Down with HFCS!
 

The random political thoughts thread has a derail topic of sugar, the sugar industry, high fructose corn syrup and where to find soda with real sugar.

Jones Soda - real sugar
Around Passover Coke releases Coke with real sugar (Kosher for Passover)
MousePod shared this lovely link - Galco's Soda Pop Stop
And you can get real Dr. Pepper here.

Studies are coming out linking HFCS to the obesity epidemic. America started getting "fat" when HFCS started being put in so much food. More than likely HFCS is bad, yet it is in so much stuff. Ketchup, soup, soda, salad dressing, yogurt, etc... I've been trying to cut it out of my diet for close to a year now, and have been mostly successful. I don't flip if I eat something with hfcs in it, or drink soda now and then - but I do notice I feel a lot better if I don't consume it.

Sugar isn't great, hfcs is worse. Crack open those pixie stix and bring back sugar!

One of the cardinal rules of weight loss is don't drink your calories. Be it soda, juice or alcohol. Whatever form it's in, sugar is an addictive drug. Best avoided. I've done pretty well just drinking water and limiting alcohol and dessert consumption to legitimately special occasions, which works out to about every two weeks.

Oh, and there's my 18 shots of espresso in the morning, but nobody's perfect.

I think the obesity epidemic is linked to an unhappiness epidemic, which family style restaurants have exploited by providing temporary fixes in the form of monstrous portions of fat and sugar. I'm toying with the idea of writing a diet book, tentatively titled "Please Don't F*** the Potpie."

I know that Monin syrups are made with pure cane sugar. I do not know about Torani syrups.

(Pssst... Peet's uses Monin, which is why I know. I don't have my bottles in front of me, and can't find anything conclusive about Torani. I would suspect that they use fairly high quality ingredients in their flavorings, since Torani isn't exactly cheap.)

Hmm, I'm not convinced that refined sugar is any better for you, in the same amounts that we take in corn syrup.

To my understanding, the corn syrup explosion happened in part because it was a lot cheaper to produce than refined sugar from beets or cane. When it became so cheap, it was put into products that usually didn't feature sugar, and our sweet tooth became accostomed to having everything sweetened, deepening corn syrup's hold on all products.

I could be wrong though, nothing to cite on this.

I'm too lazy to look but my understanding is that HFCS is heavily subsidized which is why it's so cheap and why it gets put into so much stuff it shouldn't.

The issue with HFCS is it doesn't trigger the proper insulin response. As a result, we do not get the feeling of "fullness" we ought to for the amount of calories we consume, so we consume more. Plus it screws with our bodies.

Heavy use of it is due in part to restrictions on sugar imports and tariffs on same - we pay about 3x the world price for sugar.

I am a great supporter of the "whole food" mentality, which I feel is akin to the way of moderation. Eat real food whenever possible, including real sugar, but don't kid yourself into believing that sugar in the raw is health food.

Sugar goes through an intense refining process from cane juice to the white crystals we're accustomed to seeing, even "raw" sugar is nowhere near a "raw" food!

No, but it's a darn sight better than HFCS.

I've been reading (and no, I don't have sources at the moment) that 'white' anything is bad (refined white sugar, bleached flour, etc...). Now, I am way to lazy to read the labels on everything, nor am I the healthiest eater (y'all have met me ;) ) but I think the overall processed and convenience food has messed with our body chemistry. It's not due to one particular additive.

Eat real sugar! Otherwise we overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy and stole the land for no good reason (not that much sugar is grown in Hawaii any more)!

I will have to pass that on to a Hawaiian Royal I know. ;)
One of the alternatives they are using for sugar and HFCS is Splenda. I remember you telling me some interesting stuff about Splenda and free radicals. Any update on that research that you know of?

It's only part of the way. Working at home I gained a bunch of weight nervously downing too many sandwiches made with organic peanut butter and artisan jams on whole grain Ezekiel bread. That and nightly organic oil mops, otherwise known as salad, nearly killed me.

Indeed! Overeating is overeating, no matter what we're eating! I'm an expert at overeating, and I look the part. Still the theory is all things in moderation.

Yes, too many people mistake salad for "healthy food" and then wonder why they haven't lost anything. It's the dressing. I say, if you're going to have a thousand calorie meal, put down the salad fork and grab a twice-grilled burrito from El Pollo Loco. Guess which one will be more filling?

I know my roommate has been spouting stuff about corn syrup for a while, but can someone here link to an actual study of how it affects your Glycemic Index or insulin levels or whatever as opposed to cane sugar?

To me, sodas with cane sugar taste different and better. But they're a once-in-a-while treat, like eating a candy bar (the month of December being an exception). I *might* have a regular soda or two per month (actually, I had my two at Mousepod's pad on Saturday). But that's it. Sugar is sugar. Eat less sugar and calories, take more exercise (35-45 minutes four times per week of CONTINUOUS cardio, meaning, you ARE sweating a lot), and unless you have a medical condition happening your body will get more into shape.

I agree about the salad thing -- the best for salads is to have balsamic vinegar (*not* balsamic vinegarette, which has oil in it). But yeah, if you're going to drown your salad in full-fat ranch dressing, you're almost better off eating a cheeseburger (both of which are terrible for you).

But the hardest part (like everything in life) is consistency and maintenance. Food is a big comfort for me personally, especially when I'm anxious, bored or depressed (and I am those things on a regular basis). Trying to shut my mouth when there's food right in front of me is really REALLY hard and a lot of times I just give in.

I don't know, is blaming corn syrup an excuse? There's an obesity epidemic AND there's a lot of people hitting the gym this month who look like they're in pretty good shape to me...

There is a place called Saladworks that's been popping up, and I took a look at their nutrition information. Most salads were on the order of 500 calories apiece! So are standard Jamba Juice portions. Calories are still calories. the best we can do is to lower our caloric intake and try to eat foods that are as natural as possible, without causing MORE stress by worrying too much about it. Stress is far worse for you than HFCS!

Actually, neither of them is terrible for you if you're eating in moderation.

Part of portion control is learning to eat things which will make you feel full so you don't feel compelled to eat as much of it. For that reason, going with full-fat, rich foods (or in this case, sugar over HFCS) aids in that quest for moderation by contributing to a sense of satisfaction with what you have eaten. The other side of the coin is the consumer having the wherewithal to stop at that point.

Link

(Admittedly that page is a little... biased. But it provided a handy quote)

You make a really good point. This thread is about HFCS, and we all love to talk about how evil it is, but in the end, moving ones' butt and cutting the calories is the key to health and weightloss. Being aware of the dangers of highly processed foods which contain unecessary ingredients IS important to our overall health, and I do feel that HFCS has had a negative impact, but I think that portion distortion, the sedentary lifestyle of the computer age, and an overall increase in depression and unhappiness has affected America's waistline far more than beet-based sweetener versus cane sugar-based sweetner.

Breaking news: Splenda tastes like sh!t.

Splenda (and all fake sugars) give me near insta-headaches. Yes mom, even the 8oz of diet Sprite you put in the jello mold at Thanksgiving.

Cherny, I completely agree. Getting off ones butt and exercising is the best thing to do to lose weight. I wasn't trying to blame weight gain on HFCS. There are a lot of reasons for it - portion distortion (love that!), sedentary lifestyle, working longer days in front of a computer leave you tired and not wanting to cook.

I do feel the need to step in and call this for what it is. These are theories, entirely unproven, and there's actually quite a bit of data indicating that it's simply not the case.

ETA: In more detail. There are studies that suggest fructose itself may be worse than other forms of sweeteners, however high fructose corn syrup is only about 55% fructose. Sucrose (i.e. cane sugar) is 50% fructose. So the difference is minimal. There is a structural difference in that the fructose in sucrose is bonded while the fructose in HFCS is not, however it's believed that in products like soda, which are highly acidic, the bonds in sucrose are broken anyway, leaving them once again very similar.

There's a handful of studies that show a degree of correlation between HFCS and obesity/diabetes, but there's been nothing showing anything causal.

I suck and haven't provided any sources. I'll look later when I get home (trying to remember where I read it, though I'm sure it's biased). When you have a chance can you post links to this? Maybe it's all psychosomatic.

I just don't drink soda.

I lost 20 pounds by eating in moderation, always eating breakfast and staying away from fast food. I'm about to get back on the post holiday band wagon by eating more fish and lean meat, fewer starches, more veggies and limiting my chocolate intake. Keeping away from fatty dressings and sauces as well as lots of cheese helps too. Salsa is a fantastic low-fat topper for flavor.

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Yeah, cheese and chocolate are the toughest things to avoid.

Meth isn't terrible for you if you take it in moderation either.

OK yeah that was a cheap strawman. ;) But people's ideas of "moderation" are vastly different. Having a high-fat, high-calorie meal once in a while is fine. But if that's more than one or two meals per week, that isn't moderation, it's the rule (unless you are an athlete and are burning a seriously high amount of calories, in which your weight goals are probably different anyway, or you have an abnormally fast metabolism). Foods high in fat raise your cholesterol levels and clog your arteries. Sorry, but that is bad for you. I find, for me personally, eating a Double-Double is hard to justify except a couple times a year (and only then, it's if I've been doing the regular gym thing and not kidding myself about how many calories I've eaten that week).

I think the feeling of "satisfaction" though when you eat is sort of a cop-out. You can't just eat until you're satisfied. If you're eating ANYTHING after you're full, you're overeating. Frankly, if you ARE full, you're overeating. Like Morrigoon says, it is portion control, but in that portion one needs to take into account how many calories one wants to eat, and stop. You can eat MORE (volume-wise) of lower calorie food.

At the beginning of any weight-loss regimen, where your calories expended are greater than your calorie intake, I know I'm going to feel hungry. I try and avoid this by eating smaller portions at regular intervals, but I'm still gonna feel hungry at the beginning. As long as my calories are around 1400 per day, I'm gonna feel hungry but I'm not starving myself (I think under 1200 calories, your body goes into starvation mode, which has its own set of issues).

Well, my point about eating non-lowfat foods is that you need to control portions of normal food. "Diet" foods are often less satisfying for the same number of calories, and lead you to want to eat more. I feel it's preferable to eat food that will satisfy you at smaller amounts. If you feel like you're denying yourself, you're going to want more.

This doesn't apply as well to sodas (140 calories vs. 0-1 calories) as it does to things like, say, bread and cheese, where the highly-processed "reduced fat" versions save you from 10-30 calories at great expense to substance and satiety. But I think we know there's a lot of reasons out there already to avoid diet sodas or to choose them very carefully (In my case I might drink a Splenda-sweetened diet drink on occasion, but very rarely). However, given the choice, I would prefer a sugar-sweetened Coke over an HFCS-sweetened one, not just for the health issues but also for flavor.

Given the choice, I prefer the health benefits of menthol.

"Diet" foods should be banned. If you eat right and eat less you don't need "diet" foods.

This isn't necessarily true. My periods of greatest health have involved eating very small meals very regularly. My stomach shrinks pretty quickly, and pretty soon a half of a restaurant sandwich feels like the equivalent of three filled buffet plates during non-healthy periods. The trick there is to keep up that regularity, or you'll end up feeling really hungry and tripping up by eating more than you can comfortably digest, thus stretching back out the stomach. Bleah.

Sure, HFCS isn't particularly good for you, nor are partially hydrogenated oils or "diet" foods with little beneficial substance. Eating less and moving more, focusing on fresh produce and less-processed foods... all these things are great. The real problem a lot of people have, though, is that their eating is based on behavioral development. Somewhere along the line, people have learned: food makes me feel better. Food makes me forget. Food makes me calmer. Food makes me remember good things. Food makes me feel less lonely. Those are problems that are much less easy to solve than simply buying the right kinds of foods.

And on top of that, when behavioral addictions are involved, unlike alcoholics, over-eaters don't have the liberty of quitting cold turkey. (Well, they can quit eating cold turkey. But they can't quit eating.)

What I'm saying is: it's a multifaceted, deep-level problem and it's not going to be fixed unless people make the behavioral changes for themselves.

On another note - there's nothing wrong with putting vinegar AND oil on one's salad, if you're not overdoing it. Olive oil is very good for you - and it's not medically advised to cut out fats completely.

I didn't mention above, but I thought it prudent to add:

My eat habits are 100% behavioral, and I'm personally fighting it using - well, I'm not even that happy to admit it, but whatever. The author of another book I've liked in the past (The Artist's Way) has written a diet book. And while - much like her first book - this book is in part annoying and preachy, it does suggest something that helps me, personally. If I'm going to eat, I have to write. I have to write about what I'm choosing, what I've eaten, and why. If I'm eating badly, I am forced to look at it, and more importantly, I'm forced to look at the underlying reasons.

I love olive oil, but instead of bathing in it via salad and stir fry, I drizzle it sparingly on steamed or raw vegetables with the calmness of a shaman and the meticulousness of tea ceremony.

My husband has a bunch of Torani syrups so I went and looked, all of them are made with pure cane sugar.


I know I was surprised at how many foods HFCS is in. It's hard to buy a loaf of bread without it anymore!

I'm fat. I'm fat because I eat more calories than I expend.

I eat more calories than I expend because, ultimately, I don't really mind being fat (though how much I mind varies over time) and enjoy eating the calories.

I drink diet sodas because they provide the same benefit as regular sodas but I can't really tell the difference (personally, Splenda tastes fine to me, has no side effects, and I'm fine with it). If regular soda tasted better to me, I'd drink them.

I think Cherny's point, "If you are FULL, you're overeating," is a good one. There are exceptions, of course, but my understanding is that you are supposed to stop eating before you feel full, not once you feel full. That involves a greater awareness than I have of my own body, and I frequenly overstuff myself as a dog would. Heh. It's also something that I heard a doctor explain to my mother a long time ago, after she had half of her stomach removed After the Ulcers Attacked!

Smaller portion sizes eaten as smaller meals throughougt the day help to regulate our matabolism, I think, and one may even develop a better understanding of how much food she can consume in one sitting. I just can't seem to find the time to prepare 5 snack packs for the day. Maybe with my new cookware/equipment, that will become less of a problem. I've also read that certain food combos assist metabolism, while other foods, mixed together, slow it down. But I may have read that in a book written by Suzanne Summers.

On the whole, eat well and exercise, moderating indulgences as you see fit based on the body type you want to mantain or have. I'll eat healthier and exercise more, but I'll never cut out carbs (mmm, breads!) or sugar (mmm, booze!) in pursuit of a smaller, less flabby waist line. My beer marsupial pouch stays with me.

Well, sure. This is why I said "if you're not overdoing it." A teaspoon of olive oil is not bad for you.

Hey, don't knock it. My mom lost (and has kept off) on the order of 100lbs on the Suzanne Summers plan after 3 decades of failed attempts.

My parents also had great success with the book, so I was only really pretending to knock it. I found a lot of good and easy recipes in there, too. They do make for great small meal snack packs.

The easiest way I find to moderate salad dressings is to order it on the side (or at home put it on the side) and just dip your fork in it instead of pouring it all over the top. You get the same flavor but you don't eat as much of it.

I think whatever method works for you personally is great. It's all basically calories in/calories out. How you make that work for you is up to each individual. And what works great for one may not work at all for someone else.

Portion control is a huge problem. Both my Mom and my Aunt have struggled with this for years. They both must consume everything on their plate. No matter what. My Mom will even consume most of the garnish as well. This makes eating out really hard for them because resturant portions can be huge. This is one of the few advantages I see with "diet" tv type dinners etc. They are smaller portions. If you make say Mac & Cheese you are more tempted to eat the whole box. If you eat a lean cuisine there's only a set smaller amount. Living alone is also harder to maintain portion control as it's not so easy to make just one portion of say stew or soup.

Yes, those are great points LS.... I didn't mean to be so annoying and preachy in what I wrote above. It's just that I've yoyoed myself a couple of times in the last year for short periods of time (at my heaviest a few years ago when I was 20 pounds more than I am now), kinda went "uh-oh", and exercised and counted calories to a degree to lose it. So I'm just speaking from my own experience as far as what has worked, for me. Even my little weight gain over December, when I didn't work out often and ate everything in sight, didn't put me up too much (3 1/2 lbs).

Food is an emotional thing. I order chinese take out when I'm feeling like crap. For me, it feels like the last "vice" that I have now that I don't drink or smoke cigarettes. So it is really really hard. But I try and make the eating healthy and going to the gym thing part of my week. If I've overeaten, I add a day at the gym that week. Training my brain to do something that I don't feel like doing is really tough.... but I can honestly say I feel really good on that walk back to my car after 45 minutes on the elliptical ;) At least I know I'm heading in a good direction.

I am torn on this issue. Low sugar foods tend to replace sugars with fats, and low fat foods tend to replace fats with sugars. That said, I have a metabolic problem wherein I am supposed to be curbing both my sugars AND my fats. Without reduced-fat salad dressings and sugar-free options, life would be really dull. For the growing diabetic population, many of the lower sugar foods out there have made life a great deal more bearable.

I really think it's all about exercise.

As an unashamed hedonist, I take pleasure in food and have the waistline to show for it. I wish it were otherwise and fantasize of trips to Paris, where I could eat whatever I wanted, food most delicious leaving me satisfied, smiling and – unbelievable but true – lighter. Fresh ingredients, small portions packed with flavor, I don’t know why but if I could eat like a Parisian I would be most happy and probably healthy.

Sadly, I hear the French are succumbing to our American ways – more processed foods and convenience foods are increasing the size of the average Frenchman.

I think what frustrates me most is the food I eat without pleasure, the fast food lunches I take because I can just drive-thru. I hate the psychology at play where ordering a “small” makes me think I’ll be less satisfied with my meal. Today my lunch dilemma sent me to Quiznos – where I ordered a “regular” sandwich with a Rosemary bread that sounded at least some flavored compensation for the bland meal I would have.

Bread shall be my downfall –oh for the hard crust of a genuine baguette, or the delicate flakey-crispiness of an actual croissant – I haven memories of such foods that trick me into trying yet another ersatzes doughy chew – I would love to eat better, pull my meal fresh from the morning market, or as a little aside in my café lunch – but the Spartaness of steamed veggies returns food to simple fuel.

But I still think back to Paris, where food can be a rarely disappointing pleasure and I have to think that perhaps this should be the next focus of my hedonism – to tease the pleasure of eating back into my mouth and combat the laziness of convenience that tricks me into believing I am fulfilled when really I am settling.

It’s time for a revolution.

I have had success with boxed frozen meals like lean cuisine, but be aware that the salt content in those foods is tremendous! I have noticed that eating less salt definitely makes me feel better...

You know it almost seems like a New Year's Resolution weightloss/eat healthy thread my not be a bad idea. I know I'd like to drop about 100 pounds. Or at least 50. Lol.

*le sigh* You're making me hungry, and poetic, and salivating, and ... and really looking forward to California Cuisine again.

But getting back to HFCS and the argument in favor of sugar...


What we're really talking about here is not so much the population who wishes to lose weight and/or is willing to go out of their way to eat healthier. We're talking about the average American, who is going to continue eating the same crap as ever. These are the people for whom trans fats are getting banned. We know they're (we're) going to eat crap, so we're going to make crap a tad better (and in the process, as luck would have it, better tasting) by going back to the source and away from the stuff we've "developed" to make crap cheaper, which has had the side effect of making it crappier.

Returning sugar to our sodas means that those people who aren't inclined to avoid soda for its own sake will at least be able to feel fuller on a smaller amount of the stuff, hopefully preventing them from getting up for a refill, or causing them to stop eating the fries once they're cold because they're full now. Baby steps.

And that frees up corn for fuel production. Just sayin'.

I am fat because I am lazy and hate to exercise. Oh, and I like good food. Sadly (or not) I'll be exercising more now that I have my Wii. There is no way in hell I'll give up bread, cheese or sugar (yay chocolate and booze!).

I do find that putting a portion onto a smaller plate makes it look bigger, and tricks my mind. I can eat an entire Chipotle burrito in one sitting, or I can make a burrito bol last for 3 meals. Same size, it's all in the vessel it's delivered in.

My big time weakness is pizza.
I stopped drinking sodas for awhile and just a couple days ago started again. I'm addicted. Oh well.
I can't drink non-diet sodas. Too sweet.

Again, there is no evidence that this is true. It's far more likely due to simply the wider reach that HFCS has in the food market than it used to. It's not about soda having HFCS instead of sugar. It's about 99% of ALL foods having HFCS when they had no sweeteners previously. There is no evidence that there's any appreciable difference between sucrose and HFCS. There is ample evidence that people are flat out consuming more of both.

I'm fat because I choose not to diet. I'm at a maintenance weight because I choose to improve the quality of what I eat. (And because my stomach issue forces me to moderate the amount of grease and soda I consume to a non-diet but reasonable level)

I'm fat because I put sugar on my Big Macs.







I'm kidding. :D

I'm fat because I don't exercize. I think about exercizing but I don't do it.

Sohrshah, I think we've already pretty much hijacked the thread on the topic of health/weight/resolution.

I'm swimming tomorrow. For the first time since Italy. I've been putting off renewing my membership because I haven't felt like I had time to use it. I've felt like I was drowning in my job. But - all apologies, Boss - **** work, I need to exercise. I renewed it this morning.

It's not an either/or, it's a both/and. My mom does weight watchers off and on and I think their philosophy is that it's something like 80% what you eat and 20% exercise. Obviously if you exercise more, you can eat more calories and maintain your weight.

I remember doing the South Beach thing a while back and losing weight without ANY exercising. But the problem with that for me was that it was too difficult and time consuming to plan.

But nothing's going to work over the long term if the motivation doesn't come from within. Or the ability to get back down to business if you screw up, instead of saying "screw it" to everything (though usually that happens to me when I get TOO gung-ho about my diet and exercise, and have unrealistic goals, like not eating ANY sugary snacks, or going to the gym 6 days a week, etc., and burn out).

**EDIT** heheh the conversation has moved on... teach me to write a post at work over a long period of time when I'm distracted heheh

However, like alcoholics, the eating (or drinking) to feel good is the same. I could replace the work "alcohol" with the word "food" in the italicized segment above and it would fit just fine.

Sure, I can quit drinking cold turkey, but that isn't going to deal with the problems of my feelings. I found that I don't necessarily need to ACT on my feelings. Sure, I feel like crap and want to eat or drink, but I don't have to do it. I don't even really need to know WHY I am feeling the way I am. Feelings and can be simply acknowledged but, when it comes down to living with them, I usually just ignore them as something my sick brain has cooked up to throw me a curve and I don't give them a lot of importance. If I did, I'd spend a great deal of time on a roller coaster of emotions, eating and drinking, being fat and drunk and STILL not being happy.

Most of the time, I don't give the feelings that lead to destructive behavior too much attention. If I do, i find it just give me a great excuse to do the things I really don't want to do "because I feel so awful......" Boo hoo, poor me, pity party of one, please.

Ralphie was raised to never leave an empty plate at meal time. To this day, he has a problem doing that and will finish no matter how full he gets sometimes. So I think it has to do with the brainwashing our parents put us through as kids.
For me, when I'm done eating, I'm done. I stop. Even if the plate's still full. That behavior came from be being a general pain in the a$s as a kid.
:D

Right, but you don't have to turn around and have just half a drink 3 times a day.

Good point, GC, I was a part of the CPC (Clean Plate Club), when I was a kid. I still have a difficult time not cleaning a plate up - though I try to not eat it all if I'm even close to full. Because if I'm feeling "close" I probably already am full.

I was *lucky* to be raised in to try everything on my plate and eat until I was done. However, things happened when I was older (that I am not going to get into here) that to this day cause my brain to trigger a "eat everything you can" feeling when I think about dieting, or do any kind of plan that restricts food (weight watchers does not work for me for this reason).

Food is comfort is a mentality many of us were raised with. Good grades? Let's get ice cream. Birthdays? Anniversaries? Let's eat! Feeling down? Let's get Chinese food. It's cold out? Let's eat pasta, it's hot out? let's get some ice cream.

My dad told me a [Jewish] joke about the holidays. "They tried to kill us, we won. Let's eat!". Applies to I think every Jewish Holiday (Including Yom Kippur - we always went out for a huge meal after it was over).

Lovely that you can. Others are still learning to handle our feelings and the way we behave in response to them - and as you know, it's quite a challenge to change behavior, even when you can see what the kind of behavior is that you want to emulate. It takes real commitment and reprogramming. That's all I'm saying.

Woman, you are my hero. Way to go!

I got the "what about all those starving kids in China?" thing as a kid from my grandma and mom. My answer was always the same, "please send my meal to them".
Talk about guilt to eat.

I tried using that on MattMatt and his reply was "you're trying to make me eat so you can send me to China and they can eat me!"

Never understood the logic of the "think of the starving children" argument. But damn if it wasn't a good one during the whole "Hands Across America", "We are the World" trying to save farms and Ethiopia phase.

For me, it was not so much about "learning" it was about "doing". I spend a lot of time trying to "learn" and intellectualize the process which didn't work at all. For me, the phrase "I'm still learning" was just an excuse to continue to do the same thing. I had to stop learning and start practicing. That's the ONLY way I came to actually CHANGE my behaviors. It's a leap, but it's a leap that I had to make if I wanted any results. But, "working on changing my behaviors" was really saying "just doing the same old bad behaviors" Awareness did absolutely nothing to facilitate change. Action did.

Believe me, I tried!:D

Changing behaviors is not like turning on a switch. It is a constant and consistent effort that requires practice and can result in having to practice many times before the change is perfected.

When trying to change a behavior related to things that bring comfort (whether food, smoking or alcohol) the person involved needs to do what works for them. If the behavior can be changed quickly with minimal struggle and set-backs then great. If it takes a lot of perseverance and results in set-backs is that person less of a success? No. They will just take longer to get to where they need to be. It's an individual journey made by an individual. There is no "one size fits all" scenario.

The thing that got me was the whole metabolism changing when I hit my early thirties. Can't eat three pieces of pizza any more... Gotta stop at 2.

I told my mother that once when she gave me the "starving children" line. I couldn't sit for days after....

It does, and it sure ain't easy. But it can be done -- I'm a big subscriber to what NA was talking about -- acting your way into right thinking. You force yourself to take contrary action until your thinking eventually follows, instead of the other way around.

The "clean plate club" thing my parents did too. But that was because I ate next to nothing as a child. Or you feel like you're "wasting" money if you go out to a restaurant and don't eat everything. But that's why doggie bags were invented :)

As an unashamed narcissist . . .

You do steamed veggies a disservice because, as you rightly recognize, meals are what you bring to them. I was only half joking with my earlier tea ceremony remark. If you take pleasure in drizzling the olive oil and balsamic, in slicing the lemon, in pinching the oregano and thyme and salt or lightly dusting the cumin and turmeric, you'll be in a good place.

I note that the "French Women Don't Get Fat" lady promotes compromise and how you can't have every indulgence you might want with every meal. She also promotes walking, which none of us do enough of in our day to day. And, though she doesn't mention it, she probably chains Gitanes.

I've been talkin' bout Galco's for YEARS- it's down the street from the house I grew up in, and I used to take Rose there when we were first eating, for real Coca Cola and damn yummy sandwiches.

Actually, it is more like turning on a switch, but one that you turn to the "on" position many times. It usually does get easier but it is rarely, if ever perfected. It takes daily manipulation of said switch.

As far as a person doing what works for them, I agree - if it happens to work. Most of the time I see people "doing what works for them" which translates into "making excuses for not making changes". I think everyone want the road to change to be soft and easy. It's not. It's abrupt and difficult and takes daily manipulation of the switch.

We all seem to want an easier, softer way with lots of pats on the back and acknowledgment from others. Too bad. You take control of the problem and deal with it head on and you'll get results. Otherwise, you're just going to convince yourself that "you're making progress" when, in actuality, nothing much has changed (but you may fool your friends for a while with all of the talk.)

I know I'm hard ass about this, but I take change seriously. Quitting drinking, using drugs, over eating, smoking, any bad behavior - these are all serious health issues that don't need a "feel good" solution. They need immediate change applied now rather than later. And, it is up to an individual to take action (and by action I don't mean just talking about it.)

Hey, I thought of a new saying: "You have the face for a discussion board."
:D




Oh, wait...

I am glad that you explained that, because the "turn on the switch" metaphor concerned me, as though it was super-easy to just, one day, stop. I believe - and I think both of you (NA and BTD) do as well - that everything is a decision, and every day a new decision requiring you to make that same good choice you did the day before. But when it comes to it, I will always know and say that I am fighting this fight; like any other addict, I will never be able to say "I was a food addict," only that I am in the process of recovering.

A switch has 2 positions..on or off. You're either sober or not. You're either listening to your "feelings" or your not. You're either eating right or your not. It's a switch. But certainly not one that only gets manipulated once.

I know I should be jumping in with my feelings about diet, obesity, and healthy living... but instead I will share that I just came back from my local Costco, and they're selling Mexican Coke.

Damn you MP! DAMN YOU! :p Costco I shake my fist at you! SHAAAAKKKKKEEEEE!!!!!!!

One doesn't need to drink alcohol to live. But one needs to eat food to live. So the difference is learning to eat to live, and not live to eat.

Where can I buy one of these "wherewithal's" and do they come in pink?

Sorry Lashie, there isn't a big enough market for custom colors. Just the standard black, white, red, and silver.

I see NA's point, however, there is grey area that can mess with the "switch" concept. Example - Either I'm biking to work or I'm not. I'm not, anymore. My reason is that it's too cold. Some people may say my switch is off, that it's an excuse, that I should be out there biking. To me, it's not even up for debate. I was out there for a bit when the weather turned and I was miserable. Should I be making myself miserable for long term gain? Yes, that's a valid argument. However, by my measure, it's too miserable for me to do, period.

Same goes for eating. How often is too often for moderation's sake? Am I still "eating right" if I eat small, nutritious portions for dinner, but have fast food for lunch everyday? What about if I have fast food every other day, or once a week? Yes, if I ate healthy at each and every meal there would be no question, but demanding that of any human being would make them, well, miserable. So we say "moderation", but there's no "switch" about it, no way you can say you're on the wagon or off the wagon. What if eating one "unhealthy" meal a week isn't enough for me? How miserable is too miserable?

This is especially good to know for those of you, like myself, who add their own sugar to Coke.

I think my hard ass stance has more to do with IF you are overweight because you eat when you feel _______, do it regularly and have the obese body to show for it.

I think everyone eats poorly on occasion or eats for the "wrong reasons" just as everyone gets drunk once in a while. But, if you're are the type of person who regularly eats or drinks because of some "feeling", then you have to deal with things a little differently - and much more hard core.

Surprisingly, it doesn't take that much to be considered obese. For me, if I weighed a mere 30 pounds more, I would be considered obese. Thirty pounds! you say, but I have been there before. Thirty pounds either direction has never been much for my frame. You hardly notice the 20 I've lost. Looking at BMI, I tend to fare far worse.

If I didn't have a problem drinking alcohol, I would probably read what i wrote and tell myself I was full of shyt (and it would probably be a great excuse to get drunk!). However, I've run the gauntlet and know it to be true for me.

I'm not sure where that example is going. Are you talking about saving money by biking? Or are you talking about exercising? If biking to work is your only form of exercise, and your goal is to get more exercise, then the "switch" has to do with making a choice TO exercise despite your feelings. There are other ways of exercising than biking. So saying "I'm not going to get exercise because it's too cold" is an excuse. The switch is off. Does that make sense?

I'd say it completely depends on what your goals are (weight loss/gain/maintenance, cholesterol levels, blood sugar levels, etc.) It would also depend on one's own metabolism. Moderation is something that isn't significantly and consistently undermining your goal. But the "switch" has more to do with the process than the result (which is what your argument seems to be concentrating on). For someone in OA, for instance, I think that falling off the wagon means that they go into an uncontrolled eating cycle. But I'm pretty sure even for someone in OA, a high-fat meal isn't "off the wagon" if it's a planned thing consistent with the rest of the week's caloric intake (I could be wrong on OA's philosophy on that).

Bottom line though is that one cannot eat whatever they want. If you simply *have* to eat high calorie meals every single day or you're not "happy" or "satisfied", AND you have weight loss goals, then you're obviously undermining yourself. There's another mental issue going on. Real, actual change is not easy and cannot be sugar-coated (har har har). It's a (very, VERY difficult) matter of training yourself (and flipping the switch) into a mode where you go "f**k my feelings, I know what's right" instead of justifying. But the action has to come first. One needs to act "as if" the switch has been flipped, and then the mental part will eventually follow.

Are you familiar with the Transtheoretical Model?

1. Precontemplation - lack of awareness that life can be improved by a change in behavior;
2. Contemplation - recognition of the problem, initial consideration of behavior change, and information gathering about possible solutions and actions;
3. Preparation - introspection about the decision, reaffirmation of the need and desire to change behavior, and completion of final pre-action steps;
4. Action - implementation of the practices needed for successful behavior change (e.g. exercise class attendance);
5. Maintenance - consolidation of the behaviors initiated during the action stage;
6. Termination - former problem behaviors are no longer perceived as desirable (e.g. skipping a run results in frustration rather than pleasure).

this would be the Maintenance stage.

Interesting model. I find that it's really easy to get stuck with steps 1-3 and never move to 4,5 and 6. It always seems to be much easier to intellectualize about changes then to actually make them.

Yes, it does. My point was more general, regarding willpower and resolve vs. real world realities. Yes, if the goal was exercise, this would be a cop out, as there are other ways to achieve exercise. My goals with biking are various - exercise, saving gas money, saving wear and tear on my very old car, getting rideshare credit at work (which gives me extra cash and vacation time), helping the environment, helping traffic. So for me, it does kind of suck to not bike, but I don't feel like a failure if I skip winter.

I really like the Model - I think it's completely true regarding change. NA's right, it's way easy to talk about things!

I'm rather interested in all this at the moment since I'm building myself up for action regarding my eating habits. No, it's not about weight loss, it's about blood sugar stability. I'm always on highs and lows and it looks like my 30's are going to be less tolerant for that. Yes, NA, I'm not "faking until I make it" just yet, but I swear, it'll be soon. ;)

Anyone interested in the topic of psychological factors behind our eating habits should read "Mindless Eating" by Brian Wansink, it's a great, insightful book. Most everything he says is dead on, it's a real eye-opener, even if you think he won't have anything new to say.

BTW, it is true you can't stop eating "cold turkey", but I suppose you could quit refined sugars that way. Not a bad idea really.

You should always try to eat a mind at least once a day.

Yes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Study shows high fructose corn syrup makes you fat (even when compared to an equal caloric intake of table sugar)

Now that's a damning study. A couple more corroborating findings and the corn industry is in huge trouble.

Just think of all the products scrambling right now, discussing how to retool their recipies. Think of the huge boost to sucrose industry, from cane to beets. Hell, I think I'll buy some stock in C&H (pure cane sugar, that's the one).

AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH

Ear Worm...

From Hawaii
Grown in the Sun

Brad?

Finally a decent study.

The results are interest but, as usual, hardly the smoking gun most reports are making it out to be.

Here is a detailed report.

Some things to note.

* A total of 40 rats (10 in each of 4 groups) were used in the first study. I'm no scientist, but that doesn't seem like a huge sample size. Even smaller for the 2nd experiment. Only 24 males. It doesn't state how many females.
* The 4 groups were fed 1) HFCS and chow on a 24h feeding schedule, 2) HFCS and chow on a 12h feeding schedule, 3) sucrose and chow on a 12h feeding schedule, 4) just chow on a 12h schedule. In that experiment, ONLY the HFCS, 12h schedule groups showed a statistical difference in weight from the control group. The group on the 24h schedule did not (and actually gained less weight than the sucrose group).
* The longer term experiment showed some more convincing evidence, at least among male rats. Both HFCS groups were significantly more obese than the control group. But (and this part makes the least sense to me) because they didn't see statistical weight gain in males in the first experiment from sucrose, they decided not to include a sucrose group in the 2nd. Umm, why? Especially when one of the 2 HFCS also showed no significant increase. Seems like a major oversight to me.
* Among females in the long term 2nd experiment, the statistically significant gain was again seen in one HFCS group, but not the other, reversed this time with the 24h schedule showing the gain. And again, the other HFCS group fared BETTER than the sucrose group.


With 4/6 HFCS groups showing significant deviation from control, it's definitely something worth exploring. If the results can be consistently replicate, they're on to something. But this is not a lot of data to draw any real conclusion from.

Hmm, one more interesting detail.

In the first experiment, where the 12h HFCS group gained more weight. The rats in that group were actually observed to be consuming less of their HFCS solution than the rats int he sucrose group were consuming of their solution. But their total caloric intake was the same. Meaning, since the solutions were the same calories/volume, the HFCS rats were making up the difference by eating more of the chow. So it's entirely possible that the extra chow was the mechanism for the weight gain (and possible that the HFCS induced them to eat more chow).

You know, it pisses me off to read the article with actual results, and then see one of the guy's whose name is on the article say, "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board." WTF, man? Stand by your results, don't gloss over the details.

And then scientists complain that people don't understand how to interpret scientific data. :rolleyes:

I tend not to believe any study that uses rats. I have had pet rats since I was 4. Rats are prone to tumors, so any study that says it produced tumors in rats is a joke.

Fat rats are common. I have a "wheel rat" that is twice the size of the rest of my girls, but she exercises twice as much. My thinnest rat is always eating, yet she seems to be stuck at the smaller size.

Hooded and siamese rats are more likely to get respitory problems, solid, albino and dumbo rats are more likely to get tumors and have weight issues.

Depending on the study, you can make almost any result you want.

All of these things are known, and the REASON they use rats. If you want to study tumors, you need something that is relatively likely to get a tumor. What they're looking for isn't "Did rats get fat" or "Did rats get tumors". What their looking for is, "Out of X number of rats did MORE rats get fat, or tumors or whatever, when we did Y than when we didn't do Y.

So if, left alone, 10% of rats get tumors, but when exposed to 30 minutes of Glenn Beck/day, consistently 25% of rats get tumors, that's unlikely to be just because "rats get tumors".

There's nothing wrong with basing conclusions on studies with rats. There's something wrong with ignoring parts of the results that don't agree with your conclusion.

I guess I am just biased because I have pet rats.
I do see your point about the conclusion.