Debating Science isn't any better

We all know politics and economics are frustrating. This is usually attributed to lack of an objective touchestone. We can't have controlled experiments that say we're objectively right.

But I have been going around for a few days and picking fights where I do have scientific controlled studies to show I'm right. I've been debating nutrition, mostly against low-carb gary taubes types. On the one hand, I can debate the theory of the physiology and I always win because they very quickly stop talking about it. On the other hand, I can point blank refute their claims with controlled studies. When I ask them for controlled studies, I never get them.

Debating nutrition is so unbelievably similar to debating politics. People have unshakable religious beliefs in sensationalist personalities and nutritional gremlins (fructose, carbs, etc). They will never give them up no matter how badly they lose the argument.

Anyway, just thought I'd like to point this out. It isn't that people go "full retard" on politics and social matters. People are biased towards self serving philosophies. Potential application might be to point out that this is the reason for your opponent's beliefs after you've exhausted logical ends. This is understandably harder in nutrition because I can't prove that person X repeteadly fails orthodox diets, but in politics, its plausible that some people are so enamored with statism because it's a fantasy land where everyone conforms to their personal acceptable range of behaviours and they get to feel like a hero for saving the poor and needy.

This is because political thinking and faith in (politically accredited) experts has infested "public opinion" on just about any subject, especially if there are regulations involved or pending.

I've been on "skeptic" forums where posters bemoaned the fact that "high fructose corn syrup is still legal" as though it were indicative of an evil coporate food conspiracy (then of course they mock small farms and the very notion of "conspiracies" anywhere outside of the perceived republican-corporation axis of evil).

It's like a parody.

HFCS haters are really funny. Its like they think that there's some huge difference between HFCS (55% fructose) and sucrose (50% fructose) that can single handedly explain the obesity epidemic. When I point out that fructose goes preferentially to the liver, filling liver glycogen (one satiety signaler) and NOT raising blood sugar, it doesn't matter to them. Nothing does.

At any rate, I don't think its politics that's infested public opinion. People have always believed stupid crap, most evidently in crazy pagan religions.

The problem with your controlled fructose study is that they replaced fructose in the low-fructose group with glucose from cereal grains. The high-fructose group got their fructose from fruit. I agree that eating fruit is preferable to eating cereal grains for weight loss.

source: http://paleohacks.com/questions/41327/another-fructose-question-whats-your-take-on-this-study-posted-by-chris-master#axzz1UMdbu1qW

As far as fructose not effecting insulin, here is what Dr. Kurt Harris says on the matter:

"fructose has no immediate effect on insulin release, but is linked to pathologic hyperinsulinemia via it’s effects on the liver. This is the exact opposite of glucose, which requires insulin to partition it when eaten, but for which there is no good evidence to relate it to chronic pathologic hyperinsulinemia."

source: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/5/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates-revis.html

More general thoughts on fructose:

"Fructose is a carbohydrate, but metabolically it is quite different from the glucose that comes from starch. In small amounts or in moderate amounts in real food, fructose may not be a problem, but the ubiquity of fructose in the modern diet creates obesity, insulin resistance, fatty liver disease, and abnormal bacterial growth in the gut with consequent inflammation." 

source: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/3/30/paleo-20-a-diet-manifesto.html

Scrooge McDuck:

The problem with your controlled fructose study is that they replaced fructose in the low-fructose group with glucose from cereal grains. The high-fructose group got their fructose from fruit. I agree that eating fruit is preferable to eating cereal grains for weight loss.

Why? Whats wrong with cereal grains?  Why are the physiological explanations for fructose enhancing dietary success wrong?

Scrooge McDuck:

As far as fructose not effecting insulin, here is what Dr. Kurt Harris says on the matter:

"fructose has no immediate effect on insulin release, but is linked to pathologic hyperinsulinemia via it’s effects on the liver. This is the exact opposite of glucose, which requires insulin to partition it when eaten, but for which there is no good evidence to relate it to chronic pathologic hyperinsulinemia."

The "link" is epidemiological. People who consume lots of HFCS also overeat calories --> hyperinsulinemia.

Scrooge McDuck:

"Fructose is a carbohydrate, but metabolically it is quite different from the glucose that comes from starch. In small amounts or in moderate amounts in real food, fructose may not be a problem, but the ubiquity of fructose in the modern diet creates obesity, insulin resistance, fatty liver disease, and abnormal bacterial growth in the gut with consequent inflammation."

Which is totally unsubstantiated by controlled studies. Yes, people who consume lots of fructose have these problems. But they're also the people eating tons of junk food. If you replaced fructose with dextrose in their diets the results would be very similar if not worse since you'd be giving them even higher blood sugar.

So, basically if you think different from the OP, then you are unscientific.  One controlled study = this, another = that.

Climategate, anyone?  Data can be manipulated by anyone and for about any reason.

Also, the OPoster seems to see others 'evidence' with caveats, but does not include them on his own opinion.

for example, "If you eat too much HFCS and have bad health, it must be because you eat a whole bunch of junk food." - That is one heck of a controlled study.

The "link" is epidemiological. People who consume lots of HFCS also overeat calories --> hyperinsulinemia.

So what?  Is this supposed to demolish the point itself?

"Epidemiology is the study of health-event, health-characteristic, or health-determinant patterns in a society. It is the cornerstone method of public health research, and helps inform policy decisions and evidence-based medicine by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive medicine. Epidemiologists are involved in the design of studies, collection and statistical analysis of data, and interpretation and dissemination of results (including peer review and occasional systematic review). Major areas of epidemiologic work include outbreak investigation, disease surveillance and screening (medicine), biomonitoring, and comparisons of treatment effects such as in clinical trials. Epidemiologists rely on a number of other scientific disciplines such as biology (to better understand disease processes), biostatistics (to make efficient use of the data and draw appropriate conclusions), and exposure assessment and social science disciplines (to better understand proximate and distal risk factors, and their measurement)."

I'd give points to the OP, but not as many as I'd give Scrooge.

Aristophanes:

for example, "If you eat too much HFCS and have bad health, it must be because you eat a whole bunch of junk food." - That is one heck of a controlled study.

Well that's a better explanation. But the evidence typically used by low-carbers is epidemiological. They observe a correlation between fructose consumption and poor health. Except fructose consumption also correlates with high calories and junk food, which means fructose isn't automatically explanatory.

They also don't have any physiological mechanisms by which this is supposed to happen.

Aristophanes:

So what?  Is this supposed to demolish the point itself?

Yes. Here. Controlled studies plz.

 

Moderator note: post edited. -Nielsio

Hey, he was a nice example of your thesis!

And libertarians wonder why even other libertarians don't like talking to them. Be opinionated as you like but stop insulting each other. Geez. You sound like statists :P

Sieben:

Why? Whats wrong with cereal grains?  Why are the physiological explanations for fructose enhancing dietary success wrong?

Grains are nutritionally poor, and from my personal experience it is much easier to restrict calories with fruit than grains. For studies/logic behind grain avoidance, not necessarily relevant to weightloss: http://evolvify.com/the-case-against-gluten-medical-journal-references/

http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/6/23/the-argument-against-cereal-grains.html

If you mean in calorie restricted diets such as the study you linked to, what are the physiological explanations for fructose enhancing dietary success? I didn't see a physiological explanation in the abstract.

Sieben:

The "link" is epidemiological. People who consume lots of HFCS also overeat calories --> hyperinsulinemia.

Here are links to controlled animal studies which show that fructose consumption leads to hyperinsulinemia when compared to glucose:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8144215

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11514839

They're only animal studies, but it's all I could find with a quick google search.

Sieben:

Which is totally unsubstantiated by controlled studies. Yes, people who consume lots of fructose have these problems. But they're also the people eating tons of junk food. If you replaced fructose with dextrose in their diets the results would be very similar if not worse since you'd be giving them even higher blood sugar.

Where are these studies? To your second point, you won't get me to argue with junk food being obesity inducing whether its source be fructose or dextrose. 

Sucrose is bad too.

And libertarians wonder why even other libertarians don't like talking to them. Be opinionated as you like but stop insulting each other. Geez. You sound like statists :P

Let them say what they want.

Here are links to controlled animal studies which show that fructose consumption leads to hyperinsulinemia when compared to glucose

This is another.  Here is a particularly interesting take on this thread.

"Interestingly, fructose caused a 2.5-fold increase in flux through glycogen synthase without any changes in the percent contribution of flux through the direct or indirect pathways of glycogen synthesis. These data suggest that fructose regulates flux into liver glycogen not only at glucokinase but also possibly at the level of glycogen synthase. In contrast to the marked stimulatory effects of fructose on glycogen synthase flux, we found that infusion of small amounts of fructose had no significant effects on glycogen phosphorylase activity. The regulation of phosphorylase activity by fructose is controversial. In liver extract studies, fructose-1-P has been found to inhibit phosphorylase phosphatase and to activate phosphorylase (18,19), whereas in the perfused liver, fructose has been shown to stimulate glycogen synthesis by inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase activity (20)."

So the debate here is actually "controversial" and is, in fact a political debate that just happens to be at the foot of competeing scientific research.  It sounds just like climate change to me.  You've taken one side and look for research that corroborates that opinion and, lo and behold, others do to...

Scrooge McDuck:

Grains are nutritionally poor,

Explain.

Scrooge McDuck:

and from my personal experience it is much easier to restrict calories with fruit than grains.

I drink (which is the worst way to get calories because it bypasses several satiety mechanisms) 100g of carbs while dieting, around 50 of which are fructose. I can't give you an exact estimate because I don't have nutrition facts for wine coolers.

Scrooge McDuck:

http://evolvify.com/the-case-against-gluten-medical-journal-references/

This is a different avenue altogether. While I'm sure it is fascinating, it doesn't give you grounds to complain about the med-fructose vs low-fructose study. Or maybe it does. I didn't read all the articles it linked to. If I have missed something, please link me.

Scrooge McDuck:

If you mean in calorie restricted diets such as the study you linked to, what are the physiological explanations for fructose enhancing dietary success? I didn't see a physiological explanation in the abstract.

On diets, energy deficits are typically made up of some combination of your body's stored fats (adipose tissue), protein (lean body mass), and carbs (muscle and liver glycogen). Since fructose goes preferentially to the liver, it has the effect of partioning calories to fill up liver glycogen. Since liver glycogen fullness is one (of many) "fullness" signals to the brain, keeping it more full by eating fructose helps maintain dietary adherance and probably maintains thyroid levels better.

Scrooge McDuck:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8144215

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11514839

They're only animal studies, but it's all I could find with a quick google search.

Well thanks for the effort. It at least proves that you're open. This is actually the first time I've been linked a pubmed study, let alone controlled studies.

In the first study, dogs were fed 60% of their diet as fructose. It should be obvious that this is supraphysiological. The most you can get by drinking nothing but coke would be 55%. Of course even the worst offenders in real life do nothing close to this. The study is far from suggesting that we should avoid fructose within the context of a normal diet (weight loss or maintenence). And even then it only points to changes in insulin and blood pressure. The study notes that bodyweight remains unchanged as you would expect when you hold calories constant.

This isn't even necessarily unique to fructose. Consuming 60% of your calories from MCTs or lactose could cause similar problems. Say if your body ran out of enzymes or something. The comparison here is to dextrose, an isomer of glucose, which is the single most efficiently and universally processed form of energy among all known life forms.

For the second study, I can't immediately see how much fructose the rats are getting. Again, I'd suspect its supraphysiological.

Scrooge McDuck:

Where are these studies? To your second point, you won't get me to argue with junk food being obesity inducing whether its source be fructose or dextrose.

Here's a metastudy showing that all but the highest levels of fructose consumption do not adversley affect blood tryglicerides or bodyweight.
Here's a study showing that relatively high levels of fructose (up to 90g/day, think 4-5 cokes) help regulate blood sugar. Above 90g/day the authors notice negative effects which *depend* on what the extra fructose is replacing.
Here's a study showing that consuming 50g of fructose prior to a meal results in superior appetite supression to both water and 50g of glucose.
Here's another study by the same author showing essentially the same thing, with the added caveat that fructose pre-loads caused people to eat fewer calories and less fat.
Here's a study showing similar blood sugar profiles compared across isocaloric/isomacroed meals. Its fast food (with HFCS drink) vs organic beef with organic root beer vs organic turkey and OJ.

 

Aristophanes:

"Interestingly, fructose caused a 2.5-fold increase in flux through glycogen synthase without any changes in the percent contribution of flux through the direct or indirect pathways of glycogen synthesis. These data suggest that fructose regulates flux into liver glycogen not only at glucokinase but also possibly at the level of glycogen synthase. In contrast to the marked stimulatory effects of fructose on glycogen synthase flux, we found that infusion of small amounts of fructose had no significant effects on glycogen phosphorylase activity. The regulation of phosphorylase activity by fructose is controversial. In liver extract studies, fructose-1-P has been found to inhibit phosphorylase phosphatase and to activate phosphorylase (18,19), whereas in the perfused liver, fructose has been shown to stimulate glycogen synthesis by inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase activity (20)."

This blurb does not actually say anything to indict fructose. Just that it goes to the liver and may or may not become glycogen. Dur. The study you linked is a giant TLDR blurb full of technical vocabulay you do not understand. You were just hoping that no one would read it and take your word on it.



I really, really, really don't care if fructose inhibits phosphorylase phosphatase and activates phosphorylase.

The point was that it is still controversial and you are parading around like you have scientific authority.

"The regulation of phosphorylase activity by fructose is controversial."

"The inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase has been proposed as one method for treating type 2 diabetes.^[10] Since glucose production in the liver has been shown to increase in type 2 diabetes patients,^[11] inhibiting the release of glucose from the liver’s glycogen’s supplies appears to be a valid approach. The cloning of the human liver glycogen phosphorylase (HLGP) revealed a new allosteric binding site near the subunit interface that is not present in the rabbit muscle glycogen phosphorylase (RMGP) normally used in studies. This site was not sensitive to the same inhibitors as those at the AMP allosteric site,^[12] and most success has been had synthesizing new inhibitors that mimic the structure of glucose, since glucose-6-phosphate is a known inhibitor of HLPG and stabilizes the less active T-state.^[13] These glucose derivatives have had some success in inhibiting HLPG, with predicted Ki values as low as 0.016 mM.^[14]"

^{Is this to difficult for people to understand?}

 

Moderator note: personal attacks removed. -Nielsio

Aristophanes:

The inhibition of glycogen phosphorylase has been proposed as one method for treating type 2 diabetes.^[10] Since glucose production in the liver has been shown to increase in type 2 diabetes patients,^[11] inhibiting the release of glucose from the liver’s glycogen’s supplies appears to be a valid approach.

Wow. All this proves is that fructose calories can contribute to diabetes. I never said anything to the contrary. In order for fructose to play NO role in diabetes, it would have to pass through the body unused. It doesn't.

[edit] Like, there's nothing in the study indicating that replacing fructose with dextrose would achieve a superior result. Hint - if these people are DIABETICS, you do not want to raise their blood sugar. But that's okay. If you want to compare fructose to nothing, and then claim that nothing is a better choice for people eating 3800 calories a day, go for it. That doesn't prove fructose is da baddy.

Also, the problems faced by hyperobese type 2 diabetics are not relevant to normal dietary physiology. Its like saying "what if insulin had no effect?". Yeah you would probably change your macros if your blood control system was broken.

Aristophanes:

haha and you drink wine coolers.

Insulin sensitivity and heart health. Why are you so knowledgable?
 

Moderator note: post edited in three spots. -Nielsio

all the the quote was supposed to demonstrate was that the language in the prior post was not above people's heads and that is corroberates the prior point made by the jargonistic white paper.  I never made any claims about the studies.   I'm not a scientist or a doctor or a pharmacologist and neither are you. I mentioned that it was on controversial grounds of study, which you never responded to.  Instead choosing to drone on about your knowledge.

And if you have all of the health problems...it would seem that you are the one that is "retarded."  It is not difficult to eat healthy.  One need not drink at all, but that would be silly.  People have always made and consumed wine and meads.  Wine coolers are stereotypically purchased by women who cannot handle their drink, that is all.  I was making fun of you for being a woman. 

No one has even said you are wrong.

No one has made a claim that junk food is somehow irrelevant to the overall problem, ie. the term "junk".  Others simply point out that there are studies that are contrary to yours and you fly off the handle.  Maybe you could smoke a bowl.  Oh, wait, your physiology is weak and compromised.

Your entire approach is flawed. Deciding what to eat based on studies is absurd. In fact, the very mentality that your diet should be determined through studious investigation is part and parcel of the obesity problem. Rather than listening to your body, you're ignoring your body and listening to nutritional studies. Most humans throughout history have had a malnutritious diet. The human body can cope with malnutrition. But today, the average Westerner doesn't have to worry in the slightest about malnutrition... all the nutrients you could want are available at a very low price. The problem, then, is choosing what to eat but the problem of choosing what to eat is not as simple as reading studies on controlled experiments. You have to listen to your body, you have to create an environment for yourself in which you thrive. Measuring out so many milligrams of carbs, so many milligrams of protein, so many milligrams of sugar and fat is missing the point. Your body is an insanely complex device and the patronizing attitude of modern medicine towards the human body is embarrassing.

If I had to choose one person to represent something like my views on this subject, I'd say Mark Sisson seems to have a pretty no-bullshit approach to lifestyle health. YMMV

Clayton -

And libertarians wonder why even other libertarians don't like talking to them. Be opinionated as you like but stop insulting each other. Geez.

 

Yep.  Libertarians are very annoying.  I'd like to say that the OP is a particularly annoying one, but actually, he's a fairly typical example.

Unlike all the well-mannered and humble folks of other ideological persuasions...

And as usual, I think Clayton has said some good things.

Sieben,

I just edited and deleted a bunch of your posts in this thread. I'm asking you to observe the forum rules. Personal attacks are not tolerable.

Clayton:

Your entire approach is flawed. Deciding what to eat based on studies is absurd. In fact, the very mentality that your diet should be determined through studious investigation is part and parcel of the obesity problem.

I mainly use studies to show that the claims of low-carbers and the anti-fructose crusades are incorrect. But I'd be really interested to know what you think is wrong with comparing 2 calorie restricted diets, and observing that the group eating fructose loses more weight. It may not be true for everyone, but it was true for the people completing that study. If it was true for them it is probably true for many many other people.

Clayton:

Rather than listening to your body, you're ignoring your body and listening to nutritional studies.

No. I'm not. Don't tell me what I'm doing. No one has asked what me what "the right" diet is so I haven't given them an answer. I am completely open to the idea that there are outliers. People who don't handle their carbs well. People who don't handle fats well. People who are allergic to milk proteins, etc etc.

I am very fond of the saying "the best diet is the diet you can stick to". "Simpler is better" is a close runner up. There are probably about 20 different valid dietary strategies that people are going to have different reactions to. I am not trying to come up with some one objective "right" answer and then tell everyone who eats differently that they're wrong.

Clayton:

Measuring out so many milligrams of carbs, so many milligrams of protein, so many milligrams of sugar and fat is missing the point. Your body is an insanely complex device and the patronizing attitude of modern medicine towards the human body is embarrassing.

You're taking it for granted that measurement = bad. But what if I find out that my body (for some reason) loses fat when I eat fewer overall calories? What if I don't have the time or money to measure the effects of calorie restriction on my thyroid and leptin levels? For all practical purposes, there are things for which you can use the "scientific" approach to. If it doesn't work, then figure out why and try something different. But if it does work, and there is a high probability it will, then you have saved yourself a lot of time and frustration by just hitting a 500 calorie deficit every day so that you still lose weight without your thyroid crashing.

And the complexity of the body is captured in controlled studies. Ceteris parabis, you know. It doesn't matter how many thousands of different possible metabolic routes there are. Study X shows that when you do Y or Z, the differential is an extra 1 lb of fat loss. Very applicable. But we can also explain some of the complexity by observing that fructose goes preferentially to the liver, which sends a "fullness" signal to the brain, enhancing diet compliance and "tricking" the body into thinking its more fed than it really is.

But that's just me being arrogant or something...

 

Aristophanes:

I mentioned that it was on controversial grounds of study, which you never responded to.  Instead choosing to drone on about your knowledge.

Oh good. Shifting the goalposts. Yes we know fructose and high carb diets are controversial. But that doesn't mean the answer is pretty clear. For normal people on normal diets, there is no reason to categorically ban either strategies.
 

Aristophanes:

And if you have all of the health problems...it would seem that you are the one that is "retarded."

I don't really have any health problems. At least none caused by my diet. I actually diet successfully. If I need to, I will upload pictures of me in 6-8 weeks with me at at most 7.5% bodyfat 6'1 195lb.

 

Aristophanes:

It is not difficult to eat healthy.

Red herring. Unsubstantiated anyway. People find it very hard to maintain certain diet protocols, depending on their habits, insulin sensitivity, and brain chemistry. There is no "right" answer.

 

Aristophanes:

One need not drink at all, but that would be silly.  People have always made and consumed wine and meads.  Wine coolers are stereotypically purchased by women who cannot handle their drink, that is all.  I was making fun of you for being a woman.

AHAHA Y U SO FAHNNY?

Tell me I'm a woman when I squat/deadlift. But yeah red herring thanks.

 

Aristophanes:

Others simply point out that there are studies that are contrary to yours and you fly off the handle.

Their studies are bad. Mine are good. Their physiology is bad or nonexistent. Mine is good. This is not rocket science.

 

Aristophanes:

Maybe you could smoke a bowl.  Oh, wait, your physiology is weak and compromised.

Zzzzzzz

Sieben:

But I have been going around for a few days and picking fights where I do have scientific controlled studies to show I'm right.

Why?

 

Nielsio:

Sieben,

I just edited and deleted a bunch of your posts in this thread. I'm asking you to observe the forum rules. Personal attacks are not tolerable.

I'd be less ticked off about it if you edited and deleted other people's posts. Or is it okay if I call you a frail and weak woman and then laugh about it? Probably not.

z1235:

Why?

Because I wanted to see if having objective scientific evidence would help grease the wheels of argumentation, and it does not. So the problem we encounter in politics and economics isn't that we aren't "scientific", its just that people have a mental block and want to believe all sorts of self serving things even if it is directly contradicted by evidence and/or logic.

@Sieben: I'm not saying don't read. I'm not even saying that nutritionists shouldn't study. Study away. The point to remember is that even a controlled experiment is never really ceteris paribus. Plus, we're overlooking an important historical point. Do you think this guy watched his carbs or fructose? I doubt it. To the extent his diet was considered, it was probably based on a combination of voodoo and instinct. I wouldn't mind having his physique. My only point is that modern voodoo isn't that much more applicable than their voodoo was. If we succeed, we succeed in spite of it not because of it.

Clayton -

Clayton:

The point to remember is that even a controlled experiment is never really ceteris paribus.

Its like, so close though.

Clayton:

Do you think this guy watched his carbs or fructose?

That's a statue. But ancient people's probably ate mixed meals, which are fine. There probably wasn't an advantage to counting calories because food was expensive and scarce. Things are different now. Calorie counting is necessary for people with poor appetite autoregulation. Even a daily calorie surplus of 50 calories/day will average you gaining 7lbs/year.

People also never achieved peak leanness and muscalarity till they started controlling their calories. Even in the bad old days when Arnold was a bodybuilder they controlled calories by just "eating less" and "staying hungry".

Clayton:

To the extent his diet was considered, it was probably based on a combination of voodoo and instinct

Instinct is fine in the environment which instinct developed. We are no longer in that environment.

Clayton:

I wouldn't mind having his physique. My only point is that modern voodoo isn't that much more applicable than their voodoo was. If we succeed, we succeed in spite of it not because of it.

This comes to mine. I'm sorry its another one of these voodoo studies.

Their studies are bad. Mine are good. Their physiology is bad or nonexistent. Mine is good. This is not rocket science.

But, alas, it is subjective.  You cannot prove either way.  Unless you are omniscient.

 

Moderator note: personal attacks removed. -Nielsio

Aristophanes:

But, alas, it is subjective.  You cannot prove either way.  Unless you are omniscient.

Its not subjective. Its science. Sorry.

Aristophanes:

Yet, you drink wine coolers.  As Carly Simon would say, "You're so vain." haha

Don't care.

Aristophanes:

Evening, Ma'am *Tips hat*

Except if you knew anything about body composition, you'd know that my stats aren't frail or feminine.

Okay, I'm still confused as to why it really matters whether a person avoids the consumption of HFCS and maybe wants some disclosure on its use in foodstuffs? Consider the fact that many millions of Type 2 Diabetics have a hard enough time trying to keep their blood sugar levels in balance because the fact that many products get HFCS labelled in a such a way that makes it seem like there is none (or any other related sugar products). I don't think it makes sense to outright ban HFCS, but I think it should be open to consumer choice not to have everything they eat sweetened as we have here in the US (I kid not about this. I've had friends from the UK eat US bread and ask if it was pound cake.).

Well... while I would question whether HFCS is "bad" for people who are pre diabetic, since fructose doesn't really raise blood sugar, the sentiment is fine. I don't load up on sugary foods and I would actually appreciate it if my wine coolers and beer had nutrition facts on them so I could see how many of what kind of carb was in them, what kind of micronutrients they have, etc.

The best way to control your intake is just to eat whole foods. There is a wide enough variety. What you seem to be talking about is this sort of grey zone between processed vs whole, where people want to eat "healthy" but still want to get substantial calories from processed foods. Its possible I guess.

HFCS is bad for the population since it's used in everything we eat, dude. It wouldn't be any better if used sugarcane either. But the negative impact from HFCS comes from its economical and ecological impact.

 

On the economical impact, the US government subsidizes corn to make HFCS available at a price lower than the global price of sugarcane, which does two things. First, it distorts the market demand for sweeteners toward HFCS and other corn products rather than similar existing products on the market. Second, it allows the current sugarcane farming interests to reap the windfall of the higher price they charge for sugarcane in the US (20 cents vs 10 cents a pound, the last time I checked the figures on it).

 

On the ecological impact, corn is a beast when it comes to topsoil nutrient drain, which means you need to liberally use fertilizers to keep them going. Also, corn requires more water than most other crops, which makes it a drain on groundwater and surfacewater sources. And finally, the liberal use of the fertilizers to sustain corn crops means the runoff of the fertilizers aides in algae blooms which kill off local fish and plant life (these blooms consume the oxygen and other nutrients in the water).

 

So, no, there's no net positive to having HFCS. Banning it won't stop it, but repealing the corn subsidy would probably end its use entirely and possibly force the companies to realign many of their foodstuff recipes to being less sweetened over time since sugarcane isn't going to be that much cheaper once they all start to demand it as a substitute (pretty obvious, duh).

Sieben:

z1235:

Why?

Because I wanted to see if having objective scientific evidence would help grease the wheels of argumentation, and it does not. So the problem we encounter in politics and economics isn't that we aren't "scientific", its just that people have a mental block and want to believe all sorts of self serving things even if it is directly contradicted by evidence and/or logic.

But why pick fights? Why subjectively value being right so much? Why spend precious hours of your life in conflict? Why fight human psychological biases which, by the way, may be supported by perfectly valid evolutionary drivers?

 

Well, those are both true things. But if it weren't for HFCS subsidies and sugar tariffs we'd use sucrose instead like other countries. Sucrose is so close to HFCS metabolically though that people can't really blame it for causing any net health problems.

z1235:

But why pick fights? Why subjectively value being right so much? Why spend precious hours of your life in conflict? Why fight human psychological biases which, by the way, may be supported by perfectly valid evolutionary drivers?

Well I'm not going to pick fights indefinitely. I was picking fights recently because I wanted to test the hypothesis that having objective scientific data made debating easier. It doesn't. In fact the whole point of this thread was to discuss THAT idea, though I'm happy to share with Scrooge since he seems reasonable.

Aristophanes,

The warning I gave to Sieben counts for you as well. I've moderated two of your posts.

Notice, I didn't dispute that, but you're not listening. In the other countries, it's not common to liberally use sugars in all their foodstuffs. In the US it is. Why? Because we've subsidized corn and thus made one type of sweetener much cheaper than the rest. That means, once you have a global demand increase for sugarcane, that means the price goes up (microecon 101, obviously), which means it's not cheaper to make everything super-sweet. In fact, it means it's cheaper to find either some sugar alcohol substitute (or equivalent) or just change strategies away from the liberal use of sweeteners in every foodstuff. That would be a boon in terms of health and the market in one shot. 

Sieben: I'd be less ticked off about it if you edited and deleted other people's posts.

The first thing for you to worry about is your own posts. If a problem is pointed out about them, then you're asked to take responsibility.

If you think other people bring the forum down because of their posting style, you can make use of the 'report abuse' option, or you can message me. This is very much encouraged if you come across a problem, because not all posts are neccessarily read by moderators. That's what happened here. I was just scanning through this thread and the problem with your posts stood out to me first.

Plus, your whole thing about science being objective? That's one thing I could easily dismantle here, but that's a whole other thread to make for some other time.