity in these topics that there is no way to have a nuanced discussion. That is why the response is always sharp and often accusatory.
It's the same reason believers get pissed off when atheists criticize their religion.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)CanSocDem
(3,286 posts)And, ironically, it's all about your behaviour at DU.
Your science doesn't 'hold a candle' to Sociology.
.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And your failure to recognize that abuse is sad.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Monsanto fed rats for 90 days only. Seralini fed them glyphosate for 2 yrs. Study is being republished as scientists around the world demand it.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your fantasies and fictions hold no sway here.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)And they wonder why they are slow? Spoiler, cause they are fat!
These studies where there is no correlation between the amount consumed and reality always set off red flags for me.
(Yes, I know plenty of people probably consume a liter of soda in a day. Some of them may even be healthy. But lab rats may not be so lucky.)
TexasBushwhacker
(20,202 posts)Further more, I wonder what the results would be from fructose gotten from fruit as opposed to corn. Is the sugar the culprit or the GRAIN.
A lot of people are finding they feel better when they eliminate all grains from their diet. I'm not just talking wheat for those who are sensitive to gluten - all grains. Dr. Terry Wahls, a physician in Iowa, reversed the symptoms of her progressive MS by eating a grain free Paleo type diet. So I'm wondering if it's the sugar or the grain or both.
Person 2713
(3,263 posts)Totally off headline but the DHA info is new to me
The sluggish brain that comes with HFCS along with other issues glysophate is all a yawn to me accepted and nothing new , but the supplement difference should be furthered studied also.
It is still better always IMO to get it naturally like my chia seeds , but if it could bring us a better brained HFCs eating population just fortify it.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Looks as if they tested fructose water against fructose plus DHA with pure water as a control.
That is fine as far as it goes, and the DHA stuff is quite a useful result. But it doesn't get at the question of whether, calorie for calorie, HFCS is worse for you than sucrose. So I don't see how this refutes the "skeptics," if by that you mean people who question whether HFCS is any worse for you than sucrose.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)HFCS is a mixture of fructose and glucose, just like Sucrose.
The woo mongers can't ever seem to understand that. They hear "High Fructose" and the panic and rage blind them to anything else.
The study in the OP says nothing about HFCS compared to Sucrose. There is absolutely no information in the study that can be applied to the HFCS vs. cane sugar debate. Suggesting that there is any info in this study applicable to HFCS vs. Sucrose would be a sign of ignorance of the topic.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)In HFCS fructose and glucose are a mixture of separate molecules. So they are not the same. But whether that makes any difference in terms of metabolism is something which has just not been studied all that much. My suspicion is that the calories outweigh any marginal differences in metabolism. And as you say, this study says nothing about that question.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)By the time sucrose and HFCS hit your stomach, they both are solutions of glucose and fructose dissolved in water. The only difference is if the HFCS is not a 50-50 mixture, such as HFCS55 (45% glucose 55% sucrose) used in soda.
Saying that it has not be studied is ridiculous. Sugar metabolism has been extensively studied.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Sucrose can actually stay in solution for a long time without separating into fructose and glucose if needed enzymes are not present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
Hydrolysis breaks the glycosidic bond converting sucrose into glucose and fructose. Hydrolysis is, however, so slow that solutions of sucrose can sit for years with negligible change. If the enzyme sucrase is added, however, the reaction will proceed rapidly.[11] Hydrolysis can also be accelerated with acids, such as cream of tartar or lemon juice, both weak acids. Likewise, gastric acidity converts sucrose to glucose and fructose during digestion the bond between them being an acetal bond which can be broken by an acid.
What I meant to say is that more study is needed to assess he differences of metabolism between sucrose and HFCS in terms of possible health effects. http://advances.nutrition.org/content/4/2/236.full
Taken together, these findings suggest that we must be very cautious when attributing adverse health consequences to the consumption of fructose, HFCS, or sucrose, particularly at normal population consumption levels. More randomized, controlled trials at normal levels of consumption using commonly consumed sugars are necessary to resolve these issues. In the meantime, it is important to recognize that scientific debates of this nature do not take place in a vacuum. These discussions have enormous potential to confuse and alarm the public, making the need to frame results with appropriate caution and minimize speculation imperative.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)"Hydrolysis can also be accelerated with acids, such as cream of tartar or lemon juice, both weak acids. Likewise, gastric acidity converts sucrose to glucose and fructose during digestion the bond between them being an acetal bond which can be broken by an acid."
IOW, sucrose is rapidly broken into sucrose and fructose in your stomach.
To believe that no one has studied sugar metabolism is completely ridiculous.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Bye.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)If you don't understand that solutions of glucose and fructose in the stomach are indistinguishable as to their source, you can't understand that sugar metabolism is the same regardless if started out as HFCS or "pure Cane Sugar" or Honey or Agave.
D Gary Grady
(133 posts)Grapes contain glucose and fructose in proportions that depend on the ripeness of the grapes. I don't offhand know the exact balance of the two in typical store-bought grapes or grape juice, but I suspect it's in the general vicinity of 50-50 and hence comparable to the most commonly used forms of HFCS (and digested sucrose). But for some reason people concerned about HFCS don't seem to be as worried about grape juice or other foods that contain a fair amount of fructose.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)...like the one found in everyone's stomach.
eridani
(51,907 posts)It stomach acidity is sufficient, why waste the ribosomes to construct a complicated protein?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I don't think you understand what an enzyme is.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If stomach acid was all we needed, then we would have no digestive enzymes.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Regardless where you fucked up to begin with is you seem to think I claimed "stomach acid was all we needed" when I claimed no such thing and you compounded it by claiming "stomach acidity is irrelevant".
Those two things demonstrate lack of comprehension(or a half-assed attempt at strawman) and ignorance of the chemical processes involved.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--glucose and fructose.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The acid is doing all the heavy lifting. The enzyme is the catalyst which speeds up the process, but while necessary for more efficient macro nutrient absorption is not necessary for the basic chemical reaction. The enzyme, by itself, can't create the chemical reaction, so claiming "stomach acidity is irrelevant" is very telling as is the fact you're now contradicting yourself with "mostly".
As I said, I don't think you understand how enzymes work and I'm done explaining it.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The sucrase optimum p[H is 4.5, which makes sebse given the environment. Carbonic anhydrase also catalyzes a reaction (CO2 + water to bicarbonate) which proceeds more slowly in its absence.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Many do not know what disaccharide means. They do, however understand what mixture means.
Beyond you not liking general terms, do you have a point?
eridani
(51,907 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)For biological purposes, the fact that dry, granulated sucrose is a disaccharide is meaningless. In a aqueous, acidic solution, for instance, soda pop, it will be almost completely hydrolysed, before it ever reaches your mouth, into (gasp, da duh DAH) a mixture of fructose and glucose!!!! Holy schniekes, Batman, that disaccharide has become a mixture of monosaccharides!!!
Any other tidbits you care to share?
eridani
(51,907 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)--uncatalyzed ones.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)whatever it is. You have not really stated what your point is, other than try to argue (unsucessfully) with what I have said.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Do you actually have a point?
eridani
(51,907 posts)If it were, there would be no need for enzymes.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)That's like saying that cars can't exist because there are airplanes. It's a logical fallacy.
There's a study showing that Mexican Coke, made with sugar, contains no measurable amount of sucrose. It's all fructose and glucose. Unless you want want to claim they are adding enzymes, or they are not using sucrose, care to explain why there is no measurable sucrose in Mexican Coke?
http://goranlab.com/pdf/Ventura%20Obesity%202010-sugary%20beverages.pdf
eridani
(51,907 posts)--which is where acidic hydrolysis is irrelevant.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Whether sugars in soda are hydrolysed by the phosphoric acid and gastric acids or by enzyme actions is meaningless as by the time it hits your stomach, it is hydrolysed into fructose and glucose.
If acid hydrolysis took months (which it doesn't), why in hell could it only start in one's digestive tract? You do understand that soda contains phosphoric and/or citric acid? Hydrolysis of sodas made with sucrose starts in the bottling plant, not the digestive tract/
eridani
(51,907 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The fact the yeast and bees can make invertase says exactly what about human physiology?
I gave you a study that showed there was no sucrose in Coke from Mexico. Coke from Mexico is supposedly made with "pure cane sugar" according to the bottling plant and woo aficionados. Care to explain why analysis shows only glucose and fructose? This is the second time I have asked you, are you going to continue to ignore evidence? Either answer that question or bring something to support your theory. This "I know you are, but what am I?" from you is tiresome.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If acid were sufficient, we would not have invertase and sucrase in our guts, period.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Which is not meant to detract from the complete lack of anything to back up your illogical assertion.
Simply repeating nonsense doesn't make it true
eridani
(51,907 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I'll give you that we produce sucrase in the villi of our small intestine. We don't produce invertase. (Unless you are a yeast, in which case I apologize and commend your mastery of a keyboard).
Everything you have said means jack towards sucrose being hydrolysed by other methods. You can argue until the end of the earth that an enzyme invalidates all other mechanisms that produce the same result and you will still be as wrong.
Third time. Explain why Mexican Coke has been tested to contain only fructose and glucose when it's made with sucrose. According to you, that is simply not possible. I've given a link that proves you wrong. I've shown that you've babbled for days about an enzyme not produced in the human body.
Try posting something to back your assertions, rather than the "LA LA LA, I can't hear you" that has been the basis of your posts to date.
eridani
(51,907 posts)If that were sufficient, there would be no sucrase in our small intestines.
http://www.njsas.org/projects/light_polarization/answer45_invertase.htm
The systematic name for invertase is beta-fructofuranosidase and the designated number is EC 3.2.1.26 In the human body the enzyme that does the same function as invertase is called sucrase (see question 16). The term "invertase" usually refers to enzyme from either fungal/bacterial or plant sources.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Got it. You have your mind made up like a conservative binary thinker and no amount of facts will dissuade you from just repeating the same thing over and over.
Please tell us all once more why an enzyme means that no other mechanisms can possible work. Have a nice life.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Or maybe you think that soda pop is the sole dietary source of sucrose?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)This study doesn't prove any difference between different sugars since it didn't compare different sugars. It compared sugar vs no sugar vs sugar + DHA. It could very well be that the same study using table sugar would give the same results.
Sugar is bad for you, very few people seriously and honestly deny that.
This study may be worthwhile however because of what it was designed to study - whether or not DHA supplementation ameliorates the effects of sugar.
It appears that DHA may protect us from at least some of the bad effects of sugar.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)too much of it is bad for you, but then again, too much of damn near everything is bad for you, and quite a few things we shouldn't eat, ingest or smoke at all. I know of no one who actually argues that we should eat more sugar.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Spoonfuls of refined sugar in food and beverages are bad for you, but the smaller amounts occurring naturally in food are necessary.
It would be great if we discovered that eating fish regularly could allow you to more safely sweeten things.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Leading a sedate lifestyle leads to things like obesity and diabetes. Moderation in food intake, particularly the amount of calories we take in daily and moderate exercise would do wonders for the population. Problem is getting them motivated enough to actually do it.
Doesn't help that it appears our brains are keyed into craving sugar, goddamn reward centers light up when we munch on sweet stuff, have I mentioned how much I like sugar? lol
drm604
(16,230 posts)Our brains crave fat and sugar, because those things weren't readily available to our ancestors and small amounts are necessary.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Do you think eating mercury and radioactive cesium will help a sweet tooth?
drm604
(16,230 posts)and if you stick to the lower end of the food chain and eat things like sardines you can avoid the biomagnification of both cesium and mercury.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Eat the Atlantic
Rex
(65,616 posts)You make a grand point often overlooked here.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... When it comes to surviving this year's presidential election.
I kid. I kid. I gave it up.
I hope my knees hold up. I'm going to need to run a lot.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)The OP misinterprets the study, honestly I'm sure.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Orrex
(63,216 posts)Everyone within 50 miles was killed instantly and then rose as sweet-toothed zombies.
True fact.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy"I mpact on nutrition
"...One peer-reviewed research suggests that any effects of U.S. farm policies on U.S. obesity patterns must have been negligible.[51] However, some critics argue that the artificially low prices resulting from subsidies create unhealthy incentives for consumers. For example, in the USA, cane sugar was replaced with cheap corn syrup, making high-sugar food cheaper;[52] beet and cane sugar are subject to subsidies, price controls, and import tariffs that distort the prices of these products as well.
The lower price of energy-dense foods such as grains and sugars could be one reason why low-income people and food insecure people in industrialized countries are more vulnerable to being overweight and obese.[53] According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, meat and dairy production receive 63% of subsidies in the United States,[54] as well as sugar subsidies for unhealthy foods, which contribute to heart disease, obesity and diabetes, with enormous costs for the health sector.[54]
Market distortions due to subsidies have led to an increase in corn fed cattle rather than grass fed. Corn fed cattle require more antibiotics and their beef has a higher fat content.[55]"]..."
You know, Adult diabetes has almost quadruped since 1980. So perhaps we should quit dying early and giving ourselves diabetes at an increasing rate, or fix this. No phony bills, either.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)It is soooo cheap to make (especially because of subsidies to grain growers) that we pump it into practically anything.
I've gone to a low carb, high fat diet and it has done wonders for my mood and weight loss.
villager
(26,001 posts)...claims and assertions.
They are only, conveniently "skeptical" when those claims are questioned....
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)That'd definitely make me feel better!
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)overuse of glyphosate that is possibly leading to glyphosate resistance in weeds. Valid concern, some preliminary science supporting it, issue is that its a very safe herbicide, hence the overuse, similar issue with antibiotics, we need it to a certain extant, and need to figure out alternative formulations and methods that are just as effective and safe.
Speaking of antibiotics, the overuse of them in the raising of food and milk animals, particularly in factory farms where sanitary issues are rampant. This leads to more general exposure to antibiotics for bacteria, which creates a selective pressure for them to adapt and helps those who mutate to resist the antibiotics to survive, which means they have opportunities to proliferate. Particularly concern for human disease vectors. Of particular concern is use of low dosage antibiotics in feed, and not in the treatment of acute infections in animals.
RBGH is another example, its not necessary, does lead to changes in milk production, the human effects of the hormone itself is negligible, but it does lead to things such as udder infections leading to the issues of the paragraph above, etc.
The fact is that there are concerns that are pushed by corporate interests at the expense of public health, safety and the environment in many cases, the Energy Industry, particularly fossil fuel companies, are a classic example of this. But that doesn't validate promoting false narratives and debunked hypotheses. Genetic Engineering is a useful technology that should be implemented for the good of humanity, and is, or at least people are attempting to do so, but are protested or outright stopped due to the outright ignorance of groups that I would call well meaning if they weren't being disingenuous(for example, Greenpeace). Neither does a single company control this research or technology, nor are they the root of all evil. Yes talking about Monsanto. Still trying to figure out where that narrative came from.
Anyways, the point is I don't know if you are actually interested in having a serious discussion on this or if you just want to have people reaffirm your own biases. Either way, take my post for what it is, I get paid by the word from Monsanto, it must be true, I was accused of it enough on DU.
villager
(26,001 posts)I may not agree with all of them at the outset, but I like the analogy of glyphosates to antibiotics -- something that may actually be safe in certain doses/circumstances, but due to a vast overuse (due to a corporate imperative), is morphing into a pronounced hazard.
That is certainly an intriguing avenue for further discussion of the subject.
But I think the fact that companies have to skew toward short-term profit does, alas, put them increasingly on the "evil" side of the equation. See, for example, Exxon's covering-up of global warming/C02 research since the 1970's.
And my point about skeptics wasn't intended to mean that certain individuals on this website -- who I might disagree with on the community-friendliness of Monsanto, say -- can't themselves be skeptical in their own right of unchecked corporate (or government-toady-acting-for-corporate-interests) claims.
But I have yet to see any professional group which identifies itself as "skeptic" really go after everything worth being "skeptical" about. There is, in other words, a larger agenda there beyond "skepticism."
In any case, I do appreciate the actual discussion, and the laying aside of snark. Hopefully said discussion can continue in further threads, and areas where we disagree don't require the usual tiresome denunciations of the other poster, after all.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)particularly when it comes to Monsanto, they have been blamed or implicated on some level to everything from farmer suicides to the Zika virus outbreak. Its getting ridiculous, they are the "Thanks Obama" of the left.
In addition, name these professional groups that don't go after things that are "worth being skeptical about". And identify those things that we should be skeptical about.
Climate science has a broad reaching consensus among scientists that anthropocentric climate change is happening. The public is, largely aware of the issue, and has been neutral to warm(pardon the pun) on the idea.
There's a broad reaching consensus among scientists that evolution is a fact, not really controversial, the public is more split, mostly related to ignorance or extreme cognitive bias related to religion.
There's a broad reaching consensus that moderation in eating and increasing physical activity levels is good for you, this is true of both the general public and scientists and doctors. Individual needs being considered, of course.
There's a broad reaching consensus among scientists that vaccines help prevent disease outbreaks, and protect individuals who can't take the vaccines for various reasons due to herd immunity.
Identify your concerns, and we will see what "professional skeptics" say about them, and more importantly, where the evidence leads.
villager
(26,001 posts)But rarely, in my ex MIL's issues of "Skeptical Inquirer" did I see them take on the pressing issues -- having to do with the agendas of power and wealth -- worth actually being skeptical about.
You act as if waiting for "broad consensus" is the only way or means that change can, or should, happen. And yet those ahead of that consensus -- see: Civil Rights movements -- need to act when historical conditions demand it.
Further, if Exxon hadn't been allowed to cover up the truth about climate change in the 1970's, we might be much farther along toward a solution. But anyone talking about climate change was called an "alarmist." Trust me, I remember.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You seem to be requesting that they focus on issues that have little to do with scientific inquiry or skeptical fact checking.
villager
(26,001 posts)Alas, it is not.
Hence, the need for skepticism depending on the source of various claims, etc.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)the problem is that skepticism and critical thinking are best applied towards claims of fact, not opinion. Some people have difficulty differentiating the two.
For example, Anthropogenic climate change is happening, its a fact, and the job of scientists are to report these facts, its then the jobs of politicians, engineers, society, business, etc. to figure out how best to tackle the challenge of reducing our carbon footprints to reduce the amount of climate change happening. The problem is you have a shitload of politicians who outright deny the facts and evidence. Makes it very difficult to pursue sound public policy.
But, and this is key, very few hot button issues with such far reaching consequences are so clear cut, most are a lot fuzzier, being less reliant on hard or easy to find facts, and more rely on studies of human behavior and belief. Its not the science can't help inform, its that this information can then be interpreted in any number of ways, leading to policy differences in which both sides have valid points. Not really a case where skepticism can be easily applied.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We were told of this new theory called climate change. Did I mention there was no consensus back then? It was something that was spoken in whispers by one of the early people who connected the dots. Many new theories, later reaching consensus start that way. Read Kuhn's Nature of Scientific Revolutions, why my comment that science is not a religion
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)That tends to show us that science appears to be a religion in your hands.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)You would not believe it. I know doctors are speaking of this as cause. There are early studies on for instance leptein function, and brain function... But those would not matter to you. In the nature of a paradigm shift we are where tobacco was about 1960 and climate change in the 1980s.
At this point I have to conclude you have way too much faith in corporations...I mean it, get a job, you do it well, as a spokesperson you do this FUD business well
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Your desire to convolute basic chemistry is ludicrous, as fructose is in all forms of natural sweeteners at the same percentage as HFCS or higher. The science does not support your claims. You are actually the one acting like the tobacco companies, at this point in time. And your attempt to convolute basic chemistry and science with corporations shows that you really aren't here to discuss anything. It is a religion for you, not the other way around. You will propagate any line to push emotion where it has no valid purpose.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-sweetener-wars-hfcs-strikes-back/
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)People made over lead in gasoline and paint I see.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Wow.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Read that history if you must. I have
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)So, I"m not putting any stock in any claims of knowledge by you.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And trying to discredit were used with lead, tobacco and still used with climate change. You need to get a job. You are good at this business. Alas I recognize it a thousand light years away (figure of speech).
Many other posters do as well. So you think your insult is going to have any effect?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You do realize that you showed everyone that you don't understand this issue at any level, right?
And yet you keep making ludicrous, baseless attacks, as if magic is going to change the reality.
Why would you do that? What purpose does fomenting misinformation and ugly attacks serve you?
http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/high-fructose-corn-syrup-vs-sugar/2013/06/18/fdbedb90-c488-11e2-914f-a7aba60512a7_story.html
http://www.eatingwell.com/nutrition_health/nutrition_news_information/the_13_biggest_nutrition_and_food_myths_busted?page=3
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I said that no study would be enough for you. I said you are using the same techniques used in the past by FUD spreaders. You are proving me very correct
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You can push some cherry-picked study, if you want, but you have repeatedly failed to recognize the whole of the scientific evidence, and repeatedly ignored basic chemistry in relation to sugars.
Nice try.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/03/fructose-sugar-hfcs
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It might work with friends. But this exact language was used in the past as well.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Makes something, well, something or another. That's not how this works. Your behavior is not ok.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Particularly fruits. You seem to be arguing that it is just as toxic as lead or nicotine/tar, which is obviously not true. Is too much of it bad for you? Yes, of course, thats why we should reduce our consumption of foods that have sugar added and reduce our consumption of refined sugar.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Why is it so hard for you to admit you made a mistake?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I really doubt that is true... See what I did there?
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)that isn't devoid of facts?
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)saying levels of glyphosate in food are safe when the levels have never been tested.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)you are more likely to OD on vitamin D than on glyphosate.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)How would we know - The FDA has never tested levels in our food but are being forced to now with their new 5 million dollars worth of glyphosate testing equipment.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... not to mention, the more toxic herbicides glyphosate replaced. Somehow, you don't care about having tests for those.
Amazing.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)is worse than chlorpyrifos?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Check the LD 50s there, and ask yourself why harm the bees that way?
On edit: Yet more information on the ugliness of natural pesticides: http://risk-monger.blogactiv.eu/2015/06/17/save-the-bees-ban-these-two-toxic-pesticides-immediately/
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Unless yoh are eating food with globs of pure glyphosate stuck to them the levels in food is negligable.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Because of drying wheat with glyphosate, bread levels of glyphosate are way way higher than most vegetables. Of course, this is reported by private labs because the FDA has not yet ever tested our food levels of glyphosate. Seems like eggs and milk levels are off the wall too - way more than fruits. Just keep feeding those animals glyphosate and those chickens will keep laying those glyphosate eggs. Yummy
Thank god I have my own chickens and eggs!
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Wikipedia
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)and didn't tell them, having exposed their workers to a toxic chemical without their knowledge, and when they cried foul, they were threatened with shutdown if they didn't comply and the herbicide would have been manufactured anyways.
Besides that, here's a key fact, this was in the 1970s, most, if not all current employees and managers at Monsanto weren't exactly working for them then, they were either in school or not born yet. So what you posted, as a meme, is inaccurate, the same people who made Agent Orange for the government are NOT the same people who now currently work at Monsanto. Unless you think its a secret cabal of immortals or something equally ridiculous.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Most of us are skeptical about damn near everything, but all we mean by "skeptical" is "I wanna see some evidence."
Personally, I reserve my vitriol for faith healers, psychic mediums, and money-making anti-vaxers. I'd guess that other skeptic's triggers are agricultural in nature.
drm604
(16,230 posts)If I tell people that "big pharma" isn't lying about vaccines, or that genetic modification isn't inherently bad, or that some amount of pesticides are needed to be able to feed the billions of people on this planet I get called a corporate shill when I'm anything but that.
There's plenty of things wrong with the way corporations operate. Big ag is doing terrible things with the way they feed antibiotics to livestock. Infectious bacteria are becoming more and more resistant to even our most powerful antibiotics because of it. And the manufacturers of soap products that contain unnecessary antibacterials add to the problem.
Big pharma abuses the patent system, and they spend millions convincing people to pester their doctors for prescriptions. Don't get me started on the horribly unethical and immoral Opdivo ads.
Do I even need to mention Wall street and the big banks? Do I even need to mention the way corporations dodge taxes?
Just because you and I don't buy into every single criticism doesn't mean that we think corporations are all peaches and cream.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And there is no reason or justification for those statements. Ih fact, I'm not really sure why they are allowed to be made at DU. There is no good reason for them.
Good post, btw.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)For example, the corporations that make homeopathic medicine are often put down for making claims that can't be backed up by scientific studies.
villager
(26,001 posts)Any other corporations rankle you? Or just Swiss Homeopathic firms?
Could a wee bit of skepticism be warranted anywhere else?
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)but that's a bit off topic since we're talking about companies that make claims that are not backed by scientific research.
villager
(26,001 posts)And of course there are larger issues about "backed by scientific research," since available research in the 70's would have made you a "nut," and an "alarmist," to talk about global warming -- though Exxon already knew different.
Hence, the need for healthy skepticism.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)In fact, it was rather incoherent, considering the reality what the study actually shows. The fact that none of those who attack skeptics here have bothered to recognize that is rather astounding, and it makes any further concerns that might be offered seem rather disingenuous.
villager
(26,001 posts)Additionally -- who gets to define a "skeptic?" What are "skeptics" generally "skeptical" of?
Who gets to anoint certain people as "skeptics" anyway? Etc.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You just made it clear that you don't really want discussion, as you're not being honest about the ugly pointlessness of the OP's attack, which was an addition that only served to show further ignorance of the data in the study itself. The fact that you are not willing to back away from that says a great deal.
Anyone can call themselves a skeptic. It really doesn't matter. However, if one posts an OP such as this, claiming that a study shows something it does not, it's fairly difficult to get others to believe that you actually care about science.
villager
(26,001 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I honestly give up with you. I thought you might be able to discuss things on an honest plane, at some point. I guess not.
villager
(26,001 posts)....where we're not trading barbs.
Or where, at least, you're not slinging them at me! (I'm really trying to ratchet all that down, but I fear discussion does seem precluded between us, alas, on certain subjects...)
Take care!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Steven Novella.
Read their work.
pa28
(6,145 posts)I've seen it right here on DU on topics ranging from nuclear power, GMO's and of course HFCS.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)pa28
(6,145 posts)Just for the record I was offering an observation we apparently disagree on so proving would be something I don't really have time for tonight.
Just as a side note your very good post on Cervantes the other day prompted me to re-read the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.
Thanks!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Please don't make claims you can't support with a consensus of science. Thanks!
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Right off the bat, that's not true, because "fructose" is a molecule with a defined structure. If it's different, it's just not fructose.
The OP then argues that because lab rats on a pure fructose diet have impaired concentration and elevated insulin levels, then fructose must be dangerous. Missing of course that both of those conditions are normal for ANYTHING that eats a pure sugar diet.
Now if the argument wwere made that sugary corn syrup doesn't belong in damn near everything, then okay. That's an argument to make, and a warren full of heavily distracted rats with pancreas problems underline that a bit. But the claim is that fructose itself is the dangerous monster, NOT the over-sugaring of processed foods.
villager
(26,001 posts)kinda makes you wonder....
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The fact that you refuse to acknowledge is rather astounding.
villager
(26,001 posts)Truthfulness can only reside in the halls of financial and political power.
Of course.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)It is a study about the effects of DHA. It used fructose as a way to explore possible benefits of DHA. It is a tiny, preliminary study that has nothing to do with HFCS, with financial and political power, or much else, and yet the OP chose to pretend otherwise, and you have chosen to support that ludicrous spin. This is not hard stuff. If you can't back away from this, you have no justification for calling out anyone else on anything. Promoting misinformation is not ok.
villager
(26,001 posts)...rather than the powerless.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Is it that hard for you to step down from the pulpit?
Addressing the damage done by organizations promoting pseudoscience remains a necessary action for the true progressive. These organizations have continued to gain power, and their effects are becoming ever more insidious. The anti-GMO movement is now leading to probable increases in the use of pesticides in total, and the use of more toxic products, in general. It is also likely to lead to the use of more land for farming, not something that is going to help with climate change. Its actions keeping food from people in dire need of it, as well as working to keep new foods with supplementation aimed at improving health are astoundingly unethical, and that's being very kind. Even in the US, families now convinced that they must purchase organic or non-GMO products strain budgets to purchase them, even though they offer no added benefit. Scam pseudo-health care providers leave people in distress of various kinds for no good reason for years on end, sometimes keeping them from getting life-saving care. They typically keep people coming back to them for regular "treatments," wasting people's time and resources for no good end, and straining communities for no good end.
We now offer loans in the hundreds of millions for people to get "educations" in naturopathy and acupuncture, two "professions" that have no basis in the real world. Billions of dollars of research dollars are lost to studying long-debunked alt med practices.
And then there is the big business of creating baseless fear of things like HFCS and GMOs by big corporations, fighting one another for an edge in the market place by fomenting ever increasing ignorance of basic nutrition and science.
The harm is large and great, and your depiction of it as something else is not accurate. Skeptics just happen to fight on the same fronts you do when it comes to climate change, corporate malfeasance and the like. We also fight these fronts. Why do you refrain?
villager
(26,001 posts)...and to give them to your kids, unreservedly.
Same with pesticide-laden food.
I'm simply saying that the word "skeptic" shouldn't be coopted by those always willing to give big business a pass.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)You really went with that old BS? And completely ignored the content of my post?
You are showing that no one has co-opted anything. You're not skeptical, and you don't inquire or question. You just repeat your preconceptions ad nauseum. That won't help the world. It will only do harm.
BTW, I don't serve my kids organic food, so they don't get all those unregulated pesticides. Nor do my kids get much additional sweetener. At least I'm not foolish enough to believe one sweetener is better, however.
villager
(26,001 posts)Well yes.
That's why discussion with you in these threads is nigh well impossible.
Your very first post to someone is with guns blazing, calling them liars, etc., etc.
So there's no real point to it, is there?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I have engaged you earnestly here, but you have either no desire or ability to discuss the issues on a factual level. You have made the personal attacks, ignored all content that shows your preconceptions for what they are, and on and on. I know how I behaved in the past, but you are still not even trying.
Maybe you could point out that calling people shills and claiming skeptics were wrong about an imaginary topic is not ok. Or would that piss off all your friends too much?
villager
(26,001 posts)So, good.
I have certainly used the "shill" word in the past -- and given what we know about paid trolling, it's likely that much shillery exists, including on this site.
Don't take that personally, btw. I'm just noting there is substantial cause for, well, skepticism, when the tenor of many posts seems to be "comforting the comfortable, and afflicting the afflicted," as it were.
But that is not this thread, my dear HuckleB. I don't believe I myself have used the shill word here. My main point in joining in was to riff off the OP -- to note how the use of "skeptic" has been allowed to be co-opted (kind of like "pro life," actually), and is often used by those who... well, aren't nearly skeptical enough about the pronouncements coming out of the corridors of power.
But none of this is directed at you here -- I was stopping by this thread to note my own views on the use of the "skeptic" noun.
And the thing with so many "facts" when it comes to Big Food is that so many are... fungible, depending on the funding of the study, who's doing it, the potential profit (or loss of same) involved, etc. (As noted, it would have been a "fact" in the 70's and 80's that the effects of global warming were a century or so away -- only "eco-nuts," etc., were saying otherwise).
And my basic view of food, btw, jibes with Michael Pollen's: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
I think there is too much sweetener -- mostly artificial, nearly all of it refined one way or another -- in too many products, most of them scarcely qualifying as "dessert."
And I think it's not a coincidence that so much stealth "additioning" to our foodstuffs jibes with a massive obesity epidemic.
I hope that explains most of where I'm coming from on these issues.
Be well!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I am currently without an actual keyboard, but I will respond when I have one to use.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Tell me if I'm wrong here but the OP is the one co-opting "skeptic".
villager
(26,001 posts)...regardless of what things they chose to be "skeptical" about.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)... however, I don't see anyone who subscribes to skepticism "comforting the comfortable," etc... And I am always going to be rather suspicious of the reasons so many will choose fear mongering over actual science. That's where one has to consider the motivations of the other poster, IMO. Further, comparing climate change to the science on agriculture and nutrition is simply a way to ignore the science. In this case, we have understood how sugars work for a long, long time. There is no magically hidden information that chemists around the world are keeping hidden. The "science was wrong" gambit does not hold water. It will lead to one thing: bad decisions.
villager
(26,001 posts)We appear to come equipped with different sets of "suspicions," for whatever reasons of cultural and historical contexts, etc. (I believe I have a few years on you, demographically...)
I think a lot of "science" is kept from us, of course -- hence the use of the salient climate change example. My point being: They let us have the "science" they want us to have.
I also think there's a lot we have yet to learn about the interplay between the chemical baths we are routinely subjected to, both internally (our food) and externally (everything else).
And I think there's a rather staggering profit motive at work to keep the "pure" science... less than pure. And to shunt "inconvenient" findings aside.
In any case, we know we disagree on various fundamentals in these discussions. Perhaps knowing that, we can approach each other's posts with less irascibility, since it's dubious either of us will "change" the other in an online discussion thread.
Besides, heated discussion threads just cut into pleasure reading time, que no?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)I do need to get back to the books for my own mental health.
Have you read any Valeria Luiselli? Or have we already touched on that?
villager
(26,001 posts)Huh -- just looked her up. Thanks for putting her on my radar!
procon
(15,805 posts)In California, most supermarkets stock a lot of products made in Mexico or imported from other South American countries. Things like carbonated drinks, even big brands like Coke, are made with different ingredients and use real sugar instead of HFCS... they taste much sweeter to me. If I don't bake my own, there are lots of different Mexican brands of cookies to choose from that are made with sugar.
HFCS is in many products you would even suspect would need a sweetener added, and it can also be disguised under many other trade names to fool consumers. To avoid it entirely, you'd need to be extremely vigilant about everything you ate, or cook everything from scratch using fresh ingredients and nothing that was processed.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Bringing up HFCS in the discussion of this study is a total tangent, and would indicate a general lack of knowledge about sugars.
procon
(15,805 posts)I avoid most processed foods. I don't want foods with loads of salt or sweeteners, fats, preservatives, added chemicals or fillers. I like to cook, and I know the ingredients I use are as fresh as I can find, and even though I may suffer from a deplorable "lack of knowledge about sugars", my Lemon Sugar Cookies are great.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)The study in the OP has nothing to do with what you just professed. It was a study on how fructose (and only fructose) affects mammals. It said nothing about HFCS, processed foods, salt, preservatives, added chemicals or sweeteners.
procon
(15,805 posts)If you don't like what I write, SOB, use ignore if it really sticks in your craw that much. I don't know what your purpose is in arguing over an incidental comment about food ingredients, but maybe your real issues lay elsewhere, yeah?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Wow, you must not have anything to say but personal attacks.
Don't try to act like the forum police and try to tell me where I can post and write about comments that have nothing to do with the OP.
See how that works? We both get opinions.
Mine are based in facts, you seem to have comments unrelated to the topic at hand or personal insults.
procon
(15,805 posts)OMG... that was great! Thanks for the laugh, even if it did startle my poor cat.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)You only like the personal attacks when you are doing them.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Feel free to jump in with any facts.
As for personal attacks, I don't care for them, but will call out idiots who don't have a fact to stand on and resort to insults.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)Seems like putting people down is your thing. Isn't that a sign of the personality disordered?
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)"Fructose alters hundreds of brain genes, which can lead to a wide range of diseases" is the title of the article. The title of the study was not in the article.
The subject of the study was fructose, and only fructose. HFCS was not in the study.
It was in the title of the OP, not the study. And it being in the OP is, as I stated anti-HFCS woo mongers misinterpreting the study.
The study compared water, fructose in water, fructose in water with an Omega3 fatty acid. No HFCS. No sucrose.
One really needs to read before one starts making claims that fructose is HFCS.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)HFCS, like most corn products in the US, is essentially cost-free to produce.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Common granulated sugar is half fructose.
HFCS is only somewhat worse because is processed differently and more fructose is broken away from the sucrose molecule.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)First, fructose has not "long been known to be toxic." Fructose is actually present in most fruits. Like anything else, excessive fructose intake has consequences. In smaller amounts, it generally is split into two 3-carbon chemicals by the liver that can either help replenish glycogen or build triglycerides. In larger amounts, after glycogen is replenished, the excess will mainly be converted to triglycerides, which are the body's method of fat storage. It's no surprise, then, that excessive amounts of HFCS can readily cause obesity, but fructose is not toxic.
Second, many sugars - and many carbohydrates - don't have fructose as a subunit. Table sugar (sucrose) does. Maltose does not. Lactose does not. Starch does not. Soluble fiber does not.
Common granulated sugar is half fructose. It's a disaccharide, meaning that each sucrose molecule is made up of one glucose and one fructose. So you got that one right.
HCFS is a little worse than sucrose, but not for the reason you described. HFCS contains glucose and fructose separately, not combined into a disaccharide. Therefore, in HFCS, no fructose "is broken away from the sucrose molecule." The only difference in processing is that sucrose requires an additional step which involves splitting it into glucose and fructose by using the enzyme sucrase. However, the metabolic cost for that is negligible. The reason why HCFS is worse is because its fructose content is 5% higher than sucrose. Therefore, someone who consumes a lot of sweet stuff will tend to gain adipose tissue slightly faster. Of course, this effect becomes more pronounced as someone consumes more HFCS.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)As far as fructose being toxic, what I meant is that there have been papers in the literature for a long time that excess fructose can cause metabolic disorders such as insulin insensitivity.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)I have been actively eliminating HFCS from my diet for 5 years or so. It's poison. I read labels on everything I can. It wipe out my Hot Fudge sundaes until I found trader Joes (I hope they arent' lying on the label )
Problem is that this shit is everywhere.
But again I"ve had to argue with Clintonistas who don't need to know what's in our food.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)HFCS is not toxic unless someone's body has difficulty clearing glucose from the bloodstream. It is harmful in excess. It is not harmful in small amounts. Not at all. Its main risk for Americans as compared to sucrose comes from increased fat deposition. However, the difference between consuming sucrose and consuming HFCS isn't massive. The main problem is that HFCS is, as you said, everywhere and that people don't read food labels, thereby taking in more sugars than they think they are. It's better to read labels and try to reduce all sugar intake and reduce calories than anything else. Obviously, you've been smart about it! I've lost 105 pounds in the last couple of years with just diet modification, and the most dramatic change came when I really cut back on all refined sugars - HFCS, sucrose, and starch. The thing is, though, I think that expressing positions on something like this becomes a lot more accurate when terms are properly used, and HFCS isn't a poison. It's bad for you in excess, but hell, so is water.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)You're a Clinton Supporter aren't you?
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)What I am is a college human anatomy and physiology professor, and I teach an entire chapter on carbohydrate, protein, and lipid anabolism and catabolism. I can give you the specific metabolic pathways in which fructose and glucose are metabolized. I know exactly what HFCS is, and exactly how it differs from sucrose. I suggest you consider that people who correct you are more highly educated and not necessarily political opponents.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)from an article at Diabetic Connect web site on the differences in sugars and how the body treats them.
Understanding Glucose, Fructose, and Sucrose
http://www.diabeticconnect.com/diabetes-information-articles/general/1566-understanding-glucose-fructose-and-sucrose
snip of the part on fructose:
Fructose is another carbohydrate, but it does not result in the same spikes in blood sugar or insulin as glucose consumption. This carbohydrate is a natural sugar found in many fruits, vegetables and honey. It is the sweetest of the naturally occurring caloric sweeteners. Many people think of high fructose corn syrup when they hear fructose, but HFCS actually resembles sucrose more than fructose.
Fructose differs from other sugars because it has a separate metabolic pathway and is not the preferred energy source for the brain or muscles. It is only metabolized in the liver, depending on an enzyme called fructokinase to kick-start metabolism. The biggest difference between glucose and fructose: Fructose does not cause insulin to be released or stimulate the production of leptin, an important hormone for balancing energy levels.
There is some connection between high regular consumption of fructose and elevated triglycerides. Triglycerides are a fat made up of 3 sugar molecules. When drug companies want to test if a drug will reduce triglycerides on rats they give the rats water with 10% fructose. Triglycerides ramp right up. There are indications that high triglycerides can contribute to type2 diabetes, fatty liver disease and other complications.
An anecdotal case: myself, I was running triglycerides of 550+ when they should be below 150. After a few years of this I developed type 2 diabetes. Does one thing have to do with the other? I really don't know, but I have strong suspicions. Was there a behavior contributing to my high triglyceride levels? Again I don't know but I was consuming up to a 6 pack of CocaCola daily sweetened with HFCS.
GaYellowDawg
(4,447 posts)Triglycerides are a fat molecule made up of one glycerol and three fatty acids. However, what you said about fructose elevating triglycerides is absolutely correct. You can also add coronary heart disease to the list that high triglycerides can contribute to.
HFCS doesn't really resemble sucrose more than fructose unless you're talking about the proportions of glucose and fructose. Sucrose is a disaccharide composed of one glucose and one fructose bound together; therefore, sucrose is very quickly metabolized to 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose, 45% glucose, unbound. The body does not have to separate the two.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)It wouldn't matter if you were eating cubes of "pure cane sugar" or drinking HFCS Coke, you were consuming a lot of sugar.
Glucose is "blood sugar", it does not need to be metabolized for the body to use it. As soon as you consume glucose it's being absorbed and used. Fructose has to go to the liver, where it is converted for use. Up to half of fructose is converted to glucose, a quarter to lactate and 15% to glycogen. Fructose can be used in the liver, to make a substance that the mitochondria can use to make triglyceride.
There doesn't need to be any suspicions, eat enough sugars and your body will make TG with the excess.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Why not use sucrose or dextrose or glucose. They always use fructose. About my case, I drank that many cokes for years without high Triglycerides; they came with the move by Coke to sweeten with HFCS and not sucrose. Probably doesn't mean anything but that's my experience.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Your question boils down to why don't they use half fructose, half glucose; glucose or glucose?
Sucrose is only half fructose, so could be used, but not as effective. The other half is glucose, not processed in the liver, so useless in studying TG. Dextrose is simply one form of glucose, so again useless in studying TG. Glucose has two mirror image forms, dextrose is the "right handed" form.
Your age probably is involved, Coke's use of HFCS is probably not. Your triglycerides were probably high for years.
the HFCS55 that is used in soda does contain a bit more fructose than sucrose does - 55% vs. 50%. Granulated table sugar is a disaccharide, one molecule of glucose, one molecule of fructose, joined together. Almost immediately when placed in water, the two sugar molecules separate as the sugar dissolves. Coke with sucrose has about 19.5 g of fructose, with HFC, about 21.5 g of fructose. Your daily consumption probably varied more than the difference between sucrose and HFCS. So while you did get more fructose with HFCS Coke and it probably did raise your triglyceride levels slightly, but it certainly did not put your TGs at 550+ from under 150...
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Did you test high the day after you drank your first coke with HFCS and tested normal the day before?
You are assigning blame, just like the anti-vax parents blaming their child's autism on vaccines.
You started getting a bit more fructose with HFCS, but it did not raise your TG levels to 550+ from under 150. Your diet, age and genetics did that.
TexasProgresive
(12,157 posts)I told of my experience. Regardless of the cause of high triglycerides it happened as I said. I don't consume either HFCS or sucrose as I am now type 2 diabetic. My triglycerides are 98 now. So if it makes you feel good, you win.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)I don't drink soda in general. If I do, it's diet soda. I know that the reason is my age, my diet, exercise level and genetics.
Neither of us are winners in that regard.
mdbl
(4,973 posts)[link:|
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)and it's first rate. He has done a lot of interesting studies of effects of nutrition on brain function and recovery from brain injury.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You know that, right?
AxionExcel
(755 posts)"Reuters) - Corn syrup was found to be more toxic to female mice than table sugar, shortening their lives and cutting their rate of reproduction, according to a study by University of Utah researchers published online in a scientific journal on Monday.
"The research, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, is among the first to differentiate between the effects of the fructose-glucose mixture found in corn syrup and sucrose, or table sugar, said University of Utah biology professor Wayne Potts, senior author of the paper.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/06/corn-syrup-mice_n_6420390.html
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Did you know apples contain fructose?
Will you refrain from eating apples?
AxionExcel
(755 posts)...and then concentrated into slimey, syrupy goop in manufacturing plants, goop that is then surreptitiously injected into all kinds of corporate industrial substances marketed as food.
Please pass me a nice, fresh, crisp, juicy organic apple, and hold the crappy, sickening artificial High Fructose Corn Syrup (HCFS) with glyphosate residue.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and fructose in an apple? There must be a huge one given what you are saying here.
AxionExcel
(755 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)
I - and many millions of others - already know quite enough to cause us to avoid the industrial HFCS goop.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Fructose in HFCS and fructose in an apple are chemically identical.
I realize that you won't accept this.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Very telling that.
AxionExcel
(755 posts)You have mentioned a FORBIDDEN TOPIC.
Such a 'thing' may not be spoken of. Not to be discussed. Some pea-brained jerkhole living in his mother's basement may very well ALERT on you for having mentioned a FORBIDDEN TOPIC.
Please be careful. Lots of small-minded wankers out there on the intertoobs.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)So you just reappear in zombie form and move on to other crazytalk.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)That's who he is.
Thanks. Explains a lot.
Pastiche423
(15,406 posts)Whoop, whoop, whoop!
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Remember when Coke changed their formula several years back? The "old" Coke was sweetened with cane sugar, the new Coke, well, who knows. People hated the New Coke, so Coke changed the formula back to the old blend. EXCEPT, instead of using sugar, they used high fructose corn syrup. Pepsi switched a few month later and nobody cared.
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)If I have a coke, it's the only kind I will drink.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)It showed that Mexican coke (at least in the sample they bought retail) has essentially the same mixture of fructose and glucose as American coke. Two possibilities:
1. HFCS was used in Mexico and their labeling laws don't care.
2. The phosphoric acid in Coke hydrolyzed the sucrose (disaccharide) into the constituent monosaccharides, glucose and fructose.
Either way, drinking Mexican coke (made with pure cane sugar) is the same as far as your body is concerned.
I wish they had added "Throwback" sodas - American made, with sugar instead of HFCS.
About the only advantage to Mexican coke was that it has a little less total sugar.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)For instance, here's a big stack of sugar right here:
Cellulose, from top to bottom. Pure sugar. I could tell you about my problems with lactose (another sugar) if you like?
However, the cellulose in those books is the same as the cellulose in the celery you find in your tuna salad. Lactose from cow milk is the same as lactose from ferret milk. Fructose from corn is the same as fructose from raw honey. This is because sugars are chemical compounds like any other, with a defined, regular molecular structure.
And of course rats fed pure fructose are going to have impaired thinking and heightened insulin levels. That's what happens when you ram any living thing full of fructose. The rat's on a sugar high and its pancreas is whipping out insulin to break down all the fructose you fed it. These aren't dire revelations, they're physiology 101a.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Ilsa
(61,695 posts)HFCS turned off (or on) an enzyme in the brain which is supposed to help regulate our sensation of having had enough dessert or other sweets. HFCS tended to cause a positive feedback loop, IIRC, meaning you'd want more and more, instead of feeling sated and "done".
Of course this research was buried. And then the ads claiming HFCS was the same as sugar were introduced on TV.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)It isn't activated when eating the crap sweetener like HFCS.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And it's a much greater portion of agave.
Your post is not accurate, yet again. You have to know that, so why do you post inaccuracies, anyway?
BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)Maybe you can stick to complaining about such posts in your other forum
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)And why should anyone simply ignore it?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The claim that it was "buried" is laughable. If it were relevant, then it would be cited by other research and meta-analysis. The fact that it isn't should be telling you something.
Ilsa
(61,695 posts)BuddhaGirl
(3,608 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)as has been pointed out.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)So is honey better than HFCS since it occurs naturally but HFCS is manufactured? You tell me.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 27, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Why do you continually promote scam corporations? That's no ok.
And what's rude is making baseless assertions in an OP, having them debunked, and then ignoring the OP completely. That's what happened here, and it's not ok, either.
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Pit of bull salad with corn flake chicken and a Diet Coke, for Mother's Day, nursing mothers get in for free
womanofthehills
(8,718 posts)I bet that pit bull ate GMO dog food with glyphosate to make him taste especially good!
Response to TalkingDog (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)in this major non voluntary human study we have been running,
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Adult metabolic syndrome rates are up
Diabetes is way up
Chrons is up
Celiac is up.
So is obesity (Leptein cycle)
Many doctors are starting to connect the dots and some of the studies have been posted. Suffice to say, I expect this to go the way of big tobacco. Perhaps even with hearings and everything. You might want to look into spokesperson for the association though, you do it well.
But at one point speaking heresy against the health benefits of tobacco was well career ending too
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)The OP still has nothing to do with that.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And research is starting to show those connections.
Trust me, they need you as spokesperson, so we can be shamed, but particularly doctors who are connecting those dots and starting to speak about it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)A product that is unhealthy at any dose. Fructose is a naturally occuring sugar that we eat too much of, as far as I'm aware of, this is true of all refined sugar. Doctor's and nutritionists have been talking about it for decades. There is no secret conspiracy or collusion involved. But we can't avoid ingesting it entirely, the key is moderation in eating.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Tobacco's downfall started this way
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Anti-GMO activists are the ones practicing tobacco science.
http://fafdl.org/blog/2015/05/19/anti-gmo-activists-are-the-ones-practicing-tobacco-science/
Actual science understood the issues with tobacco long before the tobacco companies admitted it. Actual science understands the issues with the lies that the anti-GMO industry spreads, and yet you think that some magic will change that.
villager
(26,001 posts)"Skeptics" would have doubted you -- backed by corporate-provided science....
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It did stick a sense of curiosity in my mind
villager
(26,001 posts)..."charmingly" far-out, and certainly not something they'd ever see in their own lifetimes...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Never, ever gonna happen. Except it is. Year round fire seasons, long droughts, year round tornadoes...nothing to see here
villager
(26,001 posts)...where character assassination is much more important in the run-up to a Presidency which will be a disregarded historical footnote... if climate change remains ignored...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The chairs are being rearranged on the deck as we speak.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I mean, if you want to put the blame on those nefarious, "hidden" HFCS, that's fine, but generally speaking pouring honey into your coffee in the morning is not any better for you.
Too much refined sugar is bad for you, BREAKING FUCKING NEWS!!!!!!!
Problem is too many damned people are apathetic about their health, and the biggest issue is they don't care, they drink their sodas and eat a lot of processed food with far too much fat, carbs and sugar in them, and they become obese, some become diabetic, etc. This isn't a big secret, doctors and other health professionals have been harping on this for decades.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)This post was paid for by the loving and benevolent High-Fructose Corn Syrup Board...now shut up and drink your corn!
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Got it.
northernsouthern
(1,511 posts)My lady is a very educated nurse that loves to talk about this and several PHDs in our families that are all in Genetics bio medical fields. You however may not know what over the top sarcasm is. :p You did notice the text of my thread right? This is something that many of us knew, and it has been painful to watch the arguments go round and round on it because they have money involved in the studies. Many Diabetics also know about it because they are finding how it makes it worse. https://www.diabetes.org.uk/Research/Research-round-up/Behind-the-headlines/High-fructose-corn-syrup-fuelling-diabetes/
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)HDCS and table sugar do the same things. Pretending otherwise is promoting scientific ignorance.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)You know people you think are knowledgeable about this stuff, but you yourself are not.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)grandkids.
Everyone is very healthy, and we ain't gonna fix it if it ain't broke.
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Really? Ever?
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Lots of people have never consumed fruit, berries, honey, flowers, or root vegetables.
Like this guy:
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)Isn't that guy related to the snake in the apple tree?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)You don't need to add sweeteners to your food if you don't want to. If more people did that, type 2 diabetes would disappear.
ananda
(28,866 posts)The Zone diet really works.