The guy in that talk is the principal investigator of the study. But it has nothing to do with HFCS in particular, and everything to do with added sugar in general. Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.
>> Sugar made from cane and beets is just as bad as HFCS.
That is false.
Refined sugar (that is, sucrose) is made up of a molecule of the carbohydrate glucose, bonded to a molecule of the carbohydrate fructose — a 50-50 mixture of the two. The fructose, which is almost twice as sweet as glucose, is what distinguishes sugar from other carbohydrate-rich foods like bread or potatoes that break down upon digestion to glucose alone. The more fructose in a substance, the sweeter it will be. High-fructose corn syrup, as it is most commonly consumed, is 55 percent fructose, and the remaining 45 percent is nearly all glucose. It was first marketed in the late 1970s and was created to be indistinguishable from refined sugar when used in soft drinks. Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical. In a 2010 review of the relevant science, Luc Tappy, a researcher at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland who is considered by biochemists who study fructose to be the world’s foremost authority on the subject, said there was “not the single hint” that H.F.C.S. was more deleterious than other sources of sugar.
The fructose component of sugar and H.F.C.S. is metabolized primarily by the liver, while the glucose from sugar and starches is metabolized by every cell in the body. Consuming sugar (fructose and glucose) means more work for the liver than if you consumed the same number of calories of starch (glucose). And if you take that sugar in liquid form — soda or fruit juices — the fructose and glucose will hit the liver more quickly than if you consume them, say, in an apple (or several apples, to get what researchers would call the equivalent dose of sugar). The speed with which the liver has to do its work will also affect how it metabolizes the fructose and glucose.
I don't see anything in there which refutes the statement that refined sugar from cane and beets isn't significantly different to HFCS in terms of their effect.
Nor do I see anything offered that HFCS IS equivalent to sugar.
Substituting the random manufacturer chemical is what should go through safety tests; you shouldn't have to prove it's dangerous, it should have to prove it is safe.
Fructose is metabolized primarily in the liver. Glucose is metabolized through many other (supposedly less deleterious) processes. HFCS is primarily fructose. Refined sugar is a mix of about 50-50 fructose-glucose. Thus, refined sugar is significantly different that HFCS.
Because each of these sugars ends up as glucose and fructose in our guts, our bodies react the same way to both, and the physiological effects are identical.
I'm not sure you read this before you copied and pasted it. The sentence I've quoted specifically agrees with jganetsk's claim.
The bigger thing I remember from that video was that high fructose corn syrup and sugar weren't far of compositionally. That and how close fructose itself is to alcohol in its side effects.
Along the same lines, lots of companies make sunscreen in 10x ml quantities for the associated benefits. When the agent wanted to take away my 106 ml bottle, I asked if I could squeeze 6 ml out and take it on. No dice.
I think we need a stufftheTSAconfiscated.tumblr.com.
I went through for a job interview and I had a cast on and a blow dryer and flat iron in my luggage. They swabbed my cast, and took the items and made me wait while they checked them out. I bet someone walked away that day with perfectly styled hair.
I don't see any 8 inch hunting knives, so clearly they haven't learned their lesson ... they let me through security in Denver, Chicago, New York, Newark and Houston with a HUGE blade in the bottom of my computer bag.
Noticed it when I was unpacking my bag because I bought a new one... yep, TSA at its finest.
A lot of that research starts both sets of mice on high carb diets, then draws the wrong conclusions about how the little fat they received affected the groups.
It's ridiculous to claim that you can eat as much X as you desire and not gain weight, for most X except maybe celery.
The point is that protein and fat satisfy hunger in a way that our bodies have evolved to process. And the fact is, after eating a bit of protein and fat, you won't DESIRE to eat any more.
I'm going to get downvoted, I can see it coming. However, it must be said, because I'm sick of seeing Taubes used as reference.
Taubes is a loon.
He picks out pieces of studies to back up his statements to sell more books and make more money on speeches. What he says is basically what people want to hear.
Just because Gary Taubes says it's true does not make it so. Has anyone gone and reviewed the studies in full that he has referenced? Does everyone just take his word for everything he says? There is a lot of love for Taubes on Hacker News. I expected people on here to be much more knowledgable about this topic, but I'm severely disappointed to find out that it seems the majority of Hacker News users fall into the typical American fad diet beliefs (previously, it was no fat and now it's no carbs). What's next?
People who believe Taubes usually fall into one of the following categories being thrown around the fitness community: Ketard, Carbphobe, Carb Taliban, to name some.
Do you think the two hundred and fifty MDs and PhDs that just this month signed[1] his petition[2] are also loons?
Or perhaps you think Walter Willett M.D., Ph.D., and David Ludwig M.D., Ph.D., of Harvard--two of the foremost nutrition authorities in the US--who agree with Taubes, are also loons?
Maybe you think all of these individuals simply don't bother to do due diligence on what they read? Or maybe you think they are suffering from insufficient intellect such that they're incapable of detecting your accusations of cherry-picking and snake oil?
I'm also a bit lost with your characterization of a low carb diet as a fad diet. Surely you understand that this is the diet our ancestors were exposed to during millions of years of hominid evolution?
Even if that's true, the food industry does all kinds of lobbying and has ties with agricultural companies and has instilled upon us this conventional wisdom that whole grains are great for you and calories in = calories out with no distinction between types of calories.
Yeah, so two wrongs don't make a right, but I think he's justified that he feels like making extreme conclusions will make people question the conventional wisdom that has been steering us in the opposite (and in my opinion, wrong) direction.
Every study I have ever seen that put low carb diets head to head with other diets result in at worst, equivalent weight loss and usually more weight loss, with better other bioindicaters. Unfortunately many of these studies are brain dead in that they only weight body weight and not body composition, but given that other studies have shown that high protein diets lead to better muscle preservation, and a low-carb diet is generally higher protein than a low-calorie diet, I would bet money that even in studies where low-carb diets produce equivalent weight loss they have produced superior fat loss and superior muscle preservation.
At least Taubes uses a few scientific studies to back up his point. If you have better science to backup whatever your position is I would love to see them.
I'd think that if the average female was making 70% of fair salary, a company could offer them 80% and get enough to fill a vast majority of their positions while still saving an incredible 20% on those employees, giving them a great competitive advantage.
It is not about how we are wired by evolution. It is about whether or not, according to the guidelines http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html this is an acceptable article. I say that it is not. The article is fluff, does not reference any actual scientific research. It says only "Scientists have discovered . . ."
Pretty interesting talk about the rise of high fructose corn syrup.