On HFCS and the lies of the corn industry

So what is the original meaning of "San Diego"?

When in rome...

Really I get your snark but danb is just paraphrasing me then claiming I'm wrong, so I don't see the point.

Seth wrote:
DanB wrote:
Seth wrote:

So you're saying the article is spot on correct, but you can come up with unrelated examples how how to eat even cheaper *and* less healthy? How is that relevant to the article?

Because the article claims that cooking from scratch is cheaper than eating junk food but their comparison is 'Cooking from scratch' Vs 'paying to eat at a fast food restaurant'. If you want to make that claim you need to compare cooking from scratch with the actual kinds of junk food people are actually eating. As I've pointed out I could buy 24 of the cheapest frozen hamburgers, a bag of potatoes and eat lunch and dinner for 12 days cheaper than just about any of the presented options, that's junk food and it's damn cheap.

If your issue is a semantic one -- that is, you don't like the narrow definition the article has used for junk food, that's fine. I typically use "junk food" to describe candy bars and sweets, not fast food.

Ok, I don't think this is entirely semantic but, going by the article, the article's definition of Junk food encompasses everything from chips to Macdonalds. It then goes on to define junk food as "highly processed food" (and I'll come back to that). That seems pretty broad. I'm more than happy to throw candy and sweets in there too. I do think there are problems with defining junk food on the basis of processing but for the purposes of the article and this discussion it's a good working definition for now.

Seth wrote:

The article is claiming that it's cheaper to cook healthy food at home vs fast food

No it doesn't. The article is claiming that it's cheaper to cook healthy food at home vs eating junk food. The title of the article is "Is Junk Food Really Cheaper?" not "Is Fast-Food Really Cheaper?" Of course fast-food isn't cheaper because that essentially boils down to "Cooking food is cheaper than eating in restaurants" and surely that point is moot to the point of being redundant.

Seth wrote:

The thesis is very clearly stated:

that article wrote:

I frequently read confident statements like, “when a bag of chips is cheaper than a head of broccoli ...” or “it’s more affordable to feed a family of four at McDonald’s than to cook a healthy meal for them at home.”

This is just plain wrong.

That isn't the thesis of the article. The very next sentence which you didn't include succinctly summarises the thesis

In fact it isn’t cheaper to eat highly processed food

My bold for the thesis point. And, given the title of the piece, I think it translates to "Is Junk food Really Cheaper? It isn't cheaper to eat junk food". I think that statement is also giving "highly processed food" as the working definition of Junk food in the article. If that is what junk food is then that is why my example of frozen burgers with hamburger helper is entirely relevant to whether or not "highly processed food" is or is not cheaper than cooking from scratch.

Seth wrote:

Again we're just going to have to disagree here. Giving certain people a pass because their priorities don't involve cooking healthy food themselves is just wrong. I could eat healthy and I could be a doctor right now -- but my priorities include eating healthy but didn't include going to med school.

This isn't about giving people a pass but about being understanding that people set their priorities and make choices for a vast array of complex interlocking or competing social, personal and economic reasons. It would be great if everyone could make and did make healthy food choices. But if you want people to make better choices then you have to find out what those complex social, personal and economic reasons are and address those. Just stating "This one is the correct choice and you're priorities are all wrong for not making it" isn't helping because you're not addressing the things that would actually allow them to re-prioritise.

As I suggested, if whole chickens, were subsidised to the point where they were actually cheaper than frozen chicken nuggets I'll bet that economic change would lead people to make better choices. If people didn't work as long hours I'll bet that more people would spend more time cooking. Those are just two plausible examples that would let people actually re-prioritise.

Seth wrote:

And making it a class issue is absolutely ridiculous, and a little bit offensive. Of Course it's tougher for poor people to eat healthy. Everything is tougher when you're poor. I lived the first 16 years of my life so far below the poverty line my parents never paid income taxes. But when you claim that an article showing people different options -- options they may not have thought of before because I firmly believe lack of education is the primary barrier to healthy eating (moreso than motivation or financial ability) -

But the amount of education you have is firmly correlated to your socio-economic class. And if the problem is that the lack of eduction is the primary driver in making these poor choices then that's the underlying thing you actually need to address, and that's about more than just the odd NYT article.

Seth wrote:

it sounds to me like you're saying it's impossible for the poor to eat healthy, which is just absurd.

I certainly didn't say that not least as by the sounds of it both you and I are examples that it isn't/wasn't impossible for us. But when we're looking at population level effects then we're dealing with probabilities. The higher up the socio-economic ladder you are the more likely you are to have a good education, the more likely you are to have money available, the more likely you are to have plenty leisure time and so on. Add them together and the more likely you are to make "good" choices about your lifestyle. You have more opportunities to make good choices. I have the money available that I can both buy decent food and buy DVDs. I have the leisure time available that I can both spend time cooking and also play computer games. I don't have to prioritise because I'm in the exceptionally lucky position of being rich in those things. That behaviour isn't a definite, just a bit more likely; I know plenty peers with terrible diets or exercise regimes after all. But as you slide down the socio-economic ladder, the less access to resources (time or money) and education people have and the less likely they will be able to or have the opportunity to make good choices. Without such resources available you get in to the realm of either-or choices; you can eat healthily OR you can eat crap and still have some money left over.

Saint James?

Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

An hour of prep and cleanup adds $15, 20, 30+ to the meal.

So the $26 chicken dinner is now at least $41. And I have my doubts that cooked chicken will last 4 days. But maybe that is just the (ex?) fast food junkie in me talking.

The reason I bring this up is that my wife and I have switched over to use wash 'n fold services. I costs more but getting 3-4 hours back with my wife on weekends is priceless.

fangblackbone wrote:

Saint James?

Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

An hour of prep and cleanup adds $15, 20, 30+ to the meal.

So the $26 chicken dinner is now at least $41. And I have my doubts that cooked chicken will last 4 days. But maybe that is just the (ex?) fast food junkie in me talking.

The reason I bring this up is that my wife and I have switched over to use wash 'n fold services. I costs more but getting 3-4 hours back with my wife on weekends is priceless.

By which argument, it's more worthwhile for poor people to cook as their hourly wage would be lower.

BTW, cooked chicken will absolutely last 4 days with proper storage and refridgeration, especially if you're going to cook it again on the 4th day (for instance, putting it in pasta/lasagne/curry etc). But then we get back to the point of education on food safety and having the necessary equipment (airtight container and working fridge).

And not having teenage kids in the house....

Seth may agree to disagree all he likes, but as a single mom who raised four kids completely on my own, the math on this whole equation comes out very differently. I don't want to be offensive here, but some of the armchair quarterbacking on other people's life priorities really makes me angry.

Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

That only counts if you would otherwise be earning money with that time. Time you're not getting paid for is worth $0.

Malor wrote:
Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

That only counts if you would otherwise be earning money with that time. Time you're not getting paid for is worth $0.

But that is not to say that time you're not earning is valueless, which I suspect is more along the lines of the spirit of what fangblackbone was getting at. All our time is valuable and sometimes we "choose" to work so we can translate some of that value into the means of exchange.

I guess I'm the asshole who's going to point out the connection between poor and uhhhh not so bright?

For example I stock up on allot of ready to eat food because its quick (I'm lazy). I also never buy it unless its on.... sale. Might sound like basic finances but honestly have a peek at what some of your fellow citizens are buying at the grocery store sometimes (the ones that actually make it in there) and it can be very surprising. For example ready to cook pizzas go on sale for basically half price but I have seen a father dragging his two kids behind him with his quick dinner solution paying full.

For the some of us who do pop in to fast food places for a quick bite it can be economical and also not as heart attack inducing as people rave about. Also here notice what some of the other patrons are ordering and they are not very economical about it at all let alone healthy.

DanB wrote:
Malor wrote:
Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

That only counts if you would otherwise be earning money with that time. Time you're not getting paid for is worth $0.

But that is not to say that time you're not earning is valueless, which I suspect is more along the lines of the spirit of what fangblackbone was getting at. All our time is valuable and sometimes we "choose" to work so we can translate some of that value into the means of exchange.

You're either not paying attention, or working both sides of the aisle intentionally. Are you putting value on time, or not?

momgamer wrote:

And not having teenage kids in the house....

Seth may agree to disagree all he likes, but as a single mom who raised four kids completely on my own, the math on this whole equation comes out very differently. I don't want to be offensive here, but some of the armchair quarterbacking on other people's life priorities really makes me angry.

I consider you a rational, intelligent person, so please let me know if I have offended you. I said a page or two ago that I'm a bad example because I don't have kids, so I wasn't trying to inject my judgment into your life.

Although, that being said, given that you are a rational, intelligent person, I would be surprised aghast if you told us you let McDonald's raise your kids.

jowner wrote:

I guess I'm the asshole who's going to point out the connection between poor and uhhhh not so bright?

Yikes bro.... you're on your own there. I haven't met any billionaires, but between the very poor and multimillionaires, I see no real causation between the poor and the stupid.

For example I stock up on allot of ready to eat food because its quick (I'm lazy). I also never buy it unless its on.... sale. Might sound like basic finances but honestly have a peek at what some of your fellow citizens are buying at the grocery store sometimes (the ones that actually make it in there) and it can be very surprising. For example ready to cook pizzas go on sale for basically half price but I have seen a father dragging his two kids behind him with his quick dinner solution paying full.

This could be where anecdotes really show their weakness...could just be a guy who will pay the premium for Freschetta vs Tombstone.

Look: I'm not saying you're wrong. Everyone I've ever met or heard speak -- including me, including Dr Oz, including those guys from The Doctors, everyone -- could stand to use more nutritional education. My point is that while there's a big correlation between lack of education and socioeconomic status, there is not connection between either one and intelligence.

For the some of us who do pop in to fast food places for a quick bite it can be economical and also not as heart attack inducing as people rave about. Also here notice what some of the other patrons are ordering and they are not very economical about it at all let alone healthy.

Every modern fast food place has healthy options, from Subway (duh) to McDonald's. Hell: a hamburger isn't actually that bad for you. But the 1630 calories in a Double Whopper Meal (MEDIUM soda, MEDIUM fry!) isn't winning you any awards.

So.... Yeah I agree with you here.

Seth wrote:
DanB wrote:
Malor wrote:
Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

That only counts if you would otherwise be earning money with that time. Time you're not getting paid for is worth $0.

But that is not to say that time you're not earning is valueless, which I suspect is more along the lines of the spirit of what fangblackbone was getting at. All our time is valuable and sometimes we "choose" to work so we can translate some of that value into the means of exchange.

You're either not paying attention, or working both sides of the aisle intentionally. Are you putting value on time, or not?

My point was: "Worth or value are not just measured in units of currency and just because you might not put a dollar value on it doesn't mean that it's worthless.", the implication was that maybe dollars weren't the best way for fangblackbone's to frame his point as Malor rightly pointed out but the thrust of his argument might still stand. How did you not understand that?

DanB wrote:

My point was: "Worth or value are not just measured in units of currency and just because you might not put a dollar value on it doesn't mean that it's worthless.", the implication was that maybe dollars weren't the best way for fangblackbone's to frame his point as Malor rightly pointed out but the thrust of his argument might still stand. How did you not understand that?

All you're doing is making excuses for the poor choices people make around nutrition with one side of your mouth, then claiming that those poor choices can be fixed with the other side of your mouth. The hairsplitting between value and currency is just more evidence of that. That's why I said above there's no use arguing -- I agree with most of what you said, except that you always preface it with "No, Seth, you're wrong!" So why bother?

Malor wrote:
Would it change the argument of which costs more if we include how much our time is worth?

That only counts if you would otherwise be earning money with that time. Time you're not getting paid for is worth $0.

and further, cooking is a physical task. That might be a great stress relief for someone who sits in an office earning three figures an hour, to come home and play with his Le Creuset cookware without a care in the world if he ruins the ingredients he was able to buy at premium prices at a local market that caters to his neighborhood with quality product, but if you've just spent a full day on your feet just to come back home and face cooking food you can't afford to ruin that you either spent time you don't have getting to a good supermarket to buy, or that you overpaid for in a small local market that stocks meat which smells by the time you get it home from the store--trust me, I've been there--in pans full of hotspots, well...

Let's remember: eating is not just a task by which we replenish our calorie count. It's also a psychological event by which we replenish our mental reserves. Any nutrition plan that does not take that into account is like...a health campaign that thinks people only have sex to procreate.

My point was: "Worth or value are not just measured in units of currency and just because you might not put a dollar value on it doesn't mean that it's worthless.", the implication was that maybe dollars weren't the best way for fangblackbone's to frame his point as Malor rightly pointed out but the thrust of his argument might still stand. How did you not understand that?

Thanks, DanB for clarifying and expanding my point for me. The way I see it is that there can be three different ideas with regards to value. There is the hourly wage metric, which is admitedly faulty do to the fact it isn't a constant. Then there is money value. And then there is the value you place on how you want to spend your time or have it spent for you.

The last one intrigues me because it reminds me of the American Express "priceless" commercials.

Our lives aren't necessarily more complex. We have access to more things so we involve ourselves into said more things. Because of this our time management sufffers or is strained. This affects our eating habits and nutrition. HFCS is at the long end of that chain. A product who's market was created through the prevalence of poor time management and a two income household necessity.

On Value:
Economists more recently like to use the term Utility when talking about value. Utility is a silly word that basically means overall happiness (across time).

Lots of things have complex scaling issues on value which makes it a challenge to compare things like Time, Money, Resources, Feelings, Happiness, etc. For example, people value $1 and $2 as a larger difference than $1001 and $1002. In this case (for math people), the common quick route is to use currency as a log(currency), which gets into the idea expressed previously.

The key to Utility is that

1) Utility is a totally personal measure. You cannot compare utility of one person to another.

2) Utility as a measure is best thought of in relative and not absolute terms. Something can have a higher utility than something else, but it's not useful to say something has twice the utility of another thing.

Because of these complex interactions, and the idea of psychological framing, it's almost always a challenge to tell other people how to "maximize their utility."

On Articles
Can we just agree that articles are master baiters and often make overgeneralized and emotionally fueled statements?

Can they be useful or interesting? Yes. But, I don't think we need to argue the merits of some specific targeted point or about what and how an article is saying something.

The article in question is very anecdotal and highly unscientific. It isn't presenting facts or solutions, so I don't see the value of analyzing whether these facts are true. It's an opinion piece.

PandaEskimo wrote:

Awesomeness

I don't often do this, but:
IMAGE(http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p5/thereseskordal/gifs/SlowClap.gif)

Well, I did kill the conversation. Does that mean I win?

Arise!

http://news.yahoo.com/corn-syrup-mig...

Fructose, a new study finds, has a marked affect on the brain region that regulates appetite, suggesting that corn syrup and other forms of fructose might encourage over-eating to a greater degree than glucose. Table sugar has both fructose and glucose, but high-fructose corn syrup, as the name suggests, contains a higher proportion of fructose.

And I would assume that fruits have low or a lower concentration of fructose as well?

Or maybe the correct question would be: how many fruits (apples, oranges, what have you) would it take to match the amount of fructose in a typical can of soda? I am guessing a lot. Although, it may not be an apples to oranges (hyuck) comparison.

fangblackbone wrote:

And I would assume that fruits have low or a lower concentration of fructose as well?

Or maybe the correct question would be: how many fruits (apples, oranges, what have you) would it take to match the amount of fructose in a typical can of soda? I am guessing a lot. Although, it may not be an apples to oranges (hyuck) comparison.

The latin word for fruit is fructus. I'll give you three guesses on the origin of the word fructose.

fangblackbone wrote:

Of course, yes I know that.

My question was that HFCS is concentrated. So in one soda you may have the equivalent of 3 oranges worth of fructose.

And it will also not have the fiber that helps to aid digestion and reduces the body's response to the inflow of sugars from fruit.

Of course, yes I know that.

My question was that HFCS is concentrated. So in one soda you may have the equivalent of 3 oranges worth of fructose.

edit: funny enough, an orange has 9.35 grams of sugar and a Coke can has 29 grams of sugar

fangblackbone wrote:

And I would assume that fruits have low or a lower concentration of fructose as well?

Or maybe the correct question would be: how many fruits (apples, oranges, what have you) would it take to match the amount of fructose in a typical can of soda? I am guessing a lot. Although, it may not be an apples to oranges (hyuck) comparison.

There's about 36 grams of sugar in a 12 oz regular soda. That's about 1.6 large apples or 2.1 large oranges.

The biggest difference between more natural forms of sugars (aka raw fruits in this example) and more processed forms of sugars like HFCS isn't so much the ratio of the monosaccharides present but that they are mostly present in those simple sugars, not as larger chains of polysaccharides which your body must break down into the simple sugars. Generally the digestion of those molecules activates some of the pathways which lets your body know that you have gotten food and shouldn't be as hungry. It also makes it easier for your body to maintain even blood sugar amounts as the simple sugars are released more gradually instead of BAM SUGAR TIME.

Yonder wrote:

The biggest difference between more natural forms of sugars (aka raw fruits in this example) and more processed forms of sugars like HFCS isn't so much the ratio of the monosaccharides present but that they are mostly present in those simple sugars, not as larger chains of polysaccharides which your body must break down into the simple sugars.

This is really only true of starchy vegetables or fruits (bananas, bread fruit). The sugars in most fruits are present as monosaccharides, principally fructose and glucose, hence the name as discussed barely 4 posts ago. Yes are a lot of polysaccharides in an orange but that's the completely indigestible pith, which is usually sub-categorised as Fibre.

The real difference between eating fruit and consuming foods with additive HFCS is that most fruits actually have surprisingly little sugar in them per unit volume. Which is seldom true of anything with HFCS added.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Of course, yes I know that.

My question was that HFCS is concentrated. So in one soda you may have the equivalent of 3 oranges worth of fructose.

And it will also not have the fiber that helps to aid digestion and reduces the body's response to the inflow of sugars from fruit.

So the solution would be to require fiber be added to anything using HFCS! We can boost two industries!

Is "big corn" still running those ads where the perfect middle american couple is at a park with rocket pops discussing the finer points of corn syrup, etc?

farley3k wrote:

So the solution would be to require fiber be added to anything using HFCS! We can boost two industries! :)

Diet Coke with Pulp?

Seriously, though. The same processing of corn that creates HFCS also produces a lot of fiber and the ag industry is always looking for better (read: more profitable) uses for that stuff than just using it as cheap animal feed.

Maybe Taco Bell was really on to something with the wood chips in the ground meat ;P