Down with HFCS! - Page 10

Disneyphile · 01-15-2008, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousepod

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

Yes. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

alphabassettgrrl · 01-16-2008, 11:51 AM

[zombie] braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains [/zombie]

Morrigoon · 03-24-2010, 01:27 AM

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

Cadaverous Pallor · 03-24-2010, 03:42 AM

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).

Kevy Baby · 03-24-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

C&H (pure cane sugar, that's the one).

AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH

Ear Worm...

From Hawaii
Grown in the Sun

JWBear · 03-24-2010, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

From Hawaii
Grown in the Sun

Brad?

Ghoulish Delight · 03-24-2010, 11:36 AM

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.

Ghoulish Delight · 03-24-2010, 11:42 AM

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).

Ghoulish Delight · 03-24-2010, 11:55 AM

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.

Mousey Girl · 03-24-2010, 01:46 PM

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.

01-16-2008, 11:51 AM	#92
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	[zombie] braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains [/zombie] __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2010, 01:27 AM	#93
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Study shows high fructose corn syrup makes you fat (even when compared to an equal caloric intake of table sugar) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2010, 03:42 AM	#94
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	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).
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2010, 11:36 AM	#97
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ Last edited by Ghoulish Delight : 03-24-2010 at 11:47 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2010, 11:42 AM	#98
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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). __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2010, 11:55 AM	#99
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	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. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

03-24-2010, 01:46 PM	#100
Mousey Girl Just Me Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: In The Flagon With The Dragon Posts: 2,437	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.
	Submit to Quotes