3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community  

Go Back   3 Fat Chicks on a Diet Weight Loss Community > Food > Food Talk And Fabulous Finds

Food Talk And Fabulous Finds Recipes, Healthy Cooking, and General Food Topics

HFCS one of the worse things ever for weight gain/obesity/bad health?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-25-2013, 08:47 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

JohnP everything I have read, and I have a science background, was a science teacher, M.S. yada yada is that it is very much not the same. I'd like to say it was a difference of opinion, but chemistry is chemistry. How can it be the same?

Sucrose is 50-50 fructose and glucose. HFCS is NOT. And the molecules are not bound the same. HFCS is at least 55% fructose but quite often in samples of products is 60-65% and has been found up to the 90%. It is many times sweeter than sucrose. It often contains mercury and other unknown chemicals because of the industrial manufacturing process. We can differ on what we think HFCS is doing but it is absolutely scientifically not the same.

Nor from countless scientific studies does it react and get processed and have the same effects as sugar. Obviously you would grant me that the ratio isn't the same. But then you think that is the end of the story from what I am getting. Once in just fructose and glucose, no difference. The evidence I think emphatically contradicts that viewpoint.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-25-2013 at 08:49 AM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 09:27 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Wannabeskinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,163

S/C/G: 215/199/150

Height: 5'4"

Default

After having studied Dr. Lustig's findings I must agree with him that there is no difference between HFCS versus sugar, sure sugar is more natural but they both have the same effect on our bodies. I avoid HFCS as much as I can but I do not kid myself like some people do into thinking "oh this twinkie is made with real sugar, it's better for me." NO! Sugar is sugar is sugar is sugar. Whether it comes from a cookie or a piece of bread or from ketchup or from maple syrup or wherever it comes from, sweet things are pervading our culture. I refuse to believe that this is what the public wants! I refuse to believe that just because we want to eat it and we're willing to spend our money it that it's OUR fault. No, sugar addiction is not a small thing. If the industry is willing to profit from our weaknesses as humans then the government has a responsibility to step in and make some hard decisions. How come the government was willing to do this with cigarettes? How come the government was willing to do this with vaccines? The general public put up a fight like no other when it came to these inicitatives. People were in an uproar when soda machines were taken out of public schools. Now we're ok with it and probably a lot better off. Businesses were in an uproar when they were told that ice cream trucks shouldn't be waiting outside of the school at dismissal. But is it necessary to assert our freedom of commerce in this particular way? Just because you CAN make money from hundreds of school children rushing up to your ice cream truck does that mean that you should? And then blame the kid who grew up to a life of obesity for not being able to control his need for daily ice cream?

I ain't no scientist! All I know is that when I eat sugar I want more sugar, and then I want a little bit of pasta too and then throw in some dessert and then at midnight I'm hungry again. That's the power of carbs/sugar/hfcs. Call it whatever you want, there are many names for this powerful substance.

I try extremely hard not to give much money to the corn industry. Or the wheat industry. Enough is enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shcirerf View Post
...those folks are hooked on Chinese take away, and fish and chips, pizza and lager and so on. Not much sugar in a ton of fried stuff!
Wrong, all those things you listed are carbs - which your body processes like sugar. There's a ton of sugar in chinese food by the way. Pizza dough does employ sugar in order for the yeast to activate. The sauces that are eaten with fish (tartar) and chips (ketchup) are full of sugar, as are most sauces that fried foods are paired with. Beer? lol The point is that people believe they're not eating sugar when sugar or HFCS is in practically everything.
__________________


"Binging is a descent into a world where every restriction... is cut loose. At its core is a feeling of deprivation.. a feeling you can never get enough. Binges do not signify a lack of willpower or inability to care for yourself. On the contrary, binges are a urgent attempt to care for yourself when you feel uncared for. They are the voice of survival. Binges are the mark of the self that says, 'I am tired of feeling deprived, of being told I am wrong, that I am bad." - Geneen Roth

Last edited by Wannabeskinny : 09-25-2013 at 09:34 AM.
Wannabeskinny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 09:44 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

Well we have that link I put up earlier that diabetes rates are 20% higher in the US than UK.

Ok so there is over-consumption of sweeteners in both countries. But in the US it is way more HFCS. In the UK way more sucrose. 20% higher why?

Well here you go. Princeton University BTW.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/a.../S26/91/22K07/

It is true that some researchers thought there was no difference at one point. I doubt most still think that. I find little evidence from the information and newer studies that are available that they are the same. Still not sure how you guys can support they are.

I really hope Wannabe and JohnP you read the Princeton link and then tell me you think they are the same. I'd like them to be the same. Because I probably had way too many for way too many decades. But that does not seem to be the case. Clearly to me, obviously not as clearly to you.

As I said 55% might not sound profoundly different than 50%. Being bound differently might not sound like a big difference. But sounding like a big difference or not is really beside the point isn't it? It seems like rats and human bodies (20% more diabetes) absolutely think its different.

BTW I had high stomach fat and high triglycerides. Sure overall sugar too high, but also probably HFCS as contributions as well.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-25-2013 at 09:50 AM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 09:57 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Wannabeskinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,163

S/C/G: 215/199/150

Height: 5'4"

Default

[quote=diamondgeog;4848227
I really hope Wannabe and JohnP you read the Princeton link and then tell me you think they are the same. I'd like them to be the same. Because I probably had way too many for way too many decades. But that does not seem to be the case. Clearly to me, obviously not as clearly to you.

[/QUOTE]

Did you read my post? I was kind of agreeing with you yet you're arguing with me. They are not the same in chemical structure. To ME however, I treat all sugars the same ---> as evil. I think a lot of people get held up on the notion that something that is labeled as "naturally sweetened" or "no artificial sweeteners" and think that it's healthy. Wrong. All sweeteners in all its forms leads to health problems. All of them. We single out each and every one of them and toot its faults. At the moment you are singling out HFCS. I have no reason to disagree that it is worse than sugar, it wouldn't take much to convince me. I make no case on behalf of HFCS. I'm just pointing out that there is danger in singling out one form of sugar because I'm afraid it will turn people on to a different sugar and at the end of the day I believe all sugar is bad.
__________________


"Binging is a descent into a world where every restriction... is cut loose. At its core is a feeling of deprivation.. a feeling you can never get enough. Binges do not signify a lack of willpower or inability to care for yourself. On the contrary, binges are a urgent attempt to care for yourself when you feel uncared for. They are the voice of survival. Binges are the mark of the self that says, 'I am tired of feeling deprived, of being told I am wrong, that I am bad." - Geneen Roth
Wannabeskinny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 10:32 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

And I do agree with you. I am not like yeah sugar is better than HFCS, party down on the sugar. Portion control and trying to avoid sugars/carbs is huge to me. I don't think they are contradictory at all.

Of course you are right and JohnP is as well that the number one take away is portions. I am saying that is 100% correct.

At the same time I think it is wrong and even harmful to say that HFCS and sugar are the same and more importantly the same to our bodies. For stating you were saying that they were the same, I apologize.

I would end my post slightly differently than you. At the end of the day sugar is bad, HFCS is worse. Both should be avoided as much as possible.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-25-2013 at 10:34 AM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 10:52 AM   #21
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,082

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
JohnP everything I have read, and I have a science background, was a science teacher, M.S. yada yada is that it is very much not the same. I'd like to say it was a difference of opinion, but chemistry is chemistry. How can it be the same?
Your background might be science based but in this thread you are getting a solid F when it comes to research.

I linked an article that discects the princton study and discuusses fructose metabolism. You don't read it and post a crap blog article that merely references the princton artcile and reads like the National Enquirer.

If you were still a teacher and had a student that didn't read his homework what grade would you give them?

I'm afraid this will be my last post on the subect as you will ignore any evidence that is contrary to your beliefs. If you want to do your homework maybe we can discuss the matter.

Too much of anything is bad. The question is how much is too much and the answer is ... it depends.
__________________
"Getting solid information is easier than ever. Getting misinformation is even easier." - Kaplods

Maintaining for two years and I eat whatever I want - just not however much I want. Details here.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 12:49 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

Read the article, now, correct for calling me out on not reading it. One of the bottom comments stated that:

It is much more important to look at the big picture; keep your physical activity high, manage your overall food intake, make sure most of your food is from minimally refined sources.

I could not agree more with that. So yes overall consumption of sweeteners is the 'big problem'. I think it is way too premature to say that HFCS isn't additionally harmful however. Something is acidic or basic if it has more hydrogen ions or more OH ions. So something being roughly the same is not equivalent. You also have the potential problems of how HFCS is created in the first place.

HFCS is sweeter, we don't fully understand its effect on appetite as compared to sugar. If it is actually processed the same, etc. And also importantly, I personally think very importantly, studies now showing HFCS might be more addicting than sugar is even. Given how much moderation is important to you John I would think that would be extra disturbing.

I don't think we are exactly talking in circles but I still find zero evidence to say HFCS is just like sugar. Seems like there are just as much if not more assumptions on the it is just sugar side.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-25-2013 at 01:09 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 12:59 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

Found a recent article that Mexico has now surpassed American obesity rates. HFCS consumption is going up a lot there. The human body is incredibly complex. I think it is very foolish to think that the body is going to not only process but react in hunger exactly the same, have the same exact impacts on the liver for instance, etc. Again zero proof I have seen anywhere that HFCS and sugar have the same impacts, just all assumptions. If they were the same why does the US have 20% more per capita diabetes than the UK?

http://gulfnews.com/about-gulf-news/...emic-1.1233069
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 01:23 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
freelancemomma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,040

S/C/G: 195/145/145

Height: 5'11"

Default

In the 50s and 60s kids grew up on sweetened cereal, BPJ sandwiches, ice cream snacks, and lots of starch at dinner, and yet North America was far less obese than today. Clearly sugar and starches are not the only culprit (or even the main one, IMO). We eat more and move less. As far as I'm concerned, that's what's making us fat.

I don't eat much sugar on most days, but once in a while I do. Like today, for example: I had a 140-g luxury European chocolate bar for lunch. I know from experience that I won't have any symptoms, sugar crash, compulsion to eat more sugar, etc. If I only do this every few weeks I see no harm in it. (My lab values are all fine.) As I've stated before, I aim for the LEAST RESTRICTIVE strategy for maintaining my weight loss and health. It's what keeps me sane.

Freelance
__________________
freelancemomma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 01:30 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

We eat more and move less. As far as I'm concerned, that's what's making us fat. I completely agree with that.

But they are connected. What if we eat more because HFCS/sugar foods increase our appetities even though we have had a lot of calories already? And then we don't have any energy because of these bad diet choices?

Why are we eating more and exercising less? Did a whole nation all of a sudden decide to do this?

I had a huge belly. Huge. I've lost 40lbs and gained some muscle but am still very overweight. I'm a shade under 5'10".

But my belly fat, thankfully, started to drop a lot recently. I haven't been losing a lot of weight recently but I am continuing to try to stay away from carbs but also purging and not buying products with any HFCS in them lately. I am losing inches. Still creeping up on the 230s though, hopefully by end of October at the worst.

I've found this to be true from personal experience.

"Studies have shown that fructose can be hard on the body. A study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation compared the effects of fructose-sweetened drinks with glucose-sweetened drinks over the course of 10 weeks in overweight and obese subjects. About 25 percent of the energy requirements over that time period came from the drinks (read: soda). While study participants gained about the same amount of weight regardless of sweetener, the fructose group—but not the glucose group—saw increases in belly fat as well as a dulling of insulin sensitivity."

And yes sugar has almost as much fructose. But it is also bound to the glucose differently. So it isn't just one thing that makes HFCS different but a host of things. Manufactures also do not stop at the 55% fructose level they say they do. Often sodas show 60-65% fructose. Some foods have shown over 90%.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340

Last edited by diamondgeog : 09-25-2013 at 01:31 PM.
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 01:36 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Trudiha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 234

S/C/G: 202/150/145

Height: 5'7"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
Well we have that link I put up earlier that diabetes rates are 20% higher in the US than UK.

Ok so there is over-consumption of sweeteners in both countries. But in the US it is way more HFCS. In the UK way more sucrose. 20% higher why?
Correlation and causation aren't the same thing. Although the UK isn't as monocultural as it used to be, we don't have as wide or the same ethnic mix as the US. For example, I've never met a British born person of Mexican heritage and those of Mexican heritage are more likely to develop diabetes that the indigenous population of the UK. There is also a smaller proportion of folks of Asian, Middle Eastern and African heritage, all of whom are more likely to develop diabetes. Genetics also play a big part in who develops diabetes and if the UK has a smaller pool of people with a genetic pre-disposition to diabetes, no matter what rubbish we eat, we are less likely to develop it.
__________________
Trudiha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 01:48 PM   #27
Dropweight Diva
 
Song of Surly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 293

S/C/G: 245/ticker/160

Height: 5'5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
But they are connected. What if we eat more because HFCS/sugar foods increase our appetities even though we have had a lot of calories already? And then we don't have any energy because of these bad diet choices?

Why are we eating more and exercising less? Did a whole nation all of a sudden decide to do this?
Yes, I think we did. Socially, our lives revolve more around food now. High calorie food is more abundant than it was 50 years ago for a large number of the population. People eat out more, and the portion sizes of the plates we receive when we eat out has gotten larger. The food industry, especially snack foods, have really just become the massive, global industry that it is in the past 70 years, giving us a large amount of choice at an affordable price. For low-income households, palatable and affordable food is often high in calories, and from what I know from myself as well as from what I've seen on this site, there is also a huge knowledge gap for most people in society on health. This is fueled, in part, by a fairly absurd weight loss industry.

As far as exercise goes, I think the invention of the television (and the absurd amount of choice in entertainment now) and the computer (and all that now comes with that) has probably greatly attributed to a lack of regular movement.

I admit, I have no science to back this up, and as stated earlier, correlation is not causation. I don't think it's a stretch to say that these are the trends that we have seen in society over time, however.
__________________


Mini-Goal #1: 220 - Achieved 09.17.12
Mini-Goal #2: 210 - Achieved 01.03.13
Mini-Goal #3: Onederland!! - Achieved 03.26.13
Mini-Goal #4: 189 - Achieved 07.25.13
Mini-Goal #5: 179
Mini-Goal #6: 169

Last edited by Song of Surly : 09-25-2013 at 01:51 PM.
Song of Surly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 01:54 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trudiha View Post
Correlation and causation aren't the same thing. Although the UK isn't as monocultural as it used to be, we don't have as wide or the same ethnic mix as the US. For example, I've never met a British born person of Mexican heritage and those of Mexican heritage are more likely to develop diabetes that the indigenous population of the UK. There is also a smaller proportion of folks of Asian, Middle Eastern and African heritage, all of whom are more likely to develop diabetes. Genetics also play a big part in who develops diabetes and if the UK has a smaller pool of people with a genetic pre-disposition to diabetes, no matter what rubbish we eat, we are less likely to develop it.
Good points.


All of those things are true regarding portion size, TV, etc. I do think it is still an accelerating treadmill though that with the changes in diet you are vastly more tired and prone to not exercise. And then you get into that downward spiral, regardless of TV or computer availability. I can read for hours each night very happily.

BTW I am currently exercising more than I ever have in my life, with a young daughter and more time with her than previous family commitments say a decade ago. What gave, mostly, was TV watching. I have less free time but more exercise. I know choices...choices. But changing diet made exercise a lot more doable/achievable.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 02:51 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
diamondgeog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,209

Default

JohnP,

Not sure if you are still reading the thread or not. But if you think I was ever stating, yahoo, sugar is so much better than HFCS go out and down a case of Dublic Dr. Pepper. No way.

Michael Pollan was concerned about this. That food manufactures were almost now promoting sugar as a health food. Look its better than HFCS. I do think its the lesser of two EVILS. Both evil. I am not saying sugar is good, never ever would say that. I don't think the message of people concerned about HFCS is that sugar is good.

For instance you would never catch me with Youplait. I have Greek yoghourt with some agave in it. If I am going to have something sweet, which is less and less, I do vastly prefer sugar to HFCS. I also do cook with butter. I am not going to eliminate it but when I use something I prefer it be as 'natural' and 'whole' as possible.
__________________


Restart: May 1, 2013 at 285. HW 340
diamondgeog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2013, 04:51 PM   #30
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,082

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondgeog View Post
It is created soley in an industrial process it does not exist in nature. Things are rarely this simple BUT the increase in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and general bad health for Americans is temporally correlated with HFCS explosion. We ignore that correlation as individuals and society at our own risk.

HFCS also doesn't bond the glucose and fructose the same way nature does. Finally the industrial manufacturing process for HFCS often adds mercury and other unknown chemicals. At least with sugar you know what you are getting.

These seem like subtle differences but they have PROFOUND implications. HFCS possibly makes you a lot hungrier than eating sugar does. It doesn't get processed the same way. It is NOT sugar. It is a new manufactured product that we still don't know all the negative consequences to. We do know obesity exploded at the same time its use did in the U.S. No way am I personally willing to just brush that aside.

... but for me I find the evidence overwhelming that HFCS is one of the worst and most deadly products ever introduced into our diets and I think we should all be advocating for its removal in products. Or at the least as individuals try avoiding it as much as possible.
I am still reading. You've toned down the hyperbole quite a bit since your first post. I quoted your first post because you may have forgotten your initial stance on this subject.

Bottom line aside from Mercury (which is a manufacturing issue not a HFCS issue) is that the dose creates the poison when it comes to HFCS. When it hits the stomach the way it is bonded makes no difference, at all. That is why I called sugar and HFCS identical.
__________________
"Getting solid information is easier than ever. Getting misinformation is even easier." - Kaplods

Maintaining for two years and I eat whatever I want - just not however much I want. Details here.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Posts by members, moderators and admins are not considered medical advice
and no guarantee is made against accuracy.


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:40 AM.






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2