Organic, organic, organic. Unless you live in Jersey of course. Then it doesn't matter what you put in your body.
On the topic of Splenda, it's not what it pretends to be. It's a chemical bonding of a sugar molecule bonded to a chlorine molecule. I wonder how apt people would be to consume chemically engineered meat if it were offered to them. As for HFCS, it's worse than sugar. It's not "sugar is sugar" because it's isn't sugar at all. It's pressed from corn, modified with bacteria, and subject to more chemical processes. Beyond that, it triggers a higher insulin response than cane sugar, which is the biggest problem with it. Beyond its weight inducing effects, HFCS also puts you at higher risks for diseases, not the least of which being diabetes. I just don't get why people are so willing to consume chemically created substances before healthier ones. Of all sugar-related products on the market, sugar is actually the safest to consume.
Thanks man. Honestly, anyone can do if they're serious about it. You can't do it half-assed, and you can't go sneaking a pizza every other day you'll just fail miserably. Everything my baby boy eats is organic, which makes me wonder about when he grows up. When he starts eating whatever he wants I wonder if his body will freak out over pesticides and additives he wasn't exposed to, kind of like kids who grew up in sterile environments and developed no immune system.
I don't know where you're getting your info from, but it's wrong. I know that HFCS is the new popular villain among crazy internet people but the bottom line is that it is no worse for you then sugar. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/88/6/1716S Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't1 ABSTRACT High-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is a fructose-glucose liquid sweetener alternative to sucrose (common table sugar) first introduced to the food and beverage industry in the 1970s. It is not meaningfully different in composition or metabolism from other fructose-glucose sweeteners like sucrose, honey, and fruit juice concentrates. HFCS was widely embraced by food formulators, and its use grew between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s, principally as a replacement for sucrose. This was primarily because of its sweetness comparable with that of sucrose, improved stability and functionality, and ease of use. Although HFCS use today is nearly equivalent to sucrose use in the United States, we live in a decidedly sucrose-sweetened world: >90% of the nutritive sweetener used worldwide is sucrose. Here I review the history, composition, availability, and characteristics of HFCS in a factual manner to clarify common misunderstandings that have been a source of confusion to health professionals and the general public alike. In particular, I evaluate the strength of the popular hypothesis that HFCS is uniquely responsible for obesity. Although examples of pure fructose causing metabolic upset at high concentrations abound, especially when fed as the sole carbohydrate source, there is no evidence that the common fructose-glucose sweeteners do the same. Thus, studies using extreme carbohydrate diets may be useful for probing biochemical pathways, but they have no relevance to the human diet or to current consumption. I conclude that the HFCS-obesity hypothesis is supported neither in the United States nor worldwide
People have been trying to correlate the increase in obesity with the introduction of HFCS, but it's purely speculation. Companies like it because it's a liquid so it's easy to mix and transport, ie faster & cheaper. People get worried because of the chemical processes used to make it. I'm more concerned with what the end product is itself, not how its made (using acids, caustic soda, etc..). It's probably not a bad idea to avoid HFCS, because it's usually in processed foods which are crap for you in the first place. Enriched flours are also not good for your diet, and like Alio says stay away from trans fats (hyrdogenized anything). The stuff is true poison, not like regular fat it will absolutely clog your arteries and kill you eventually.
Interesting that the references in the page you linked had numerous citations of things such as cereal and sweetener interests. It's like anything else. You can always find research that disputes anything. Hell, people have come up with evidence that climate change doesn't exist. It's all about whose side you believe. Interestingly, every time I've seen "support" for HFCS or artificial sweeteners, it's always influenced by that industry. Forgive me for my cynicism. Either way, it's always better to not consume sweet products anyway, including sugar. Eating fruit works because of the interaction with the fiber. Oh, and I don't appreciate you referring to me as a "crazy internet person." If you don't like my advice, that's fine. I've seen quite a few people benefit from it in this thread though.
It's not purely speculation though. The fact is, the cheap cost of the process leads to a low cost end product. Rather than being a once-in-a-while treat, soda is a commonly consumed item. Notice they only charge a few extra cents to effectively double the size of your drink at fast food joints? It's more about access than the effect of the product itself. Oh, and I don't understand how you can not care how a product is developed. If you care about your health why do you not care what you consume? Aspartame's chemical process includes adding trace amounts of cyanide. It's not enough to cause any harm (supposedly) but who the hell wants to willingly ingest cyanide in any amount?!
Well hold on now, because Aspartame is made in a process with cyanide, what makes you assume that aspartame contains cyanide? When molecules are transformed into something else they don't retain the same properties, which is why I say I'm concerned with what something is, not how it's made. At its root cyanide is made of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons as the oxygen you breathe in every day. If you came up with the right process and turned cyanide into oxygen, the oxygen would be oxygen and not a toxic substance
I'm a big fan of research as you can probably tell. There is a lot of complete bullshit being propagated about nutrition and unless I can corroborate something with clinical studies, then I will generally disregard it. The research that goes against HFCS is based on the fructose aspect of it. as I said a couple posts back ridiculous amounts of fructose will lead to elevated triglycerides and fatty deposits in the liver. I seriously doubt however that anyone can consume the amounts of fructose they used in those studies. And molecularly, HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose and Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose. You really think the extra 5% fructose make any difference in things? Okay, I didn't mean to imply that you were a crazy internet person. I am assuming, however, that most of the negative info you got for HFCS was found in the internet and most likely written by crazy internet people. I didn't come in here to insult you, and there is a lot of good advice in here, particularly with regards to fiber and protein.
People are always going to look for a scapegoat. The obesity epidemic can't possibly be related to calories, right? So it must be something else. The reality is that HFCS is just a cog in the wheel of the processed foods monster. We have so many options for quick easy calorie-dense foods anymore that it's no wonder people are as fat as they are. Portion size has also increased significantly the past few decades. If you replace your Pepsi with Pepsi Throwback (with real sugar!) you're going to gain the exact amount of weight. If you stop drinking sugary garbage altogether you will lose weight.
I don't even drink juice. I live on a mountain and have awesome artisan well water. No plastic bottles here. All I drink is water and tea. Obviously, almond milk, rice milk and once in a while soy or hemp milk. Beer is the only sugary beverage I enjoy. Unfortunately.
So sad. You know the parents are big fat loads too. Thank God my wife is not fat. I won't have fat kids.:metal:
Yeah, a lot of people are under the assumption that juice is healthy because of the vitamins in it, but it is only marginally better for you than soda. You're much better off, as Alio said, eating a piece of fruit - you hit your sweet tooth and get the benefit of fiber.
I think you still have to be cautious as to what fruit you eat. I don't know the list but I think too many bananas are fattening while eating apples all day long is not. I'm not researching this, maybe Jett Jett will but I'm not.
Exactly. And my apologies for the sensitivity before. I thought you were referring to me as an internet crazy. I mean, I am crazy and on the internet, but I don't think I'm an internet crazy. :wink: And good point about the scapegoating. It's tiring that everyone is simply pointing a finger at HFCS and calling it the criminal. What happens if all HFCS is eliminated and people still don't lose weight? As you said, the biggest problem is the quick and easy access to calorie-dense, nutrient-sparse food, and an overconsumption of it. Sorry, but if you're eating 3 Big Macs a week, you're probably not going to be thin unless you're Chad Johnson. And even then, I'd hate to see what his intestinal walls look like. Don't get me wrong, I have a very occasional soda (usually when I fulfill my Burger King craving) so I haven't completely cut out HFCS either. I also put sugar in my coffee, eat yogurt for breakfast, and have the occasional piece of cake. As with anything, you have to moderate. I just try to present the information as I understand it. The way I see it, if someone completely cuts HFCS out of their lives it's not exactly a bad thing, so erring on the side of caution doesn't really hurt. And again, I'm not a big fan of chemically created substances entering my body. If it were more cost effective, I'd probably go fully organic for veggies and purchase grass-fed beef and bison and free-range chicken for meat. Instead I just compromise with what's available at Stop and Shop.
I don't think it's that they're fattening, I think the risk is too much potassium which has other health risks. I vaguely remember hearing that I think, but don't hold me to it since I can't recall anything concrete.
