http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100170767>1=10514 Alio's not going to like reading this corn syrup article.
Ummm, why would I not like reading it? Think about what it says. Just because it's written like a college propaganda filled textbook doesn't mean you should ignore the words that are written. It flatly states that the HFCS content in a regular can of soda is no different than if you were to mix nine teaspoons of table sugar into any other drink. Who the f**k mixes nine teaspoons of sugar into 8oz. of anything? If you're doing that with ANY sugar source, you're begging for some diabetes. You just keep trying to "prove me wrong" and it's not working. Why not just accept that things like trans fat, or processed sugars are NO DAMN GOOD FOR YOU, regardless of what some college professor might have tried to lead you to believe?
You have the amazing talent of seeing only what you want to see and missing the point of anything I post. I didn't seek this out by the way - it was on my MSN homepage where I check my mail and I found it to be nice and relevant. I've said elsewhere in this thread that sugar is sugar is sugar. Processed, not processed, table sugar, natural sugar, corn syrup, the 'crystalline' stuff in vitamin water, none of it is any better or worse for you than another. They're all just different combination of saccharides... it's all about concentration, which you semi-admitted to. I like that education is propaganda now.
You're missing the point. Here is the relevant text: Basically, what this is saying is that if you were to make yourself an 8oz glass of iced tea, and added nine teaspoons of sugar to it, it would be the equivalent amount of sugar you would find in a regular can of soda. As I asked in the last post, who the f**k adds nine teaspoons of sugar to an 8oz drink? That's just one glass! You may as well just eat scoops of sugar. What's the hard part to understand here? HFCS is more concentrated than table sugar. It's far easier to fit the equivalent of nine teaspoons of sugar into a can of soda via HFCS than if you were to take that same can of soda, pre-sweetening, and dump nine teaspoons of white sugar into it.
That's an illusion. A teaspoon isn't all that much material. All 9 will probably fill an inch of the can at most, and that's no less than the amount of corn syrup in said can. Compounds nearly identical chemically aren't going to occupy a much different volume. If anything, the corn syrup takes up more space because it's in liquid form. Edit: I looked it up for confirmation: "Both HFCS and sucrose have approximately 4 kcal (calories) per gram of solid if the HFCS is dried; HFCS has approximately 3 kcal per gram in its liquid form [9]."
Only that it's sugar as a whole that isn't good for you, that HFCS isn't especially bad, it's just prevalent because it's cheap and easily mixable.
Because I don't feel like arguing with him anymore. I set the thread up to help people. I've done my research, and I've shown the results. People can listen to me, or they can listen to him. It's their lives, and their health. One of the first things I requested was that I not be given a hard time for this. I busted my ass to make this thread for people's benefit, and asked nothing for myself in return. But of course, it's only a matter of time before someone starts busting my balls. Whatever. I stand by my assertion that HFCS is a terrible additive, and it is contributing to poor health in this country. Far too much of it is added to soda. You can believe that, or you can ignore it. It doesn't matter to me. Go ahead and add 9 teaspoons of sugar to the next unsweetened drink you consume. If you think the taste and health effect are worth it, keep drinking Coke or Pepsi. Either way, I'm done talking about it.
Ok thanks for helping and all you guys, that like stating your opinion get out this thread.. No debates.. Hes helping us fatties. Oh btw alio, I mentioned this to my nutritionist... Your plan.. I let her know u were consuming near 3,000 calories a day... She said something along the lines of, maybe if your 18 - 30 but anything after that your going to have long term effects.. I didnt ask anymore cause personally I dont really care... tight.
If I were consuming 3,000 calories of Big Macs, fries, and large Cokes, sure, there'd be severe health issues. But I eat nutrient dense foods now. There's a big difference. And I wasn't trying to come off as a dick about things. I just don't want to spend 3 pages arguing about how bad HFCS is. It's bad. End of story. Whether it can be argued that it's better or worse than regular sugar is irrelevant. It's not good for you, and that's all that really matters.
I think what Tight's referring to is probably his nutrionist's (mis)perception of 3000 as an abnormally gross quantity of calories, not so much the individual quality per calorie, which I disagree with. A sedentary male on average requires about 2000 for maintence of basic metabolic functions. Granted, 3000 probably isn't the best number for overall fat loss, but depending on his goals, if Alio's trying to stimulate hypertrophy, or if he's trying to increase his overall strength, then 3000 suits him just fine. Personally, I shoot for somewhere in the vicinity of 4500-5000 calories per day, but everything considered, it all ultimately depends on your goals.
Yeah, I'm not trying to get big, just sustain myself to get through my regular exercise program. And I'm past the point of needing significant fat loss.
You are correct in that sugar is sugar is sugar if we use different levels of concentration to create equivalents (from strictly the calorie standpoint). However, that's not the whole story here on why it's so bad for you. HFCS is mainly a combination of corn syrup and fructose. It's not so awful for you because of the corn syrup; it's the fructose. Corn syrup is mostly just glucose, which our body uses immediately for energy (in moderate doses). While HFCS does contain corn syrup, it also contains fructose (quite a bit of it at that) and this is where you become a lard ass. Fructose is different from glucose in that rather than being used by our bodies for immediate energy it is stored for fat. The reason this happens is because fructose inhibits insulin production, which is required to fuel leptin. Without insulin and leptin you have no way for your body to know how much fat to store. So the body assumes it's in a crisis and continues to store fat in case shit hits the fan. And of course this wouldn't be such a big deal if we had small amounts of HFCS in our drinks (and food). After all Mantana, you are right in that depending on the concentration it can be the same as a couple of spoons of natural sugar. However, you are living on a different planet if you think food companies actually give a shit about what is a healthy amount of this stuff. Ever wonder why people can order the supersize sodas at fast food joints and actually drink it all? It's because of HFCS . It's because there is nothing in that soda that tells your body, "Enough is fucking enough!" Unlike natural sugars, HFCS is an excellent deceiver to your body in determining how many calories your body needs. I hope that made sense to all that were confused as to why HFCS is so much worse for you. Basically, it's worse than other sugars because your body doesn't recognize it's calories and consequently stores it for fat. There you go. One of the biggest problems with this is that HFCS is fucking everywhere! It's cheaper for food companies to produce so they put it in so many things. I was pleased to see that some of you noticed it can be found in BBQ sauce and ketchup. The reality is that it's very difficult to completely rid of HFCS in your diet. If you can pull an Alio and scratch it out of your diet all together than more power to you. I would suggest doing your best to keep it out of your body, but your main focus should be removing all trans fats from your diet. For those of you that are actually serious about weight loss and general knowledge on nutrition, I would suggest buying "The Abs Diet." It's an excellent guide for fitness and nutrition and doesn't cost much these days. It's written by the guys over at MensHealth.
nothing against this thread or anyone trying to help people become healthier, but i cant stand the perception people have that anyone that eats fast food or drinks soda is fat.
Edit: Thanks for cleaning it up ICWT - I'm doing the same. Did I imply anything about food companies? Fact is they use it because it's cheap and easy. No more, no less. So you're saying that glucose doesn't store to fat... at all. It might be first in the pecking order, but the body isn't going to burn more calories if you eat food with a higher glucose-fructose ratio. It's going to burn what it needs... and store the rest. You've got me on the insulin-blocking tendency, but it doesn't affect my argument too much. Getting back to the original point - what substitute is better? Most HFCS is 55/45. Table sugar is 50/50. Honey's like 40/30/junk. The crystalline fructose in vitamin water is obviously a bad choice. The point was, no kidding that HFCS isn't good for you, especially with the concentration it's found in, but the substitutes are no better.
Just a different sugar they use in it, instead of HFCS. It just sounds nicer, but it's no better, maybe worse. Although, VW is only half as sweetened as soda.
Holy shit guys, let's not fight, seriously. I take the blame for the arguments spouting. I got a little hot-under-the-collar first, so I guess that's sparking side fights. Let's all just chill out, okay? Thanks InChadWeTrust. I've actually seen all of that stuff before, but to be quite honest, I've run through so much information at this point, I don't remember it all, all of the time. (Hell, I don't remember most things most of the time!) Yes, it is true that the body processes HFCS differently than table sugar. BTW: I haven't completely removed HFCS from my diet. That's near impossible these days. It's in practically everything, even ketchup. ---------------------- SixFeetDeep, I never called anyone who eats fast food a fatass. I've actually admitted to still eating the occasional Burger King or Wendy's meal. Moderation, coupled with exercise. Yes, it's better to completely remove it from your diet, but let's be serious. If you're not a vegan, you're probably going to hit up a fast food joint at least once in a while. (You may be reacting to things I've said elsewhere in a joking manner though. I've called people fatasses, and brought up fast food in the same breath, but it's never been serious.) ---------------------- Soss, I think the problem is, you seem to defend HFCS like it's just okay. Now, seeing you say it's a situation where none are any good, you make a lot more sense. At least from my POV, you were defending HFCS as okay for companies to add to their products, and okay for the public to consume. Your last post showed my assumption quite incorrect, so my bad. In terms of us arguing, yeah, we're cool. We're familiar enough with each other at this point. (I gotta bring back the other M&M avatar :rofl There's no problem at all with you posting in this thread. I originally just dropped it after that last article you posted, but then Tight sort of called me out for not responding again, and I sort of lost it, so again, I apologize for getting bent. As far as Crystalline Fructose, we're in agreement. It's FAR worse than HFCS. I'm pretty sure I shared the story earlier in this thread, where another TGGer PM'd me asking me about it, so I investigated. Turns out, companies have been putting it in products instead of HFCS, but it's a worse compound. CF is fully lab-created, whereas HFCS is processed. I prefer to stay away from anything someone had to create in a friggin' Bunsen Burner. On top of that, a small amount of arsenic, yes arsenic, the stuff they make rat poison with, is used in the process. Supposedly it's not enough to cause any harm, but WTF? Thanks, but I'll pass on the silent poisoning.
