On HFCS and the lies of the corn industry

Intake != absorption, ingesting 5000 calories of food is not equivalent to absorbing 5000 calories. Therein lay a whole slew of complexities; the personal conditions (and it seems food factors as per your link) that can affect your absorption rates, metabolism and even your sense of hunger).

However the general formula is basically saying 'your body does not violate the laws of physics'. You're not going to magically gain weight if you're caloric absorption is 500 calories and your caloric expenditure is 2500 calories. Likewise if your caloric absorption is 5000 calories but your expenditure is only 2500 then you're going to gain weight. Why didn't the atkins person? ingesting != absorbing. Maybe due to various factors you have to ingest 5000 calories to absorb 2000 calories, fine, but if you're expending 3000 calories under those circumstances you're going to lose weight.

Seth wrote:

[This is the kind of flat out lies - usually preached by or to the obese community - that serves to muddy the conversation. Show me five examples of people on a 4000 calore diet that are sedentary with a bmi under 22.

I didn't say their bmi was under 22, I said that they don't limitlessly put on weight.

krev82 wrote:

Intake != absorption,

Ah yes, right you are. Agreed.

Although talking about calories remains unhelpful. 1g of protein has completely different physiological effects to 1g of fructose; and they both have about the same calories. A calorie is afterall an abstract human measurement of the amount potential oxidisable energy in a chemical substance and doesn't describe that actual physiology of what's going on.

DanB wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Intake != absorption,

Ah yes, right you are. Agreed.

Although talking about calories remains unhelpful. 1g of protein has completely different physiological effects to 1g of fructose; and they both have about the same calories. A calorie is afterall an abstract human measurement of the amount potential oxidisable energy in a chemical substance and doesn't describe that actual physiology of what's going on.

For example, you can burn a stack of cellulose and it will release several calories of heat, but if you eat it it will go right through you. And that's just the easiest and most cut and dried case.

For you bacon lovers of the world - the ridiculous subsidies on corn are the reason that your bacon and other delicious pork products are getting so expensive! Beef as well!

Not to side track, but the industry/economy is hardly based on supply and demand. It's being shaped and the industries will push that as hard as they can. Whatever it takes so it seems.
I switched to the Paleo diet and it cuts out most of the 'bad' things. But to each their own.
Also wanted to tag this thread for future reading.

DanB wrote:
krev82 wrote:

Intake != absorption,

Ah yes, right you are. Agreed.

Although talking about calories remains unhelpful. 1g of protein has completely different physiological effects to 1g of fructose; and they both have about the same calories. A calorie is afterall an abstract human measurement of the amount potential oxidisable energy in a chemical substance and doesn't describe that actual physiology of what's going on.

I will tentatively agree with this: a calorie of alcohol, for example, can actually help you lose weight (it also lowers your blood sugar and inhibitions, making it more difficult to avoid eating an entire pizza at 3 am). That said, it's dishonest at best to play the "calories don't make you gain weight" game. It's the same malarky that causes people to be afraid of aspartame when sugar is much, much deadlier, and in smaller doses.

Sugar is much, much deadlier? Any proof of that? Or references at least.

How many people die of obesity related illness vs aspartame poisoning? This entire thread is about how overdosing on sugar is deadly.

Seth wrote:

That said, it's dishonest at best to play the "calories don't make you gain weight" game.

Calories still don't make you gain weight. Sure if you're not eating enough material to maintain your body mass then you probably can't put on weight. But it's the actual physical materials you are consuming that dictate what happens in your body.

Aspartame doesn't make you gain weight because your body "handles" it differently to sugar not because it has a different number of calories. You could combust a gram of aspartame and find out exactly how many calories it contains (about 5ish judging by the size of the molecule and it's break down products).

e2a: I will put good money on the fact that if you eat 2000 calories a day on the Atkins diet for the next month you'll either hold a stable weight or lose a small amount of weight. But if you eat 2000 calories a day of sucrose you will put on weight.

DanB wrote:

e2a: I will put good money on the fact that if you eat 2000 calories a day on the Atkins diet for the next month you'll either hold a stable weight or lose a small amount of weight. But if you eat 2000 calories a day of sucrose you will put on weight.

I'd take that bet. A nutrition prof once showed an all twinkie diet could result in weight loss. The calorie intake/expenditure ratio is by far the absolute most important part of the nutrition infrmation block.

Seth wrote:

How many people die of obesity related illness vs aspartame poisoning? This entire thread is about how overdosing on sugar is deadly.

No, it's not about the real sugar, it's about HFCS. You are mixing them up. That's exactly the point that is made. Do not mix them up.

Sparhawk wrote:
Seth wrote:

How many people die of obesity related illness vs aspartame poisoning? This entire thread is about how overdosing on sugar is deadly.

No, it's not about the real sugar, it's about HFCS. You are mixing them up. That's exactly the point that is made. Do not mix them up.

What do you mean by "real" sugar? Sucrose? Physiologically there is no real difference between sucrose and HFCS.

DanB wrote:
Sparhawk wrote:
Seth wrote:

How many people die of obesity related illness vs aspartame poisoning? This entire thread is about how overdosing on sugar is deadly.

No, it's not about the real sugar, it's about HFCS. You are mixing them up. That's exactly the point that is made. Do not mix them up.

What do you mean by "real" sugar? Sucrose? Physiologically there is no real difference between sucrose and HFCS.

Except that HFCS is both sucrose and glucose unwound molecules..

Talking about diet, I still believe that Michael Pollan's "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." is the simplest to follow and the least dangerous. I usually add to it "Don't eat sh*t." to sound less preachy

Of course, the whole recommendation depends on how do you define food. Pollan's definition is that it does not come in a bag with a long list of unpronouncable ingredients.

Sparhawk wrote:
Seth wrote:

How many people die of obesity related illness vs aspartame poisoning? This entire thread is about how overdosing on sugar is deadly.

No, it's not about the real sugar, it's about HFCS. You are mixing them up. That's exactly the point that is made. Do not mix them up.

The point of the article is that *all* sugar is dangerous...but HFCS is even more dangerouser.

Seth wrote:
DanB wrote:

e2a: I will put good money on the fact that if you eat 2000 calories a day on the Atkins diet for the next month you'll either hold a stable weight or lose a small amount of weight. But if you eat 2000 calories a day of sucrose you will put on weight.

I'd take that bet. A nutrition prof once showed an all twinkie diet could result in weight loss. The calorie intake/expenditure ratio is by far the absolute most important part of the nutrition infrmation block.

I'll double down on that bet. I'm training for a marathon. 2000 calories a day from anything would see me shedding pounds at an alarming rate because I'm burning an additional 5000-6000 calories a week from my running regimen.

Calories in minus calories out is a vastly oversimplified model that doesn't take into account the inordinate complexity of the biochemical processes involved. But there's a reason it's been held as a truism, because, like any good model, it holds true for many, but not all, cases.

Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:
DanB wrote:

e2a: I will put good money on the fact that if you eat 2000 calories a day on the Atkins diet for the next month you'll either hold a stable weight or lose a small amount of weight. But if you eat 2000 calories a day of sucrose you will put on weight.

I'd take that bet. A nutrition prof once showed an all twinkie diet could result in weight loss. The calorie intake/expenditure ratio is by far the absolute most important part of the nutrition infrmation block.

I'll double down on that bet. I'm training for a marathon. 2000 calories a day from anything would see me shedding pounds at an alarming rate because I'm burning an additional 5000-6000 calories a week from my running regimen.

Calories in minus calories out is a vastly oversimplified model that doesn't take into account the inordinate complexity of the biochemical processes involved. But there's a reason it's been held as a truism, because, like any good model, it holds true for many, but not all, cases.

Cool, but no marathon training while we conduct the experiment.

DanB wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Seth wrote:
DanB wrote:

e2a: I will put good money on the fact that if you eat 2000 calories a day on the Atkins diet for the next month you'll either hold a stable weight or lose a small amount of weight. But if you eat 2000 calories a day of sucrose you will put on weight.

I'd take that bet. A nutrition prof once showed an all twinkie diet could result in weight loss. The calorie intake/expenditure ratio is by far the absolute most important part of the nutrition infrmation block.

I'll double down on that bet. I'm training for a marathon. 2000 calories a day from anything would see me shedding pounds at an alarming rate because I'm burning an additional 5000-6000 calories a week from my running regimen.

Calories in minus calories out is a vastly oversimplified model that doesn't take into account the inordinate complexity of the biochemical processes involved. But there's a reason it's been held as a truism, because, like any good model, it holds true for many, but not all, cases.

Cool, but no marathon training while we conduct the experiment.

No dice.

Seeing as you were proposing the experiment to refute the "calories don't make you gain weight" argument, I'd say that marathon training is an excellent way to test your claim.

Jonman wrote:

Seeing as you were proposing the experiment to refute the "calories don't make you gain weight" argument, I'd say that marathon training is an excellent way to test your claim.

I'm not disputing that you can burn the materials you're consuming (and maybe even part of you) by exercising.

So...are you disputing that overwhelming your caloric output leads to obesity?

I wonder when or if someone will figure out a way to redistribute our fat stores to areas that we can burn it off through everyday activity. Right now, there is a billion dollar industry selling us artificial gadgets and procedures to target unseemly fat stores in obscure areas.

Seth wrote:

So...are you disputing that overwhelming your caloric output leads to obesity?

The dispute is that your equation is simple. It looks like that because you are hiding incredible complexity behind your [Input] and [Output] variables. They are complex enough to make the equation of little value in your day-to-day planning. You can eat nothing but 1200 calories of Twinkies and lose weight, or go on a juice diet, and lose weight by cutting your input way down. But you cannot sustain that diet, and you can do serious damage to yourself by going that route.

Kraint wrote:
Seth wrote:

So...are you disputing that overwhelming your caloric output leads to obesity?

The dispute is that your equation is simple. It looks like that because you are hiding incredible complexity behind your [Input] and [Output] variables. They are complex enough to make the equation of little value in your day-to-day planning. You can eat nothing but 1200 calories of Twinkies and lose weight, or go on a juice diet, and lose weight by cutting your input way down. But you cannot sustain that diet, and you can do serious damage to yourself by going that route.

By claiming my system is false, you're asserting the opposite: that weight is not equal to [calories ingested] - [calories expended]. And that's almost dangerous.

Is it an oversimplification? Sure. So is "evaporation makes it rain," or "alcohol makes asian people get pink cheeks." Doesn't make it any less good of a rule of thumb.

(This is the part where, exasperated at being wrong, people attack my less than perfect analogies as a proxy to my point.)

Seth wrote:

By claiming my system is false, you're asserting the opposite: that weight is not equal to [calories ingested] - [calories expended]. And that's almost dangerous.

False dichotomy. Claiming what you're saying is false isn't claiming the diametric opposite.

This situation is more like the difference between the Bohr model of the atom and the valence shell theory of atom structure. The Bohr model is a handy thing to teach 16 year olds on their way towards quantum mechanics but it's not "true" in the hard sense of the notion.

More ..sort of on topic. What would farmers grow if there were no corn subsidies? I don't mean that we should keep subsidies to give them something to do, I'm just curious what other crops can grow on that sort of land and whether there's a demand for them. If there's nothing better to be done with the land then it seems like it's simply an issue of.. farming too much and under a free market that issue would resolve itself I would think.

Pushing the political maneuver to keep farmers happy at the cost of tax payer wallets and (at least potentially) the cost everyone's health seems a bit silly.

krev82 wrote:

More ..sort of on topic. What would farmers grow if there were no corn subsidies? I don't mean that we should keep subsidies to give them something to do, I'm just curious what other crops can grow on that sort of land and whether there's a demand for them. If there's nothing better to be done with the land then it seems like it's simply an issue of.. farming too much and under a free market that issue would resolve itself I would think.

Pushing the political maneuver to keep farmers happy at the cost of tax payer wallets and (at least potentially) the cost everyone's health seems a bit silly.

Illinois is Corn and Soybean country. The Corn takes the Nitrogen out of the soil and the Soybean puts it back in. I doubt that they would bother with Soybeans if it wasn't the most economic way to keep the soil from getting too low on Nitrogen, they'd just do all corn all the time. So at the very least they could all grow Soybeans there, because I don't think that there is an issue with overly... nitrogenizing... your soil.

Of course from my in-laws gardening in Illinois I know that the soil is just freaking fertile in general. The whole Corn and Soybean is very much just the best way to make money, I'm sure you could grow lots of different varieties of foodstuffs.

We eliminated all HFCS products from our house about 3 years ago. It was surprisingly easy.

I think on the calorie debate the problem is that the measures people use for food / health / body size do not really map to what is going on.

Calories are a pretty terrible measure for food since they measure the chemical properties of something, not how the body stores it and then ultimately uses those stores.

BMI is clearly faulty since it takes into account nothing about muscle density, fat density, or really anything much at all other than height and weight.

Dan's argument is that the body really requires several resources from food and that it then does a number of things depending on what it's getting. While it can often somewhat substitute these resources, that's not always the best solution to a person's goals.

While a simple equation such as "input = output" holds true to a certain extent if everything is scaled, it does not really hold true in practical situations. For example, ingesting a certain amount of sugar triggers certain storage processes. Eating more frequently in smaller dosages results in something completely different where the body largely uses what it takes in when it takes it in. This hold true for the output part as well. Exercising will use easily available energy (carbohydrates), and then switch to more difficult to acquire sources (fat stores, etc). However, if demands are too high, it switches to more easily but not very desirable sources such as muscle tissue.

So what does this all mean?

It means that any general guideline such as "eat lots of meat," "eat lots of grains," "eat lots of vegetables" is missing the point. It matters more the manner in which you are eating than some general summary number.

Back on topic.

I think that the HFCS discussion and the sugar discussion is important to the understanding of nutrition since it plays such a key role in storing and using energy.

krev82 wrote:

More ..sort of on topic. What would farmers grow if there were no corn subsidies?

Hemp?