Do you know what High Fructose Corn Syrup is? Did you know that it's in many of the foods you eat? It's making our nation fat and unhealthy. I'm launching a grass roots approach to a full scale boycott of foods that contain this vile substance. I want to get as many as people as possible to boycott it during the month of September. Go to my facebook page to learn more, get involved in discussions and join this cause. It's time to send a message to our government and major food corporations.
www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-High-Fru ... =839938927
Want to stay healthy? DON'T EAT THIS
For taste purposes I tend to drink Coke made in Mexico (no HFCS), which is fairly easy to find around here. Not sure what trade laws are being violated, if at all, but tough noogies. Sugar and caffeine in one convenient tooth scrubbing, battery cleaning beverage! Yum.
I don't blame the food for making me a tad overweight...I blame myself for choosing to eat it. And donuts. Evil, evil donuts are to blame.
I don't blame the food for making me a tad overweight...I blame myself for choosing to eat it. And donuts. Evil, evil donuts are to blame.
Hi Hikeup!
Well, if you are going to drink something as unhealthy as Coke, at least you're drinking the sugar version.
I'm a Personal Trainer, so I'm highly aware of what's good and what's bad for us. Even caffeine, in moderation can be fine. But if we consume more than 400 mg per day, we open ourselves up to high blood pressure and obesity! It raises our cortisol levels, thereby promoting fat storage.
But again- good call on the SUGAR instead of HFCS.
Well, if you are going to drink something as unhealthy as Coke, at least you're drinking the sugar version.
I'm a Personal Trainer, so I'm highly aware of what's good and what's bad for us. Even caffeine, in moderation can be fine. But if we consume more than 400 mg per day, we open ourselves up to high blood pressure and obesity! It raises our cortisol levels, thereby promoting fat storage.
But again- good call on the SUGAR instead of HFCS.
http://www.slate.com/id/2216796/
Let's review: HFCS isn't healthy, but there's no reason to believe it's any worse for you than cane or beet sugar; HFCS is just as "natural" as any other sweetener, at least according to the U.S. government; and while HFCS seems to have a slightly different taste from pure sucrose, many people prefer it. So why are we abandoning high-fructose corn syrup? It doesn't matter how weak each claim is on its own terms; together, they seem irrefutable. You can win over hypochondriacs with one argument, environmentalists with another, and gourmands with a third. That's the beauty of the three-pronged critique: It's customizable. The foodies haven't just killed HFCS—they've stuck a fork in it.
HFCS goes straight to your liver, unlike non fructose sugars. Since most Americans are taking in about 80% of their calories from HFCS, this is bad. In fact, children are now developing fatty liver disease and cirrhosis!! Way too much for our livers!
Wait what?Liz wrote:HFCS goes straight to your liver, unlike non fructose sugars. Since most Americans are taking in about 80% of their calories from HFCS, this is bad. In fact, children are now developing fatty liver disease and cirrhosis!! Way too much for our livers!
80% of calories from HFCS?
That's so absurd I'd laugh, except it has to be so wrong I hope people don't actually believe that.
Let's look at the numbers. For a 2000 Calorie diet, 80% is 1600 Cal. At 4 Cal/g, that's 400 g of HFCS -- basically a pound of the stuff per day.Zé wrote:Wait what?Liz wrote:HFCS goes straight to your liver, unlike non fructose sugars. Since most Americans are taking in about 80% of their calories from HFCS, this is bad. In fact, children are now developing fatty liver disease and cirrhosis!! Way too much for our livers!
80% of calories from HFCS?
That's so absurd I'd laugh, except it has to be so wrong I hope people don't actually believe that.
I'll join Ze and claim to be from Missouri on this one.
The 80% thing is for the AVERAGE American. Most of us tough, fit hikers are NOT the average! You know that!
It's highly possible to get 1600 calories/day from foods containing HFCS. It is in cereals, breads, crackers, cookies, jelly, juice, soda, chips, ketchup, mayo, yogurt, ice cream, baking mixes....in A LOT of things. It's not just in things you think of as being sweet treats. And remember, the AVERAGE American consumes mostly processed foods and not the whole foods, fruits, veggies and organic stuff that many healthy hikers eat.
Orowheat Bread just made a great decision and started making their breads without HFCS. They are proudly declaring this on their packaging.
It's highly possible to get 1600 calories/day from foods containing HFCS. It is in cereals, breads, crackers, cookies, jelly, juice, soda, chips, ketchup, mayo, yogurt, ice cream, baking mixes....in A LOT of things. It's not just in things you think of as being sweet treats. And remember, the AVERAGE American consumes mostly processed foods and not the whole foods, fruits, veggies and organic stuff that many healthy hikers eat.
Orowheat Bread just made a great decision and started making their breads without HFCS. They are proudly declaring this on their packaging.
I am not going to defend HFCS, which is empty crap. I'm sure that Americans consume way too much of it. I am just skeptical of a claim that the average American gets 80% of his calories from it. I'd like to see the data on that!Liz wrote:The 80% thing is for the AVERAGE American. Most of us tough, fit hikers are NOT the average! You know that!
It's highly possible to get 1600 calories/day from foods containing HFCS. It is in cereals, breads, crackers, cookies, jelly, juice, soda, chips, ketchup, mayo, yogurt, ice cream, baking mixes....in A LOT of things. It's not just in things you think of as being sweet treats. And remember, the AVERAGE American consumes mostly processed foods and not the whole foods, fruits, veggies and organic stuff that many healthy hikers eat.
Orowheat Bread just made a great decision and started making their breads without HFCS. They are proudly declaring this on their packaging.
For example, this Web site makes some reasonable comments about HFCS, including:
If half of the added sugar is HFCS, then 80% of the total calories are not from HFCS. Sugar is not the only source of calories in the diet. I saw a claim the other day that the average American gets 34% of his calories from fat. And people do eat starch and protein.Observational data suggest that sweetened beverages, usually from HFCS, may be linked to the rise in obesity. In 2000, the intake of added sugars for the average American was two and a half times that recommended by the Dietary Guidelines, and nearly half of the added sugars came from high fructose corn syrup. Soft drink consumption has increased by more than 5-fold in the past 50 years, and soft drinks are now the leading source of refined sugars in the American diet.
The calorie figure I used earlier was certainly low-ball. According to UN statistics, the average American (in 2001-2003) consumed 3770 calories. (That's enough to fuel a lot of hiking!) That included about 115 g of protein (460 Calories) and 155 g fat (1395 Calories), so carbohydrates, including sugars, including HFCS) amount to 51% of calories. A lot of that is starch, although they don't do the breakdown between starch and sugar.
I can believe that people consume an unhealthy amount of HFCS, but the consume a lot of other stuff too!
I can believe that people consume an unhealthy amount of HFCS, but the consume a lot of other stuff too!
that's basically what I've always heard...that there's a decent amount of fat in our diet (>20% calories) and we definitely like meat (>15% calories), which would leave 65% calories left for carbohydrates. Already less than 80, not figuring that people DO NOT get all their carbs from HFCS. That's just plain silly.
Now, Liz, back to your main point: HFCS is bad.
Okay, well how bad is it? Can you provide research or articles linking to real research going all over what's really been discovered, and not just speculation?
No one is going to argue that HFCS is good for you. But people always talk about how bad some things are based on some ridiculous assumptions, and I personally hate to see propaganda spread without real support.
I actually was talking with my gf about HFCS like a month ago and I was saying 'you know what, it's hard for me to really give an educated opinion about it until I actually read some legitimate research on it'. So I went to PubMed, and read a bunch of abstracts. And basically, there's no clear cut severe downside that has been found...yet. There are some things stewing, however.
Might HFCS end up being bad for us? Maybe. But we certainly don't know yet. It can't hurt to just use real sugar instead though (well it could hurt financially).
Okay, well how bad is it? Can you provide research or articles linking to real research going all over what's really been discovered, and not just speculation?
No one is going to argue that HFCS is good for you. But people always talk about how bad some things are based on some ridiculous assumptions, and I personally hate to see propaganda spread without real support.
I actually was talking with my gf about HFCS like a month ago and I was saying 'you know what, it's hard for me to really give an educated opinion about it until I actually read some legitimate research on it'. So I went to PubMed, and read a bunch of abstracts. And basically, there's no clear cut severe downside that has been found...yet. There are some things stewing, however.
Might HFCS end up being bad for us? Maybe. But we certainly don't know yet. It can't hurt to just use real sugar instead though (well it could hurt financially).
And another thing ( side rant 
) , same problem relates with people's opinions on a whole range of topics; we get our news from specific media entities that could certainly have bias on the topic, as well as dumb down the concepts, so we end up not thinking for ourselves.
Take the issue of global warming. If you ask me what my opinion is, I would honestly say 'I don't know for sure because I haven't really looked up the research and studies'. But apparently a large % of Americans have formulated their opinion (one way or the other) without doing that either.
How the fark do people know? Al Gore's movie? God I hope not. That was a piece of trash that I lasted 30 min.
Do not EVER show me a graph of Temperature vs. CO2 release to claim that CO2 increase caused the increase in temperature! This says nothing about causality of the two variables; they could both be changing without dependence on each other. Therefore, that movie = FAIL.
Same thing could go with HFCS. Plot % of people obese vs HFCS consumption, and people will think "well hey, it must be HFCS's fault!". Wrong. But that's some people's argument!
I could plot Earth Temperature vs % Obesity....OMG global warming is being caused by obesity!!!!!
) , same problem relates with people's opinions on a whole range of topics; we get our news from specific media entities that could certainly have bias on the topic, as well as dumb down the concepts, so we end up not thinking for ourselves.Take the issue of global warming. If you ask me what my opinion is, I would honestly say 'I don't know for sure because I haven't really looked up the research and studies'. But apparently a large % of Americans have formulated their opinion (one way or the other) without doing that either.
How the fark do people know? Al Gore's movie? God I hope not. That was a piece of trash that I lasted 30 min.
Do not EVER show me a graph of Temperature vs. CO2 release to claim that CO2 increase caused the increase in temperature! This says nothing about causality of the two variables; they could both be changing without dependence on each other. Therefore, that movie = FAIL.
Same thing could go with HFCS. Plot % of people obese vs HFCS consumption, and people will think "well hey, it must be HFCS's fault!". Wrong. But that's some people's argument!
I could plot Earth Temperature vs % Obesity....OMG global warming is being caused by obesity!!!!!
I never thought my first post on this board would be non-hiking related, but here goes...
The only real problem with high fructose corn syrup is that it isn't named very well. The HFCS used in beverages is HFCS-55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose), while the HFCS used in baking is HFCS-42 (42% fructose, 58% glucose). What most people think of as "sugar" is sucrose, which is a molecule made up of one fructose and one glucose attached to each other. Now here's the kicker: Sucrose is completely split apart in the small intestine to it's individual components, a 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose.
So, if you drink an American Coke you're getting 55/45 fructose/glucose, and if you drink a Mexican Coke you're getting 50/50 fructose/glucose. Thus far there haven't been any conclusive results showing that the extra 5% fructose makes any difference. And remember, the HFCS-42 used in baking (like older Orowheat bread) actually has LESS fructose than does normal sugar (sucrose). Fructose tastes significantly more sweet than sucrose however, hence the huge difference in taste between American and foreign sodas.
The problem with Americans' diets is not what type of sugar we eat, but how much of it. There was a large increase in sugar consumption per person by Americans from about 1970 to 2000. Our sugar consumption has actually been declining since 2000 since it's been highly publicized how unhealthy Americans have become.
Liz, I know your intentions are golden, and you are completely right that consuming sugary sodas and other processed foods is unhealthy. I wanted to put the record straight on HFCS however.
And now hopefully I'll start posting about hiking in the future...
The only real problem with high fructose corn syrup is that it isn't named very well. The HFCS used in beverages is HFCS-55 (55% fructose, 45% glucose), while the HFCS used in baking is HFCS-42 (42% fructose, 58% glucose). What most people think of as "sugar" is sucrose, which is a molecule made up of one fructose and one glucose attached to each other. Now here's the kicker: Sucrose is completely split apart in the small intestine to it's individual components, a 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose.
So, if you drink an American Coke you're getting 55/45 fructose/glucose, and if you drink a Mexican Coke you're getting 50/50 fructose/glucose. Thus far there haven't been any conclusive results showing that the extra 5% fructose makes any difference. And remember, the HFCS-42 used in baking (like older Orowheat bread) actually has LESS fructose than does normal sugar (sucrose). Fructose tastes significantly more sweet than sucrose however, hence the huge difference in taste between American and foreign sodas.
The problem with Americans' diets is not what type of sugar we eat, but how much of it. There was a large increase in sugar consumption per person by Americans from about 1970 to 2000. Our sugar consumption has actually been declining since 2000 since it's been highly publicized how unhealthy Americans have become.
Liz, I know your intentions are golden, and you are completely right that consuming sugary sodas and other processed foods is unhealthy. I wanted to put the record straight on HFCS however.
And now hopefully I'll start posting about hiking in the future...
The scientists who actually study the atmosphere and climate should probably have something to say on the matter. They overwhelmingly say that man-made climate change is a reality.Zé wrote:And another thing ( side rant
Take the issue of global warming. If you ask me what my opinion is, I would honestly say 'I don't know for sure because I haven't really looked up the research and studies'. But apparently a large % of Americans have formulated their opinion (one way or the other) without doing that either.
How the fark do people know? Al Gore's movie? God I hope not. That was a piece of trash that I lasted 30 min.
Do not EVER show me a graph of Temperature vs. CO2 release to claim that CO2 increase caused the increase in temperature! This says nothing about causality of the two variables; they could both be changing without dependence on each other. Therefore, that movie = FAIL.
Same thing could go with HFCS. Plot % of people obese vs HFCS consumption, and people will think "well hey, it must be HFCS's fault!". Wrong. But that's some people's argument!
I could plot Earth Temperature vs % Obesity....OMG global warming is being caused by obesity!!!!!
We have a pretty good knowledge these days of how much CO2 there has been in the atmosphere for a long time. We know that about half of it ends up in the atmosphere, where elevated concentrations persist for many centuries. We also know how much CO2 humans produce. If you plot CO2 concentration in the atmosphere against human production of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution began, the data lie on a straight line with a slope of 1/2. That indicates that we are responsible for the increase.
The laws of physics dictate that, all other things being equal, the atmosphere will warm if the CO2 concentration increases. We should be thankful for the greenhouse effect because it is responsible for the Earth's temperature being warm enough to be hospitable for humans.
The question is how much it will warm. There are several complicating factors, especially water. Warmer temperatures mean more water vapor, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. (It also has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere.) That is a positive feedback effect, which would tend to lead to runaway warming. On the other hand, more clouds would tend to mean a negative feedback effect, which would limit the warming.
The subject is rich, which is why people study it so hard. One vital component of the study is climate models. Different models give different results, especially when different emissions scenarios are built in. However, the models have been improving rapidly and their predictions are not as far apart as they used to be. For example, a huge study of future California climate that used every major model and a wide range of emissions scenarios gave a range of predictions, all of which should scare the hell out of us. For example, the Sierra snowpack will be reduced significantly, and that's where a lot of our water comes from.
Global warming is not settled, but the consensus is growing and it is very sobering. There are signs all over the world of its effects. They are the reason why it is not just environmentalists pushing the idea any more, but increasing numbers of conservative politicians and corporate heads.
It's silly to pick on Al Gore and avoid listening to the people who actually do the work. Many atmospheric scientists observed that Gore got the basic story pretty much correct, even if some of his film is off base. It makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater just to piss on Gore. He has been a lot closer to being correct, for a lot longer, than any other major politician. What I have against him is that he was part of an Administration that did not do jack about the problem. But that's water under the bridge.
I agree with everything you wrote outside of the last paragraph, but I think you are missing what my point was... I totally get the legitimacy of the research behind and the reality of global warming (by, like you state, 'listening to the people who actually do the work'), but I don't think that's where most people go to for their information.
They go to Al Gore's movie. And since I didn't watch the whole thing, it may be true that he generally got the idea right. But from what I saw, he reduced it to a level that used fundamentally poor logic in spots, and I can't support that.
It's a sad catch-22 that he may have had to present it that way to get the point across to many people, but it also further embeds poor logic skill in people. Another positive feedback
They go to Al Gore's movie. And since I didn't watch the whole thing, it may be true that he generally got the idea right. But from what I saw, he reduced it to a level that used fundamentally poor logic in spots, and I can't support that.
It's a sad catch-22 that he may have had to present it that way to get the point across to many people, but it also further embeds poor logic skill in people. Another positive feedback
I think that most people on all sides of any issue get their information from a variety of sources that they trust. These may include Fox News, the Sierra Club, etc. Some may be good sources, some not so good.
My belief (based on an unscientific sampling of people who saw the movie) is that people who were already concerned about global warming liked An Inconvenient Truth while people who think it's all a fake hated the movie. The movie is the focal point of some backlash, but that has more to do with Gore being a convenient target than the actual influence of the movie in changing minds.
Whether my view of the movie's influence is right or not, I agree that most people get most of their information from less than ideal sources. Or from good sources chosen by blind luck.
My belief (based on an unscientific sampling of people who saw the movie) is that people who were already concerned about global warming liked An Inconvenient Truth while people who think it's all a fake hated the movie. The movie is the focal point of some backlash, but that has more to do with Gore being a convenient target than the actual influence of the movie in changing minds.
Whether my view of the movie's influence is right or not, I agree that most people get most of their information from less than ideal sources. Or from good sources chosen by blind luck.
-
Richard N.
- Posts: 91
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:47 pm
You know why people today are getting fat??
Video games, television and the fact that those that are fat are just plain LAZY!!
They need to get their fat asses up off the sofas and get back outdoors. To many parents think their kids should stay inside because its not safe outdoors. Balderdash.
When I was a kids we played outside until it was dark. We didn't have no dam cell phones. Heck, if they were available back then, I sure as heck wouldn't want one. Parents today forget what is was like when they were kids. They think they need to know where their kids are 24/7. Granted, there are times the phones are necessary but why not just drop a dime???
Video games, television and the fact that those that are fat are just plain LAZY!!
They need to get their fat asses up off the sofas and get back outdoors. To many parents think their kids should stay inside because its not safe outdoors. Balderdash.
When I was a kids we played outside until it was dark. We didn't have no dam cell phones. Heck, if they were available back then, I sure as heck wouldn't want one. Parents today forget what is was like when they were kids. They think they need to know where their kids are 24/7. Granted, there are times the phones are necessary but why not just drop a dime???