eits, ffs, we've been through this before. You posted short term studies claiming they said hfcs was worse than sucrose. They didn't, they all found no significant difference. Then you said all studies were biased or too short term. Then you claimed a good long term study supported what you were claiming, when in fact it did not.
Got anything new?
1 calorie = 1 calorie
404 ATOT crashed it?
Completely off topic: <Chris Carter>Come on Maaaan!</> This guy obviously knows nothing about gorillas. The gorilla does not get tired, it rips your limbs off and beats you to death with them.
1 calorie = 1 calorie
But 1 calorie is not handled by the human body the same way as a different calorie. Do you honestly believe that 100 calories of alcohol=100 calories of gatorade=100 calories of (pick fruit/veggie to put in here)? They might all be 100 calories, but each trigger a different set of biochemcial reactions in the body to process it. Also, our bodies do not metabolize everything the same way. Look at the Sugar: The Bitter Truth video (as an easy reference) for why this is true.
Also, you have to take into account what else is in the food/drink. A drink with 100 calories that is all based off sugar/sweeteners will NOT have the same biochemical reaction as milk for example.
Heh I took him back in 2001. He was a pretty good lecturer. Fucker gave me an A- though.
i'm surprised you got even that
lol says the chiropractor hahah
In fact he was the one pushing 1 calorie = 1 calorie. Calorie is a fucking calorie. Whether it's from HFCS or Sugar has no effect on the body.
lol says the chiropractor hahah
In fact he was the one pushing 1 calorie = 1 calorie. Calorie is a fucking calorie. Whether it's from HFCS or Sugar has no effect on the body.
uh, no. i posted long term studies showing hfcs and sucrose = different. amused posted short term studies showing that hfcs and sucrose = same.
and, yes, it did.
it's not irrational.
http://www.sportspineandwellness.com/blog/fructose-syrup/
when you look at the science, it's obvious that there's a difference and new research is showing that it is.
that's actually not true. hfcs is worse than sucrose. just because "meh, it's about the same as far as composition" doesn't mean it's the same. the added fructose makes compounds the effects when ingested repeatedly over time. it's too easy to have it all the time, because it's in damn near everything unless you specifically get the food products that don't have it.
Wow, you are one dishonest individual.
That long term study showed 1 instance of HFCS being worse and 3 of it being better in the long term results, yet you cling to that one while ignoring the three that disprove your idea. Only in your mind would having 1 out of 4 results agree with you be enough to prove your belief.
You linked to your own blog? And how is that not horribly biased? Knowing you its probably a word for word copy of that Mercola article that got you all worked up so long ago.
So you're going to ignore that most of the HFCS in food has less fructose than sucrose does?
Speaking of what the body was made for...
First, simply going for a run every day to burn off the calories of all the excess sugar is not the right way to tackle the problem - the excess sugar has already been pumped through the body, which is exactly what we need to avoid.
It's quite simple, and something that completely puzzles me as to why so few just get it: the diet our body was designed for, involves very little to zero raw sugar. We can process sugar, because our body gets sugar from so many sources. And to be precise, our body only needs glucose. Fructose, maltose, lactose, are worthless monosaccharides in the human body. Glucose is needed so that the body can link them into the storage/energy carbohydrate glycogen, which is also absolutely vital to, well, live. But, vital in a very small amount. Unless you have a blood-sugar disorder, you have to go out of your way to get too little glucose in your diet.
Speaking of disorders and the way our body is designed, again consider the typical diet in the wild. The human body developed at a time when our diet simply did not include large amounts of raw sugar on a regular basis. It's great as a fuel source when undertaking a large journey across open land, and our ancestors in the wilderness likely found high-sugar foods when needing easy energy, or to survive in dire times. The body is readily able to handle such an undertaking, as long as it's not a regular occurrence.
When you fast-forward thousands of years, you see that even early empires and civilizations just didn't consume all that much sugar. They weren't mixing in raw sugar into every meal they ate. It was a luxury, sometimes used to help make something disgusting a little more palatable. Even ancient empires that lived by natural sugar sources like sugar beats or sugar cane, they didn't eat the plant's product every single day. Sugar sources were limited to the amount of sugar naturally included in a meal, and most likely limited to starches and other polysaccharides that just happened to be the main part of a food item they would eat.
Fast-forward a little more, and you get close to modern civilization, where rich people started using sugar on occasion, just to prove their wealth. In the developed world (1600s-1700s America, Europe, etc), sugar was a pricey commodity, so you didn't see it all that often. It was added to other food items because they liked it and they could afford it.
Fast-forward to today, and shit, sugar is everywhere. We literally put it in almost everything possible. Some non-essential food items, or even drinks, now have more sugar in them than our ancestors likely consumed over a period of multiple days, if not an entire week.
Does anybody actually think that's a good idea?
Let's consider what a constant stream of sugar actually does inside our body. When there is sugar present, insulin is released to tell the liver and muscles (and fatty tissue iirc) to take up the sugar as glycogen. Glycogen in the muscles and liver acts as a energy storage unit, and the presence of insulin also tells the body to stop using fat as an energy source (among a host of other biological actions that either take place or do not take place, depending on the presence of insulin in the blood). This is a good thing, that whole process, because glycogen will be needed in the liver to be released to the brain and body at times of low blood-sugar.
However, too much sugar on a regular basis can cause insulin resistance, which is an issue where the body responds with insulin production and release normally, but the cells just don't uptake glucose all that well. And that can cause a host of issues over the course of a lifetime.
Insulin, blood-sugar management, glycogen, glucagon, and the whole fun story of how it all works, is a hell of a mess to understand. I tried to make it fairly simple, and probably made a few errors along the way in an attempt to make it easily understood.
Short version - you don't want to be digesting 50g+ of raw sugar on a daily basis. You also want to control intake of starches and other readily-consumed polysaccharides, to the point that eating them is fine, on occasion... not with multiple large servings on a daily basis.
HFCS vs sugar is going to be very similar in the calories because both have sucrose and fructose. The problem is that 1: sugars should not be consumed in anywhere near the quantity we consume them in and 2: a calorie from sugar (be it sucrose/fructose or HFCS/cane sugar) is handled by the body different than say a calorie from salmon.
That's the problem. The % of a sucrose/fructose calorie that gets turned into fat is much higher than that of glucose for example.
HFCS vs sugar is going to be very similar in the calories because both have sucrose and fructose. The problem is that 1: sugars should not be consumed in anywhere near the quantity we consume them in and 2: a calorie from sugar (be it sucrose/fructose or HFCS/cane sugar) is handled by the body different than say a calorie from salmon.
That's the problem. The % of a sucrose/fructose calorie that gets turned into fat is much higher than that of glucose for example.
No it didn't. Why the hell did you ever think it did?uh, no. i posted long term studies showing hfcs and sucrose = different. amused posted short term studies showing that hfcs and sucrose = same.
and, yes, it did.
No it didn't. Why the hell did you ever think it did?
I posted the fricking graph from the paper in your first thread. It does not, in any way, support what you are saying.
I corrected you on another later thread. Flat out told you that you were wrong. But here you are again, posting the same nonsense again, attempting to deny or contradict the evidence again. Did you forget?
Here's the graph, from the study you originally posted about. AGAIN.
The two lines that are directly comparable (12h sucrose vs. 12 h HFCS) actually show lower weight gain for sucrose than for HFCS. It's probably not significant. The ad libitum HFCS line can't be directly compared to the 12h sucrose line.
This has been pointed out to you before. You've been shown this chart before.
You're embarrassing yourself.
No it didn't. Why the hell did you ever think it did?
I posted the fricking graph from the paper in your first thread. It does not, in any way, support what you are saying.
I corrected you on another later thread. Flat out told you that you were wrong. But here you are again, posting the same nonsense again, attempting to deny or contradict the evidence again. Did you forget?
Here's the graph, from the study you originally posted about. AGAIN.
The two lines that are directly comparable (12h sucrose vs. 12 h HFCS) actually show lower weight gain for sucrose than for HFCS. It's probably not significant. The ad libitum HFCS line can't be directly compared to the 12h sucrose line.
This has been pointed out to you before. You've been shown this chart before.
You're embarrassing yourself.
But he's a chiropractor, he must be right, he's a man of science! Are you against science?!