Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: JOHN MATRIX on September 04, 2011, 08:03:23 AM
-
what are your thoughts on 'high fructose corn syrup'
also i tried a pepsi max and it was mediocre, may as well drink a monster or a red bull
-
what are your thoughts on tennis player, simona halep, having her magnificent tits reduced in size ? :'(
(http://cache.sharenxs.com/images/wz/caba/eg/bb/bg/bf/simonahalep.gif)
-
???
-
what are your thoughts on tennis player, simona halep, having her magnificent tits reduced in size ? :'(
(http://cache.sharenxs.com/images/wz/caba/eg/bb/bg/bf/simonahalep.gif)
There was even an online petition to stop her, but it was in vain. Now she's just another mediocrate ugly Eastern European tennis nobody..... :'(
-
There was even an online petition to stop her, but it was in vain. Now she's just another mediocrate ugly Eastern European tennis nobody..... :'(
(http://composta.net/fueradelugar/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/simona-halep.jpg)
(http://storage0.dms.mpinteractiv.ro/media/401/581/7966/4306249/1/simona-halep.jpg?width=661)
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_03/2PaszekFOT_800x520.jpg)
Sweet Jesus. :o :o Those Milk Jugs have been reduced. :'( :'(
-
what are your thoughts on 'high fructose corn syrup'
also i tried a pepsi max and it was mediocre, may as well drink a monster or a red bull
HFCS is perfectly fine and behaves exactly as sugar.
Pepsi Max is still the king for many reasons.
-
Pepsi Max is still the king for many reasons.
Go on...
-
Should be counted calorically like sugar (sucrose) but does not act like sucrose when the ratios go beyond 55-45 fructose to glucose in the liver. Should be limited.
-
HFCS should be reduced, unlike those boobs. :P
-
HFCS is perfectly fine and behaves exactly as sugar.
And sugar is far from fine. Too much fructose is implicated in metabolic syndrome and correlates very highly with the development of artherosclerosis, diabetes and gout. Fructose, unlike glucose, does not pass straight from the G.I to the bloodstream, but has to be metabolized in the liver. Fructose is broken down and transformed into tryglycerides, which are then released into the bloodstream. These triglycerides are then taken back into the liver where they oxidize and glycate, forming massive amounts of low density lipoproteins which are released again into the bloodstream and clog it. Fructose also significantly raises uric acid, just like protein, through mechanisms not understood very well, and high uric acid leads to acidosis which can lead to both gout and ostheoporosis. Unlike protein, though, it doesen't also raise ammonia levels. Both rats and monkeys fed diets that are controlled for calories, one group fed only fructose and the other only glucose, the former group showed dramatically increased plasma triglycerides and their urine become significantly more acidic. These are all poor indicators of health.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
what are your thoughts on tennis player, simona halep, having her magnificent tits reduced in size ? :'(
(http://cache.sharenxs.com/images/wz/caba/eg/bb/bg/bf/simonahalep.gif)
dude, when I heard she had her breasts reduced, i almost cried :'( :'(
-
(http://composta.net/fueradelugar/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/simona-halep.jpg)
(http://storage0.dms.mpinteractiv.ro/media/401/581/7966/4306249/1/simona-halep.jpg?width=661)
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_03/2PaszekFOT_800x520.jpg)
Sweet Jesus. :o :o Those Milk Jugs have been reduced. :'( :'(
:o :o :o :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/simona-halep-before-and-after.jpg)
-
most women would kill for natual tits like that.
she cuts them off for fucking tennis... lol
-
most women would kill for natual tits like that.
she cuts them off for fucking tennis... lol
And is terrible at Tennis. :-\ :-\ :-\ I guess they were holding her back. ::) ::)
-
8) Breast reduction should be made illegal . Death penalty inforced .
-
ONLINE PETITION FOR SIMONA HALEP! TOO LATE THOUGH :'( :'(
http://www.petitiononline.com/TITTIES/petition.html
-
HFCS is perfectly fine and behaves exactly as sugar.
not so
"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. "
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
-
she's been following the 'adonis principles'... where did she go wrong?
(http://i.imgur.com/b5S1B.gif)
-
she's been following the 'adonis principles'... where did she go wrong?
(http://i.imgur.com/b5S1B.gif)
worse chicks than this were voted "hittable" by getbig before.
-
worse chicks than this were voted "hittable" by getbig before.
...with a 2x4?
-
she's been following the 'adonis principles'... where did she go wrong?
(http://i.imgur.com/b5S1B.gif)
Holding a bit of water thur
-
worse chicks than this were voted "hittable" by getbig before.
Only by Parker and his crew
-
not so
"A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. "
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
How do you gain more weight when caloric intake is the same? Makes no sense.
-
How do you gain more weight when caloric intake is the same? Makes no sense.
i know it doesnt. but that was the results of the study. the article hypothesizes:
"High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles."
???
studies in rats and animals have fairly consistant record of proving to be the same when done in humans.
-
i know it doesnt. but that was the results of the study. the article hypothesizes:
"High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.
This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles."
???
studies in rats and animals have fairly consistant record of proving to be the same when done in humans.
Food Industry Experts and Journalists Question Princeton Study
“So, I’m skeptical. I don’t think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats. I’m afraid I have to agree with the Corn Refiners on this one. So does HFCS make rats fat? Sure if you feed them too many calories altogether. Sucrose will do that too.”
Marion Nestle, Ph.D., Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health, New York University
March 24, 2010, FoodPolitics.com
“The researchers concluded ‘over-consumption of HFCS could very well be a major factor in the ‘obesity epidemic,’ which correlates with the upsurge in the use of HFCS.’ It might be. But to my mind, these experiments hardly prove it.”
Karen Kaplan, Science Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times
March 24, 2010, Los Angeles Times blog Booster Shots
“This study is poorly designed and poorly controlled and does not prove or even suggest that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose [table sugar].”
Karen Teff, Ph.D., Associate Director, Institute for Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
March 26, 2010, EatingWell.com
“If the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours gained more weight, why didn’t the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours also gain more weight? They got HFCS for a full 12 hours more, yet didn’t gain more weight. This is a glaring inconsistency in the results…an inconsistency that the researchers never tried to explain.”
James Krieger, M.S., Weightology, LLC
May 22, 2010, Weightology Weekly
Gross Errors in Princeton Animal Study on Obesity and High Fructose Corn Syrup
Research in Humans Discredits Princeton Study
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 22, 2010
CONTACT: Audrae Erickson
(202) 331-1634
WASHINGTON, DC – A March 22, 2010 press release entitled “A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain” issued by Princeton University was based on a study that used grossly exaggerated intake levels in rats and incorrectly suggested that such results could have significant meaning for humans.
In the study “High –fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels,”(1) the authors failed to put into perspective the excessive amount consumed by the rats in their experimental design. Translating the study’s reported rat intakes to human proportions, the calories gained from high fructose corn syrup would be equivalent to about 3000 kcal/day all from that single source. In comparison, adult humans consume about 2,000 calories per day from all dietary sources. Such intake levels for the study animals would be the equivalent of humans drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day – a highly unrealistic amount. Moreover, the researchers concluded that the rats gained more weight from high fructose corn syrup than they would have from sugar, yet the researchers had no proper basis for drawing this conclusion since they failed to provide sucrose controls for part of the study’s short-term experiments and no sucrose controls whatsoever were present in any of the long-term experiments.
“Consumers should not be misled by exaggerated studies that feed astronomical amounts of one ingredient to the study subjects, in this case rats. The medical community has long dismissed results from rat dietary studies as being inapplicable to human beings,” stated Audrae Erickson, president, Corn Refiners Association.
“Consumers should rest assured that high fructose corn syrup is safe. The American Medical Association concluded that high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than sugar. The American Dietetic Association stated that these two sweeteners are indistinguishable to the human body and are metabolized equivalently,” Erickson noted.
“This study unnecessarily confuses consumers about human metabolism of common sugars in the diet. A sugar is a sugar whether it comes from cane, corn, or beets. Both sugar and high fructose corn syrup are handled the same by the body. No metabolic effects have been found in studies that compare sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption in humans,” concluded Erickson.
-
http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/health/why-the-new-study-on-high-fructose-corn-syrup-and-weight-gain-is-flawed-1232273
Why the new study on high-fructose corn syrup and weight gain is flawed
by The Editors of EatingWell Magazine, on Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:39am PDT
13 CommentsPost a CommentRead More from This Author »Report Abuse
This week I noticed many news media outlets were reporting that high-fructose corn syrup causes more weight gain than sugar does. The study everyone is referring to is out of Princeton and reported that rats given access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those exposed to table sugar, even when they consumed the same number of calories overall. My first reaction was, “Oh no! Had we gotten it all wrong?” In May 2009, EatingWell did a comprehensive report on high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), found in many processed foods, particularly in sweetened beverages. Then, after talking with top-notch nutrition researchers about everything from whether HFCS makes you hungrier to whether it makes kids hyper, we concluded the following:
To date, the research suggests that high-fructose corn syrup and table sugar aren’t that different: they’re both processed sweeteners that add “empty” calories to our diets. Our bodies seem to treat them the same way. At EatingWell, we try to limit sweeteners of any kind in recipes. Whenever possible, we use ingredients that don’t contain HFCS.
All of the published research available—and hours of interviews with experts who studied HFCS—led us to this conclusion. But perhaps this Princeton report was turning all that previous research on its head? If it did turn out that HFCS does, indeed, affect metabolism in ways that causes us to gain weight, I wanted to let our readers know as soon as possible. To help us interpret the research, I contacted Karen Teff, Ph.D., a physiologist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia who has studied the issue extensively. She told us, “This study is poorly designed and poorly controlled and does not prove or even suggest that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose [table sugar].”
Teff offers the following: 1) this study does not provide evidence that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose, and 2) has no applicability to humans. She also emphasizes that one thing we can all take away from this is that “sweetened, caloric beverages should not be part of the daily diet.” (Need another reason to quit soda? Find out what it’s doing to your body here.) Teff went on to say, “Water or milk, which is nutritive and contains vitamins, are the beverages of choice.” (How much water do you really need? Find out here.)
Here’s why she came to her conclusions:
The solutions of HFCS and sucrose used in all the studies—there were a few—in the Princeton report provided different levels of calories. (The HFCS, in fact, was lower in calories.)
In one of the studies, the authors reported that male rats had a higher body weight after being exposed to 12 hours of access to the HFCS plus their typical rat chow compared to 1) standard chow alone, 2) 12 hours of access to sucrose with chow, and 3) 24 hours of access to sucrose with chow. However, they did not report or do the statistics on the change in weight. Thus, this is meaningless and poorly controlled.
In a second experiment, they compared chow to chow-plus-HFCS for 24 hours and chow-plus-HFCS for 12 hours and found that access to the HFCS increased body weight. So what? Again, meaningless. This is like taking two groups of people, giving them the same diet but allowing one group to drink sweetened soda whenever they liked. Of course, they will gain weight because they are ingesting more calories. These findings have nothing to do with the controversy between sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup.
Finally, in a third study, they show body weight as a percent of baseline (this is appropriate) and show that rats who had free access to both chow and HFCS gained a tiny bit more weight than chow alone, 12 hours of HFCS or 12 hours of sucrose. They did not compare it to the control of 24 hours of access to sucrose.
-
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4138-skepticism-grows-about-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hype
Skepticism Grows About High Fructose Corn Syrup Hype
Every day, more people are pointing out flaws in last month’s Princeton University study finding that rats fed high fructose corn syrup gained more weight than rats fed sucrose (table sugar). The authors of the research speculated that this could signify that high fructose corn syrup has a unique role in fueling America’s “obesity epidemic.” Earlier in the week, however, nutrition professor Marion Nestle detailed her confusion about how the researchers could have reached that conclusion. Today Washington Post health writer Jennifer LaRue Huget voices her skepticism with the Princeton study, writing that the evidence is “not convincing enough” to support the authors’ speculations.
We are also unconvinced, in large part because sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are nutritionally equivalent. A set of five papers published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in December 2008 has already debunked the theory that high fructose corn syrup was uniquely responsible for the rise in obesity rates.
Even a Princeton scientist who worked on the project now says the results from the rats do not “immediately translate to humans.” That’s all well and good, but will the researchers stop with the pointless speculation? University of North Carolina professor Barry Popkin already tried that back in 2004, theorizing about a high fructose corn syrup-to-obesity link. It didn’t turn out so well.
Thankfully, Huget drops some common sense into the debate:
The bottom line: Drinks sweetened by sugar or [high fructose corn syrup] contain calories, and consuming too many calories can make you fat.
Lab rats don't get to choose what they eat and drink. But people do.
-
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/h/4135-marion-nestle-agrees-a-sugar-is-a-sugar-period
Marion Nestle Agrees: A Sugar Is A Sugar, Period.
We were surprised on Monday to read that researchers found that rats fed high fructose corn syrup experienced more weight gain than rats fed table sugar. It raised some red flags because sucrose and high fructose corn syrup are handled the same metabolically and contain the same number of calories per teaspoon. And a set of five papers published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has already debunked the theory that high fructose corn syrup was uniquely responsible for the rise in obesity rates in America.
And now, Marion Nestle has shed some perspective and analysis on this research. Writing on her blog, Nestle says she’s confused about how the Princeton researchers even came to their conclusion that high fructose corn syrup causes more weight gain than sucrose:
It has long been known that feeding sugars to rats makes them eat more and gain weight. But, as summarized in Table 1 in the paper, the researchers did only two experiments that actually compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose on weight gain, and these gave inconsistent results. Their other experiments compared HFCS to chow alone. […]
Although the authors say calorie intake was the same, they do not report calories consumed nor do they discuss how they determined that calorie intake was the same. This is an important oversight because measuring the caloric intake of lab rats is notoriously difficult to do (they are messy).
The only question left is: Why do the mainstream media continue to give credence to the supposed "debate" about high fructose corn syrup? The debate was over long ago. The only people continuing to stir the pot on high fructose corn syrup are from a handful of companies that market their products as being made of "pure cane sugar" or being "HFCS free"—both of which con consumers into thinking that the products are healthier or more natural (they're not). Of course, the real reason is simple: These companies are looking for anything that will boost their sales in an economic downturn.
Nestle concludes:
So does HFCS make rats fat? Sure if you feed them too many calories altogether. Sucrose will do that, too.
Hear that? Calories are still calories. And sugar is still sugar. Thanks, Marion. You’re absolutely right.
-
http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/03/hfcs-makes-rats-fat/comment-page-2/#comments
Bart Hoebel
March 26, 2010
8:21 pm
I am head of the laboratory that did the Princeton high-fructose corn syrup study (B.H.) and would like to address the points made by Marion Nestle (M.N.)
M.N. I can hardly believe that Princeton sent out a press release yesterday announcing the results of this rat study. The press release says: “Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.” It has long been known that feeding sugars to rats makes them eat more and gain weight. But, as summarized in Table 1 in the paper, the researchers did only two experiments that actually compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose on weight gain, and these gave inconsistent results.
B.H. Eating sucrose does not necessarily increase body weight in rats, although it has been shown to do so in some studies, usually employing high concentrations of sucrose, such as 32%. Our previously published work, has found no effect of 10% sucrose on mean body weight. At this concentration, rats seem to compensate for the sucrose calories by eating less chow. You are correct that we twice compared HFCS to sucrose in the present article. There were statistically significant effects on body weight, triglycerides level and fat accrual in both male and female rats.
M.N. The first study used 10 male rats in each group and observed them for 8 weeks. At the end of the study, the rats fed chow alone weighed 462 grams. The rats fed sucrose plus chow weighed 477±9 grams. The rats fed HFCS plus chow weighed 502±11 grams. The authors say the difference between 477 and 502 grams is statistically significant. But these rats were offered the sugars for 12 hours per day. The rats fed HFCS for 24 hours per day, which should be expected to be fatter, were not. They weighed less (470 grams) than the rats fed sucrose for 12 hours per day. So these results are inconsistent.
B.H. Actually, it is well known that limited access to foods potentiates intake. There have been several studies showing that when rats are offered a palatable food on a limited basis, they consume as much or more of it than rats offered the same diet ad libitum, and in some cases this can produce an increase in body weight. So, it is incorrect to expect that just because the rats have a food available ad libitum, they should gain more weight than rats with food available on a limited basis.
M.N. The second study did not compare rats eating HFCS to rats eating sucrose. It just looked at the effects of HFCS in groups of 8 male rats.
B.H. In Experiment 2, the long-term study, we did compare HFCS to sucrose in female rats; the schedules of availability were different as explained in the article, because we were interested in assessing the effects of limited vs. continuous access, and males vs. females, in addition to comparing HFCS to sucrose. We also explored body fat accrual and triglyceride levels in both male and female rats. We explain in the article that we purposefully did not compare HFCS to sucrose in Experiment 2 in males, because we did not see an effect of sucrose on body weight in males in Experiment 1 (see Method section).
M.N. The third study used female rats (number not given) and observed them for 7 months. At the end of the study period, female rats fed HFCS plus chow for 12 hours a day weighed 323±9 grams. Female rats fed sucrose plus chow under the same conditions weighed 333±10 grams. This result is not statistically significant.
B.H. Our finding with female rats was statistically significant, as reported in the paper for Experiment 2. The data you highlight are selected, and they do not portray all of the groups and the findings of this experiment. The main findings of this part of the study are that, with long-term access, female rats with ad libitum access to HFCS weighed the most after 7 months (end point body weight was 355 g), and this was statistically different than the 12-hour sucrose and chow-fed control groups. In no place in the article do we say that the groups that you highlight are statistically different.
M.N. Although the authors say calorie intake was the same, they do not report calories consumed, nor do they discuss how they determined that calorie intake was the same. This is an important oversight because measuring the caloric intake of lab rats is notoriously difficult to do (they are messy).
B.H. Caloric intake for the sugars was reported in the Results section for Experiment 1. As commonly done, we did not present the overall caloric intake since there was no difference between groups. In the Methods section we explain that we measured HFCS, sucrose and chow intake daily. We computed the calories consumed as described in the Methods section. We followed standard laboratory protocol for collecting data on food consumption. The drinking tubes used in the study to administer sucrose and HFCS solutions had an anti-drip devices built in, and we collected food spillage for accuracy. Our laboratory has an extensive history of accurately collecting data on these measures. We reported the caloric intake and the standard error of sugar consumption, which illustrates the variability in intake for a given group.
M.N. So does HFCS make rats fat? Sure if you feed them too many calories altogether. Sucrose will do that too.
B.H. We agree that sucrose can also increase body weight, and in our article we cite studies showing weight gain using higher concentrations than the one tested in the present study. However, in our studies published in the last six years, we do not see rats becoming obese when offered a 10% sucrose solution. In the present study we report finding that 8% HFCS does cause obesity, and it does not appear to be due to increased calorie intake. This leads to an interesting scientific question that warrants further exploration. We plan on conducting new research that could provide additional information to help address this important and interesting topic of research.
Our study in laboratory rats complements the growing body of literature suggesting that HFCS affects body weight and some obesogenic parameters. We cite in our paper additional evidence reported by other groups that supports our findings, and also acknowledge studies that suggest that HFCS does not affect body weight in ways different than that of sucrose. We acknowledge in the paper that at higher concentrations (i.e., 32%) sucrose have been shown to increase body weight. We are claiming, however, that at the concentrations we compared in this study, HFCS causes characteristics of obesity. The data show that both male and female rats are (1) overweight, (2) have heavier fat pads, particularly in the abdominal area and (3) have elevated circulating triglyceride levels.
For more information and references on this topic, see a recent review published this year by Dr. George Bray, Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010 Feb;21(1):51-7.”Soft drink consumption and obesity: it is all about fructose”.
-
http://where-is-the-beef.blogspot.com/2010/11/is-high-fructose-corn-syrup-hfcs-eviler_22.html
Jeff Walker, professor of Biology at the University of Southern Maine, Portland, doing a VERY detailed critique of the study:
Closing thoughts
This paper has an unusually rich number of errors in statistical design and analysis, selective picking of results that match what can only be a preferred outcome, and outright misrepresentation of the design and results. The senior authors, the editor handling the paper, the editor-in-chief, the reviewers, the Princeton University press release team, and any science blogs and journalists that uncritically parroted the press release should simply be ashamed.
-
TBombz,
Once again, you have been snookered. Sorry there fella. :-\
-
Food Industry Experts and Journalists Question Princeton Study
“So, I’m skeptical. I don’t think the study produces convincing evidence of a difference between the effects of HFCS and sucrose on the body weight of rats. I’m afraid I have to agree with the Corn Refiners on this one. So does HFCS make rats fat? Sure if you feed them too many calories altogether. Sucrose will do that too.”
Marion Nestle, Ph.D., Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health, New York University
March 24, 2010, FoodPolitics.com
“The researchers concluded ‘over-consumption of HFCS could very well be a major factor in the ‘obesity epidemic,’ which correlates with the upsurge in the use of HFCS.’ It might be. But to my mind, these experiments hardly prove it.”
Karen Kaplan, Science Staff Writer, Los Angeles Times
March 24, 2010, Los Angeles Times blog Booster Shots
“This study is poorly designed and poorly controlled and does not prove or even suggest that HFCS is more likely to lead to obesity than sucrose [table sugar].”
Karen Teff, Ph.D., Associate Director, Institute for Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
March 26, 2010, EatingWell.com
“If the rats fed HFCS for 12 hours gained more weight, why didn’t the rats fed HFCS for 24 hours also gain more weight? They got HFCS for a full 12 hours more, yet didn’t gain more weight. This is a glaring inconsistency in the results…an inconsistency that the researchers never tried to explain.”
James Krieger, M.S., Weightology, LLC
May 22, 2010, Weightology Weekly
Gross Errors in Princeton Animal Study on Obesity and High Fructose Corn Syrup
Research in Humans Discredits Princeton Study
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 22, 2010
CONTACT: Audrae Erickson
(202) 331-1634
WASHINGTON, DC – A March 22, 2010 press release entitled “A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain” issued by Princeton University was based on a study that used grossly exaggerated intake levels in rats and incorrectly suggested that such results could have significant meaning for humans.
In the study “High –fructose corn syrup causes characteristics of obesity in rats: Increased body weight, body fat and triglyceride levels,”(1) the authors failed to put into perspective the excessive amount consumed by the rats in their experimental design. Translating the study’s reported rat intakes to human proportions, the calories gained from high fructose corn syrup would be equivalent to about 3000 kcal/day all from that single source. In comparison, adult humans consume about 2,000 calories per day from all dietary sources. Such intake levels for the study animals would be the equivalent of humans drinking a total of 20 cans of 12 ounce sodas per day – a highly unrealistic amount. Moreover, the researchers concluded that the rats gained more weight from high fructose corn syrup than they would have from sugar, yet the researchers had no proper basis for drawing this conclusion since they failed to provide sucrose controls for part of the study’s short-term experiments and no sucrose controls whatsoever were present in any of the long-term experiments.
“Consumers should not be misled by exaggerated studies that feed astronomical amounts of one ingredient to the study subjects, in this case rats. The medical community has long dismissed results from rat dietary studies as being inapplicable to human beings,” stated Audrae Erickson, president, Corn Refiners Association.
“Consumers should rest assured that high fructose corn syrup is safe. The American Medical Association concluded that high fructose corn syrup does not appear to contribute more to obesity than sugar. The American Dietetic Association stated that these two sweeteners are indistinguishable to the human body and are metabolized equivalently,” Erickson noted.
“This study unnecessarily confuses consumers about human metabolism of common sugars in the diet. A sugar is a sugar whether it comes from cane, corn, or beets. Both sugar and high fructose corn syrup are handled the same by the body. No metabolic effects have been found in studies that compare sugar and high fructose corn syrup consumption in humans,” concluded Erickson.
That is what i suspected. The weight could have been altered by fluid retention as well. Was everything evenly distributed, etc...
-
That is what i suspected. The weight could have been altered by fluid retention as well. Was everything evenly distributed, etc...
Its sad because the damage has been done via media outlets, internet and the always dreaded "word of mouth" spreading of blatant nonsense. People are always much too shallow to check back or follow up on such things.
You noticed a glaring error early on as soon as you saw it posted that there is no way that it could be correct. Its amazing that most everyone was instantly fooled when they should have practiced a bit of incredulity or skepticism from the outset.
Its amazing how HFCS has become so unfairly vilified which will just end up ultimately hurting the consumer as the price of goods will continually go up as companies begin to replace HFCS because the public writ large is too stupid and rather believe myths and lies instead of fact and evidence.
So to those who rail against HFCS ingnorantly, keep it up if you enjoy paying MORE for Less. The companies will willingly oblige and take more of your money.
-
does anybody really even know what the hell is going on?
anyways so whats so good about pepsi max???
-
does anybody really even know what the hell is going on?
anyways so whats so good about pepsi max???
Taste, Caffeine content, the ability to hold carbonation longer than any other diet drink.
-
My ex wife had hers breasts reduced a year ago......she was a 38 DDD, they were magnificent.
The first time I saw her I looked at her like "what the fuck did you do to yourself??"
I tried to hide it, because there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but my face gave it away.
She says she's happy with her decision, but I know she isn't...she never was a good liar
-
That tennis whore should be charged for some sort of criminal offense!
-
theres no way i could get the same amount of work done at my job without HFCS latent canada dry ginger ales!
-
My ex wife had hers breasts reduced a year ago......she was a 38 DDD, they were magnificent.
The first time I saw her I looked at her like "what the fuck did you do to yourself??"
I tried to hide it, because there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube, but my face gave it away.
She says she's happy with her decision, but I know she isn't...she never was a good liar
A and B cup are the way to go in my opinion. Never bigger, Ever. It throws off aesthetics completely.
-
A and B cup are the way to go in my opinion. Never bigger, Ever. It throws off aesthetics completely.
-
a white man is not this naturally lean and muscular it has to be one or the other to remain in homeostasis
-
a white man is not this naturally lean and muscular it has to be one or the other to remain in homeostasis
Johnny you've been in that kind of shape and I agree, very difficult to mantain.
-
Interesting studies and debate over rat models. When experts disagree it can be very confusing. BUT, check out Sugar, The Bitter truth by Dr. Robert Lustig on youtube (can't post the video right now). This should answer some questions. Very well presented. The magazine articles Adam published are speculation and although HFCS is not uniquely repsonsible for the obesity epidemic, it is tangentially contributive.
-
Interesting studies and debate over rat models. When experts disagree it can be very confusing. BUT, check out Sugar, The Bitter truth by Dr. Robert Lustig on youtube (can't post the video right now). This should answer some questions. Very well presented. The magazine articles Adam published are speculation and although HFCS is not uniquely repsonsible for the obesity epidemic, it is tangentially contributive.
There is only ONE CAUSE of obesity: Remaining too long in a Caloric Surplus for an extended period of time.
Nothing else.
-
Absolutely agree, no argument there. The ubiquity of HFCS and now crystalline fructose (which negats the argument that fructose is usually bound to glucose) does lead to higher amounts being consumed. I am saying that HFCS and Cry. Fructose are causing people to perform that behavior of overconsumption because of price, taste, convenience, and the resultant hormonal triggers from its consumption. It costs less, tastes sweeter, increases type of LDL and adipocytes, and decreases satiety. So yes it is overconsumption, but there is a contributing factor for said over indulgence.
-
:o :o :o :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
(http://www.totalprosports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/simona-halep-before-and-after.jpg)
This is what I'd call a crime against humanity :(
Only by Parker and his crew Basile
-
HFCS is perfectly fine and behaves exactly as sugar.
And sugar is far from fine. Too much fructose is implicated in metabolic syndrome and correlates very highly with the development of artherosclerosis, diabetes and gout. Fructose, unlike glucose, does not pass straight from the G.I to the bloodstream, but has to be metabolized in the liver. Fructose is broken down and transformed into tryglycerides, which are then released into the bloodstream. These triglycerides are then taken back into the liver where they oxidize and glycate, forming massive amounts of low density lipoproteins which are released again into the bloodstream and clog it. Fructose also significantly raises uric acid, just like protein, through mechanisms not understood very well, and high uric acid leads to acidosis which can lead to both gout and ostheoporosis. Unlike protein, though, it doesen't also raise ammonia levels. Both rats and monkeys fed diets that are controlled for calories, one group fed only fructose and the other only glucose, the former group showed dramatically increased plasma triglycerides and their urine become significantly more acidic. These are all poor indicators of health.
SUCKMYMUSCLE
-
Absolutely agree, no argument there. The ubiquity of HFCS and now crystalline fructose (which negats the argument that fructose is usually bound to glucose) does lead to higher amounts being consumed. I am saying that HFCS and Cry. Fructose are causing people to perform that behavior of overconsumption because of price, taste, convenience, and the resultant hormonal triggers from its consumption. It costs less, tastes sweeter, increases type of LDL and adipocytes, and decreases satiety. So yes it is overconsumption, but there is a contributing factor for said over indulgence.
Not true regarding sweetness.
Is high fructose corn syrup sweeter than sugar?
No. When high fructose corn syrup was developed, it was
specifically formulated to provide sweetness equivalent to sugar. In order for food and beverage makers to use high fructose corn syrup in place of sugar, it was important that it provide the same level of sweetness as sugar so that consumers would not perceive a difference in product sweetness and taste.
HFCS-55 has sweetness equivalent to sugar and is used in many carbonated soft drinks in the United States. HFCS-42 is somewhat less sweet and is used in many fruit-flavored noncarbonated beverages, baked goods and other products in which its special characteristics such as fermentability, lower freezing point, surface browning and flavor enhancement add value to the product.
2. White JS. 1992. Fructose syrup: production, properties and applications, in FW Schenck & RE Hebeda, eds, Starch Hydrolysis Products – Worldwide Technology, Production, and Applications. VCH Publishers, Inc. pp. 177-200.
-
Absolutely agree, no argument there. The ubiquity of HFCS and now crystalline fructose (which negats the argument that fructose is usually bound to glucose) does lead to higher amounts being consumed. I am saying that HFCS and Cry. Fructose are causing people to perform that behavior of overconsumption because of price, taste, convenience, and the resultant hormonal triggers from its consumption. It costs less, tastes sweeter, increases type of LDL and adipocytes, and decreases satiety. So yes it is overconsumption, but there is a contributing factor for said over indulgence.
People are not unknowingly shoving their faces full of excess calories. They are fully aware of what they are doing. I think it is disingenuous to single out any food or any ingredient and try to play pin the tail on the donkey.
I could be drip fed HFCS and I guarantee you I could adhere to a specific caloric limit without any suffering indefinitely.
People are fat simply because they overeat, regardless of where there calories are coming from. Nobody is force feeding these people. The television and inactivity have more to do with their obesity than any type of food does.
-
Agree with overfeeding, disagree with not being able to single out a specific ingredient that contributes to a greater degree than others. In my post above I mentioned Fructose not HFCS as being sweeter than both glucose or sucrose, which it is. And I would concede that marketing is also a contributing factor (although we r not specifically addressing that), things like gatorade and vitamin water are great examples. The fact that you can control yourself is admirable but sadly u r in the minority and can see food for what it is. The majority of the unwashed masses need road signs that are clearer and less verbose. I actually agree with u on an overwhelmingly large amount of info presented.
-
There is only ONE CAUSE of obesity: Remaining too long in a Caloric Surplus for an extended period of time.
Nothing else.
what do you think of Bill Maher mentioning hfcs as the number one cause of obesity once every 2 weeks on his show?
-
HFCS is perfectly fine and behaves exactly as sugar.
Pepsi Max is still the king for many reasons.
you have NO idea what you are talking about yet again.
why do you post here? seriously- you dont work out or even look like you lift weights.
your a fucking weirdo who is emmersed in a sub culture that you no longer participate in. how sad, degenerate and yet pleasing to me all at the same time.
carry on, stud.
-
So now HFCG is the cause of obesity? LOL
I can't imagine how many people out there already think something like:
"I'm obese because of HFCG, so its not my fault, its the evil food industry"
::)
Yes, I'm sure it has nothing to do with grossly overeating and a sedentary lifestyle ::)........what else are they going to blame next?
-
I just reread my above post and I actually meant that the crystalline fructose was sweeter. I did not make that clear, my bad.
-
what do you think of Bill Maher mentioning hfcs as the number one cause of obesity once every 2 weeks on his show?
He is dead wrong and I laugh at him every single time he does it. He is also wrong on NASA and what its role should be.
-
He is dead wrong and I laugh at him every single time he does it. He is also wrong on NASA and what its role should be.
no idea on his NASA stance. I just watch the "new rules" part because those are pretty funny, but i can't stand the rest of his show. The whole "I'm telling a joke, then i'll stare at the audience until they laugh and applaud" schtick of his is getting old.
-
you have NO idea what you are talking about yet again.
why do you post here? seriously- you dont work out or even look like you lift weights.
your a fucking weirdo who is emmersed in a sub culture that you no longer participate in. how sad, degenerate and yet pleasing to me all at the same time.
carry on, stud.
I post here because I am much more advanced than you are in intelligence. We cannot have this site go to pot with unabashed ignorance, the likes of which you live by, spouted off as some universal truth which it can never be.
You, sir, are the antithesis of Getbig and should you log off and never return, all of us here would be done a remarkable favor.
-
no idea on his NASA stance. I just watch the "new rules" part because those are pretty funny, but i can't stand the rest of his show. The whole "I'm telling a joke, then i'll stare at the audience until they laugh and applaud" schtick of his is getting old.
I love his show and he is right on most things. His audience has gotten to be quite the little babies and he points this out all the time, especially when he makes the good racial jokes.