Fat Kids........

[Chojin]

The FDA is actually pretty strict on what they do and do not allow people to eat, because they err on the side of people being morons (which is completely understandable). When you hear shit like "OMFG THE FDA ALLOWS 21 RAT TURDS PER BOX OF CEREAL" or some shit, it's either bogus or the rat shit in question isn't enough to really be bad for you. Also, rat turds are delicious.

This is why I have to order my ephedra/caffeine stacks from the internet for tons of money instead of just buying them from the convenience store for peanuts like I used to--fatties were like "INCREASE MY METABOLISM? SOLD" and then ate a bunch of pills that increase heart rate when they already had high blood pressure. Frankly, if anything should be added to our drinking water, it's the E/C stack. We'd have far fewer whiny fatties around.

o i see you just posted, will rspnd in a sec

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

The FDA is actually pretty strict on what they do and do not allow people to eat,

FDA sets 'safe' levels for melamine in baby formula

After first saying that they could not determine a threshold for the safe amount of certain toxic chemicals in infant formula, Food and Drug Administration officials said Friday that trace amounts are safe.

"Amounts of the industrial chemical melamine or the melamine-like compound called cyanuric acid that are below 1.0 ppm [1,000 parts per billion] do not raise public health concerns," said Stephen Sundlof, the FDA's director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

When it became known in September that thousands of babies in China had been sickened by tainted infant formula, the FDA ordered the testing of U.S.-manufactured infant-formula products.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/28/inf...mula.melamine/

I'm glad I can sleep soundly at night knowing the FDA is protecting me.

[Chojin]

Most of what you eat gets into your body and if your body doesn't recognize it or doesn't use it, it goes into fat deposits and festers.

No, it generally gets removed. Eat a handful of rocks and let me know how many end up in your heart instead of the toilet.

Participants in the fructose group, however, showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.

This just says that the fat is redistributed to problem areas. I still don't believe it, but it doesn't support your claim that it adds additional fat as compared to sugar. Since we're playing the repeating game, I'll go ahead and repeat that calories are the entire cause of fat gain and loss. You cannot get magic fat from 0-calorie chemicals. The shit has to come from somewhere. Source: law of conservation of mass.

corn syrup has been singled out by many health experts as one of the chief culprits of rising obesity, because corn syrup does not turn off appetite

Okay again right fucking here, your quote is trying to help me explain something to you. An increase in appetite causes people to eat more calories, which causes them to get more fat. THIS VERY QUOTE RIGHT HERE does not say that HFCS makes people fat. It says that it makes people hungry. Do you not appreciate the difference? If you would like to make the point that HFCS makes people hungry, be my guest, but it does not make them fat by itself.

No,

I said that obese people aren't healthy.

No, you said this:

This says that you don't understand the difference between unhealthy and fattening things, given that fat isn't inherently unhealthy.

It also has been shown to increase appetite in male rats and to induce obesity in female rats and chickens.

Define 'induce' as it's used in this study. My guess? It made them hungrier. Which is redundant.

There is a quote above that counters your statement. They do not have the same effect on the body nor do they have the same structure and they certainly do not have the same nutritional content.

Mountain Dew

kcal 290
carbs 77
sugars 77

Mountain Dew Throwback

kcal 280
carbs 73
sugars 73

Source: http://pepsiproductfacts.com/infobyproduct.php?brand_fam_id=1049&brand_id=1000&product=Mountain+Dew+Throwback

my bad, it's off by 10 whole calories. due to a rebalancing of the formula to make it taste the same.

HFCS is a sugar. It just is. In every way that matters, your body uses it the same way it uses any other sugar. This is also why gatorade works for athletes and doesn't kill them immediately.

fructose is not broken down in the digestive system like other sugars are. Instead, it moves directly into the liver, where it interferes with that organ's ability to process fat.

This does not mean that it isn't broken down in the digestive system AT ALL, it just means that it isn't broken down the same exact way. Again, it's close enough to not matter at all. The way this is worded implies that HFCS somehow dodges your stomach entirely, which is moronic. I guess you are excused for having a moronic understanding of nutrition if you believe that.

Re-read the quotes

Read the quotes to begin with.

I'm glad I can sleep soundly at night knowing the FDA is protecting me.

I don't understand what you're implying here. We don't have perfect knowledge, so we have to adjust our understanding of things as new information is tested and proven. The FDA, being run by human beings, is no exception; and they very much err on the side of caution.

So far, you have conclusively proven that certain chemicals make barnyard animals hungry and that you have a flawed grasp of English.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

No, it generally gets removed. Eat a handful of rocks and let me know how many end up in your heart instead of the toilet.

People don't eat rocks.

Originally Posted by Chojin

This just says that the fat is redistributed to problem areas. I still don't believe it

Why don't you believe it? It's right out in the open. Your not going to concede the argument to me, all you will be doing is acknowledging reality.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Okay again right fucking here, your quote is trying to help me explain something to you. An increase in appetite causes people to eat more calories, which causes them to get more fat. THIS VERY QUOTE RIGHT HERE does not say that HFCS makes people fat. It says that it makes people hungry. Do you not appreciate the difference? If you would like to make the point that HFCS makes people hungry, be my guest, but it does not make them fat by itself.

That's just one change that occurs in a myriad of other negative effects.

Originally Posted by Chojin

No, you said this

I assumed we are talking about obesity. Fat = Obesity. Since that's what the thread is about. Obesity and the causes, which are proven to be HFCS, food additives, and GMO's.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Define 'induce' as it's used in this study. My guess? It made them hungrier. Which is redundant.

Induce meaning makes them retain more fat AND increases there appetite. There are numerous negative consequences to these addtives and synthetic ingredients. We have to take all of them into account. As you state previous "HFAC is just also kinda poisonous. Okay."

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS is a sugar. It just is. In every way that matters, your body uses it the same way it uses any other sugar.

I think I've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that HFCS isn't used by the body in the same way as organic cane sugar.

And as you saw on your mountain dew chart.....HFCS has more calories and they add up.

Originally Posted by Chojin

This does not mean that it isn't broken down in the digestive system AT ALL, it just means that it isn't broken down the same exact way. Again, it's close enough to not matter at all.

Yes,

It's broken down in a different way. An ineffecient, dangerous way that effects the persons health negatively and also interferes with numerous organ and nervous systems.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

People don't eat rocks.

They can (this is actually the function of the pancreas). They can also eat numerous things that are insoluble. Things that the body doesn't use (insoluble fiber, pennies, rocks, bone) generally get passed to the bowel. Not your organs. That is stupid.

Why don't you believe it? It's right out in the open. Your not going to concede the argument to me, all you will be doing is acknowledging reality.

Because you'd have to cite me an article that directly sources a credible study which makes that claim. It could be true, but neither of us know that. In any event, it doesn't cause enough of a detrimental effect to matter in any capacity.

Induce meaning makes them retain more fat AND increases there appetite. There are numerous negative consequences to these addtives and synthetic ingredients. We have to take all of them into account. As you state previous "HFAC is just also kinda poisonous. Okay."

How does HFCS cause someone to retain fat? It's a sugar, and it gets used for fuel, especially in the short term. Also, how much fat does it cause someone to retain? And again, I don't think I ever claimed that HFCS was awesome for you, its negative effects are just pretty negligible compared to sucrose or fructose.

I think I've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that HFCS isn't used by the body in the same way as organic cane sugar.

And as you saw on your mountain dew chart.....HFCS has more calories and they add up.

I think you haven't at all, but that's because I'm only going by things you've actually said.

And actually, according to those nutritional facts I posted, sugar has more calories than HFCS.

290 / 77 = 3.76 kcal/g HFCS
280 / 73 = 3.83 kcal/g Sugar

Which of course isn't true, it's just rounding error. Both are 4 kcal/g.

It's broken down in a different way. An ineffecient, dangerous way that effects the persons health negatively and also interferes with numerous organ and nervous systems.

In the sense that a snake in the road interferes with my ability to drive a car down it, sure.

HFCS, at the end of the day, is really no worse for you than table sugar.

HFCS does taste worse and kinda sucks in other ways. If I had a choice, I'd rather take the sucrose (okay I'd more than likely not eat either of them).

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

They can (this is actually the function of the pancreas). They can also eat numerous things that are insoluble. Things that the body doesn't use (insoluble fiber, pennies, rocks, bone) generally get passed to the bowel. Not your organs. That is stupid.

Trace amounts of any substance you ingest get absorbed. Eat a nickel and then get your blood tested. Heavy Metal Traces will shoot up. Yes the nickel will come out in the bathroom and look untouched but you will still have a high amount of nickel material circulating through your body.

Because you'd have to cite me an article that directly sources a credible study which makes that claim. It could be true, but neither of us know that. In any event, it doesn't cause enough of a detrimental effect to matter in any capacity.

This little video may answer your question. Its somewhat amusing too if you've ever seen the HFCS propaganda commercials a little while ago.

Originally Posted by Chojin

How does HFCS cause someone to retain fat? It's a sugar, and it gets used for fuel, especially in the short term. Also, how much fat does it cause someone to retain? And again, I don't think I ever claimed that HFCS was awesome for you, its negative effects are just pretty negligible compared to sucrose or fructose.

The video above should of answered this question.

Originally Posted by Chojin

I think you haven't at all, but that's because I'm only going by things you've actually said.

And actually, according to those nutritional facts I posted, sugar has more calories than HFCS.

290 / 77 = 3.76 kcal/g HFCS
280 / 73 = 3.83 kcal/g Sugar

Which of course isn't true, it's just rounding error. Both are 4 kcal/g

Mountain Dew

kcal 290
carbs 77
sugars 77

Mountain Dew Throwback

kcal 280
carbs 73
sugars 73

Source: http://pepsiproductfacts.com/infobyp...+Dew+Throwback
This is what you posted before. Isn't the Throwback 280, 73, 73 ?

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS, at the end of the day, is really no worse for you than table sugar.

Actually at the end of the day HFCS, MSG, GMO's, and other unnatural synthetic additives are FAR worse than food that doesn't have them in it.

Much more. Almost night and day actually.

[Chojin]

I'll respond to the video in another post, maybe.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Trace amounts of any substance you ingest get absorbed. Eat a nickel and then get your blood tested. Heavy Metal Traces will shoot up. Yes the nickel will come out in the bathroom and look untouched but you will still have a high amount of nickel material circulating through your body.

key word being 'trace'.

This is what you posted before. Isn't the Throwback 280, 73, 73 ?

Yes, and throwback is the one that uses sugar instead of HFCS. I even posted the formulas and work, but I'm not surprised you didn't read them.

Actually at the end of the day HFCS, MSG, GMO's, and other unnatural synthetic additives are FAR worse than food that doesn't have them in it.

Much more. Almost night and day actually.

No. There is no appreciable difference. You're just being conned by hippies instead of suits.

[RaNkeri]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

I assumed we are talking about obesity. Fat = Obesity.

Human body requires fat to function normally. Having fat in your system doesn't make you obese

Obesity and the causes, which are proven to be HFCS, food additives, and GMO's.

Obesity has existed before any of these even became abundant in diets.

I posted an article that linked high levels of fructose to obesity and diabetes.

Duh? ANYTHING that causes obesity can be linked with diabetes

There is no one in your GI tract that is saying picking out which material is good or not. Most of what you eat gets into your body and if your body doesn't recognize it or doesn't use it, it goes into fat deposits and festers.

Really? And here I thought that they were secreted into feces and urine.

And since it seems that you only care about videos/articles etc., I'll be quoting the obvious from few articles:

Like sugar, honey and some fruit juices, high fructose corn syrup contains almost equal portions of fructose and glucose. Glucose has been shown to have a tempering effect on specific metabolic effects of fructose," Erickson says in a statement.

"New research continues to confirm that high fructose corn syrup is no different from other sweeteners. It has the same number of calories as sugar and is handled similarly by the body."

But Sandon says there is some evidence that high fructose corn syrup breaks down differently in the body than other sugars.

Madelyn Fernstrom, PhD, CNS, agrees that demonizing one type of sugar misses the point. "Everything in moderation," she says. "We are blaming individual sugars or individual fats when we should be focusing on calories. If someone drinks a 64-ounce soda, who cares if it is high-fructose corn syrup or cane sugar? It's still about 800 calories."

“There are lots of people out there who want to demonize fructose as the cause of the obesity epidemic,” she said. “I think it may be a contributor, but it’s not the only problem. Americans are eating too many calories for their activity level. We’re overeating fat, we’re overeating protein; and we’re overeating all sugars.”

[Chojin]

Okay, the video only says that HFCS makes you hungrier, sugar tastes better, and there are some possible implications regarding various illnesses (which are also caused by eating sugar). Nothing about HFCS making people fatter or sicker than sugar would.

So again. HFCS doesn't make people fat, people eating makes people fat.

And I didn't say that you were a hippie, I said that hippies were conning you. Which is kinda worse, tbh.

So sugar has less Kcal, sugar, and carbs then HFCS then?

What the fuck? No. Again, if you run the numbers on those two drinks, it will tell you that sugar has more calories per gram than HFCS. And again, that's only due to rounding error--HFCS and sugar actually have the same calorie content per gram.

Maybe you're getting confused by the total calorie count being lower? Calories are basically a summary of the fat, carbs, alcohol, and protein in a food.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

Okay, the video only says that HFCS makes you hungrier

Yes,

that's just one negative consequence in the mountain of other complications which it causes.

sugar tastes better, and there are some possible implications regarding various illnesses (which are also caused by eating sugar).

As stated previously sugar doesn't do as much harm to the body like HFCS.

Nothing about HFCS making people fat all or sick when compared to sugar.

No,

As stated in the video and quotes HFCS causes many problems because of its unique structure.

So again. HFCS doesn't make people fat, people eating makes people fat.

The kind of food fed to the populace decides whether or not they will be fat.

And I didn't say that you were a hippie, I said that hippies were conning you. Which is kinda worse, tbh.

If its between getting conned by hippies or denying vast amounts of well known data. Then I guess I'll choose the hippy-con men.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

As stated previously sugar doesn't do as much harm to the body like HFCS.

And as stated, sugar does at least 99% as much harm to the body as HFCS.

No,

As stated in the video and quotes HFCS causes many problems because of its unique structure.

Except that's not what they said at all, they just listed a bunch of shit that HFCS does that sugar also does.

The kind of food fed to the populace decides whether or not they will be fat.

Wow, are you for real? Who's forcing you to eat HFCS? Anything you eat that contains it is going to be clown food whether it's using HFCS or sugar. It would make you fat when consumed in quantity whether it had HFCS or not.

If its between getting conned by hippies or denying vast amounts of well known data. Then I guess I'll choose the hippy-con men.

You don't have a fucking clue what HFCS does to you, you're just misinterpreting facts and regurgitating them ad nauseum to someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I mad.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

And as stated, sugar does at least 99% as much harm to the body as HFCS.

I didn't see anything backing that statement up. I did see a whole bunch of studies on how HFCS destroys the body and organs though.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Except that's not what they said at all, they just listed a bunch of shit that HFCS does that sugar also does.

I still don't understand how you're comparing sugar to HFCS. They are completely different in every way. Yes, large amounts of sugar is bad for you but at least it doesn't rot you out from the inside and halts liver processes, leptin, and cause neurological damage from being tainted by mercury.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Wow, are you for real? Who's forcing you to eat HFCS? Anything you eat that contains it is going to be clown food whether it's using HFCS or sugar. It would make you fat when consumed in quantity whether it had HFCS or not.

People don't read labels. Who educates them about the dangers of HFCS? Whatever is cheap and on the shelf people will buy.

So as I stated, "Whatever is fed to the populace will decide how unhealthy they will be"

Originally Posted by Chojin

You don't have a fucking clue what HFCS does to you, you're just misinterpreting facts and regurgitating them ad nauseum to someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I mad.

HFCS is dangerous. I haven't found any research stating otherwise.

[Pentegarn]

this thread needs more quotes

[Chojin]

Well, this is pointless. Here, you can automatically respond to every post you would have made in this thread hereafter with these points and save us both aggravation by having a cyclical argument with yourself in Notepad.

HFCS has the same exact nutritional content as sugar.
Its chemical compound is not "completely different". It is "slightly different but pretty much the same".

HFCS is not any more dangerous than sugar.
Its negative side effects are trace and negligible.

[Chojin]

Oh and to respond directly to the article's claim in the OP in what I hope is the last post I'll make in this thread:

HFCS isn't responsible for obesity because the only way you can get HFCS in your system in the first place is by eating junk. No one is to blame for you eating junk but yourself.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS has the same exact nutritional content as sugar.
Its chemical compound is not "completely different". It is "slightly different but pretty much the same".

So the compound is different. As the name would state. I've been noticing your using a lot of words like "Slightly, somewhat, kinda, etc", this does not help your argument.

Metabolic Danger of High-Fructose Corn Syrup


By Dana Flavin, MS, MD, PHD

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/...n-Syrup_01.htm

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS is not any more dangerous than sugar.
Its negative side effects are trace and negligible.

Unfortunately HFCS is the culprit to numerous serious diseases.

Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup

Since HFCS’s widespread introduction in the 1980’s North American [COLOR=#CC3333 ! important][COLOR=#CC3333 ! important]obesity[/color][/color] rates have skyrocketed. Obesity has been linked to may heath issues including heart disease and many forms of cancer. When HFCS is ingested, it travels straight to the liver which turns the sugary liquid into fat, and unlike other carbohydrates HFCS does not cause the pancreas to produce insulin; which acts as a [COLOR=#CC3333 ! important][COLOR=#CC3333 ! important]hunger[/color][/color] quenching signal to the brain. So we get stuck in a vicious cycle, eating food that gets immediately stored as fat and never feeling full.

Read more: http://healthmad.com/nutrition/dange...#ixzz0nCZn0Pun

These articles are everywhere and they all say the same thing. Is this a huge conspiracy against HFCS? Or is it just a blatant reality?

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS isn't responsible for obesity because the only way you can get HFCS in your system in the first place is by eating junk. No one is to blame for you eating junk but yourself.

If people aren't educated how do they know what is good for them? Most people just buy the cheapest stuff and believe they are eating the right things and now everything says natural on it so how are they supposed to know what is really good for them if they are being lied to at every turn?

also this....





This is a good one.

[Colonel Flagg]

Dear God in heaven help us. :Pray

EDIT - do you really feel that the endless blog quotes and youtube videos are proving your point?

Because they're not.

[Colonel Flagg]

It's on YouTube, so it must be true. BELIEVE ME ALL YOU SHEEP!

EDIT: They were eating HFCS. IT'S TRUE, DAMMIT!

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Cool and the gang

See, it's either synthetic or its organic. You can't have both. The junk they use in our food that has been studied in laboratories to make rats obese and double their appetites are synthetic. It's added to most food and its under numerous names.

Most of this thread is well over my head, but I did pick up on this. I don't think Chojin meant that MSG is synthetic and organic at the same time, he's saying that MSG is organic and there are synthetic versions of it too. Or... the other way around. I suffer from one of those neurological conditions that you mentioned, so I watch out for MSG and it's counterparts in food, this includes it occurring naturally in tomatoes, mushrooms and crap, and also synthetically in a lot of other foods; mainly listed here as flavour preservative/enhancer 620 or 621.


Strangely enough, the levels of MSG found in some vegetables are not harmful to me in small doses.

[Colonel Flagg]

[Colonel Flagg]

[Chojin]

I told him the same exact crap without citing anything, because it's pretty much nutrition 101. But since it would seem he only listens to things in quote boxes, maybe that will help.

Originally Posted by Rankeri

We’re overeating fat, we’re overeating protein; and we’re overeating all sugars.”

Disagree with this part. It's pretty much impossible for a normal person to 'overeat' protein. About 1g x pounds of lean body mass is a theoretical limit for people who don't exercise. Most people in America have about 20-25% bodyfat and weigh about 200 lbs, so 150-160g protein is their limit. A large (8 oz) sirloin steak has about 70g of protein, so you could easily eat two of those a day even when you aren't working out and be fine (if you ARE working out, protein requirements can double).

Also, protein is vastly preferred over fat and carbs when it comes to calories. For one thing, it has fewer calories per gram than fat. For another, eating protein increases satiety (makes you feel full) much better than other nutrients. Finally, eating protein spares your body's stored protein, which means that your muscles won't cannibalize themselves in your sleep (this is mostly only a problem for people who diet with low amounts of fat).

An interesting side point here is that Americans still eat way more protein than people in other nations. Most countries have a stigma about consuming a lot of meat, but there's no nutritional basis for it. Strangely, we're one of the more healthy nations in that regard.

[RaNkeri]

I found the statement a bit odd too, but decided to quote the sentence as it was instead of editing it. She probably said it accidentally, or perhaps she meant high protein diets in general?

Nevertheless, the message should be clear

[Chojin]

I forgot to explain why it's "pretty much impossible for a normal person to overeat protein". It's because (as mentioned, but not correlated) you stop being hungry long before you could overeat protein. As a DIY exercise, try to cook up 100g of lean chicken breast (13oz of chicken, about 3oz shy of a pound) and eat it all in one sitting. You fucking can't, you would throw up if you tried. MAYBE unless you exercise like a motherfucker and increase your appetite that way.

However as coolie has so awkwardly posited, MSG and HFCS increase appetite. Perhaps we can slather corn syrup and MSG onto a big bucket of grilled chicken and power through the entire thing. NEW SUPPLEMENTS?!?

[Zhukov]

A urologist recommended that I cut my protein intake a bit. DEATH PANEL.