July 25, 2006

[Mae Dean]

In large quantities, milk IS bad for you. Keep in mind - we're the only species to keep drinking milk after infancy. Low and non-fat milks are better, but calorie-wise, it's not fantastic for you at all.

Let me put it this way. A 20 oz. bottle of Pepsi is 250 calories. A grande mocha frappucino has 350+ calories. The first is not allowed. The second is. On the basis that the first makes you fat. RIIIGHT.

[Gowerlypuff]

I thought it was calories + sugar that makes you fat, rather than just calories, and pepsi has rather a lot of sugar (well, over here it does).

Well, I was going to read out the information from the bottle, but it appears to be in polish. No wonder it was cheap in the store. It tastes ok, though.

However:

Przyswajalne: 11g
w lym cukry: 11g

which I assume is "carbs: 11g, of which sugar: 11g"

That's per 100ml (about 3.8 fl. oz.)

Also, Blonnik: 0g.

I gotta gets me more blonnik in my diet.

[Mae Dean]

No, sugar HAS calories. Essentially, it works out like this:
Fat has 9 calories per gram.
Protein and Carbohydrates have 4 calories to the gram.

Thus, this pepsi I'm drinking has 27g of sugar per 8 fluid ounces, and has about 108 calories in that volume (the label says 100, so there are some minor differences.)

What makes you fat is, quite simply, taking in more calories than you burn in a day. Every 3500 calories equals one pound - if you take in 3500 calories in a day, and somehow burned NO calories (which is impossible, since even lying down sleeping burns calories) you would be one pound heavier. Soda does not, by itself, make you fat. What makes you fat is drinking 6 cans of soda a day and not balancing it with exercise.

One thing that is a fair judgement vs. soda is that it's "empty calories" - there's no real nutritional value to help your body perform metabolic functions - just pure fuel. Fuel which, if unused, gets stored as fat in your body.

Bottom line - nobody should be telling me what I can and cannot drink. If I feel the need to drink a soda, and my body's metabolism can handle it, my goddamn choice. End of story.

[LQDMTL]

Soda would be better for you if it were made with real sugar here in the states (don't know how it is elsewhere). The High Fructose Corn Syrup that they use does not cause your body to acknowledge that it has consumed calories. If you are hungry when you drink it, you'll still be hungry afterward (aside from minor changes due to volume in your stomach). It just doesn't trigger the chemical reaction.

More things than soda have that problem. But it's a damn good reason for most people to avoid soda, since most people can't be bothered to worry about counting calories. They drink when thirsty, eat when hungry, and call it good. So they sit down to a meal, toss back a soda waiting for dinner to arrive, eat a meal of larger-than-necessary portions, while drinking yet another soda with the meal. And then some of them will order a desert and yet another soda... and then go home and lay down and sleep, during which time their metabolism slows down and they basically absorb every calorie they just consumed.

Personally, I love soda. But I do try to avoid drinking it as often as I can. I stick mostly with water and a single cup of coffee in the morning (black, no sweetener or creamer). I just wanted to point out how the ingredients in soda actually help you drink more of it than you should, or eat more food than you should with it. Meh...

[Mae Dean]

I'm with you - I wish we could ditch HFCS entirely - not only does it have the problems listed above - it doesn't taste as good as sugar. >.<

[Spongiform]

Maybe you just need more blonnik.

[SmakDaddy]

Here in Australia most of the Australian made soft drinks contain sugar cane, mainly because the sugar is such a massive industry here. What about the other ingredient though, the Phenylalanine that you find in Pepsi Max, or, if you like to have your sexuality questioned, Coke Zero?

[Blaze]

Wait, wait, wait... High Fructose Corn Syrup doesn't read as "calories" in your body?

High Fructose: Containing large amounts of fruit-base sugar.

Your body burns simple carbs, known as sugar to the layman, for energy. The heat units contained therein are known as calories (which is a measure of heat).

Your body is consuming normal simple carbohydrates, but doesn't know it?

Yeah... that makes sense. I'm going to have to see proof on that one.

ESPECIALLY since the only reason they use it is because it's cheaper.

Greg's right on the taste though, but only just barely.

[LQDMTL]

[quote="Blaze";p="658950"]Wait, wait, wait... High Fructose Corn Syrup doesn't read as "calories" in your body?

High Fructose: Containing large amounts of fruit-base sugar.

Your body burns simple carbs, known as sugar to the layman, for energy. The heat units contained therein are known as calories (which is a measure of heat).

Your body is consuming normal simple carbohydrates, but doesn't know it?

Yeah... that makes sense. I'm going to have to see proof on that one.

ESPECIALLY since the only reason they use it is because it's cheaper.

Greg's right on the taste though, but only just barely.[/quote]

Really, Blaze, if you can't even be bothered to do your own research, don't bother to respond. You're just making yourself look like a jackass. You're comparing Sucrose to Glucose + Fructose. They are processed differently by your body, absorbed differently, cause different hormonal and chemical reactions.. and you're as far off base as you can get.

From the very first link google brought back to me:

Loading high fructose corn syrup into increasingly larger portions of soda and processed food has packed more calories into us and more money into food processing companies, say nutritionists and food activists. But some health experts argue that the issue is bigger than mere calories. The theory goes like this: The body processes the fructose in high fructose corn syrup differently than it does old-fashioned cane or beet sugar, which in turn alters the way metabolic-regulating hormones function. It also forces the liver to kick more fat out into the bloodstream.

The end result is that our bodies are essentially tricked into wanting to eat more and at the same time, we are storing more fat.

Here's the link: clicky


I first heard about this on Good Morning America when they had a nutritionist on to talk about soda consumption. They've done similar things at least 2 or 3 times since then that I've seen. And I've read countless articles on it since then. I appologize that throughout the past 5 years I haven't taken the time to document every instance in which I was faced with this information. I hereby promise to make it my life's goal to document such things in my efforts to keep you as informed as you should be, were you to simply pay attention to the world around you now and again.


Edit: more info

Fructose does not stimulate insulin production and also fails to increase "leptin" production, a hormone produced by the body's fat cells. Both of these act to turn off the appetite and control body weight.

From: The Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup


Edit again: yet more info

But there's another reason to avoid HFCS. Consumers may think that because it contains fructose—which they associate with fruit, which is a natural food—that it is healthier than sugar. A team of investigators at the USDA, led by Dr. Meira Field, has discovered that this just ain't so.

From: The Murky World of High Fructose Corn Syrup


I could go on all day.

[dmpotter]

The reason the US uses HFCS is to subsidize corn production in the midwest. We'll never get rid of it.

[Blaze]

LQDMTL,

SOME Nutritonists. Theory.

Research based on selling a diet.

Putting words in customers mouths.

SHOW ME A PROVEN STUDY.

[LQDMTL]

Actually, I don't have to show you anything. You're just being an ass, and I've no problem with your state of denial. Go on believing whatever you wish and see how far that gets ya.

[Gowerlypuff]

Well, here's an article talking about sweetened drinks and weight gain. In there are about 30 articles relating HFCS to obesity and diabetes, detailing its passage through the system.

Enjoy

[Blaze]

[quote="LQDMTL";p="659026"]Actually, I don't have to show you anything. You're just being an ass, and I've no problem with your state of denial. Go on believing whatever you wish and see how far that gets ya.[/quote]

Who's being an ass? All I said was that it sounds FISHY to me that the body can CONSUME calories, and DIGEST calories, but not REGISTER those same calories.

You seem to be taking it as some sort of offense, and trying to show me up like a schoolyard fight. I mean, I'm not the one throwing insults.

I'm all for natural sugars, believe you me. But I get very tired of people making nutritional CLAIMS without the biological FACTS to back them. That theory very well may be accurate. I don't know. I didn't say it wasn't.

If I ASK, it's because I'm INTERESTED. So why don't you CALM your uppity ass down, reread my posts in a manner that's less offensive to you, and stop taking offense at something that's not offensive.

I mean, seriously, you act like I peed on your science project, or something. All I did was sceptically ask.

Edit: THAT, Puff, I find more interesting. It reviews a variety of beverages, gauges their effect on the body via scientific testing, analyzes them as compared to others, suggests ALTERNATIVES, and presents possible recourse and recommendations.

I simply do not trust the MEDIA for nutritional information. After all, doesn't anyone recall how eggs were going to blow up your heart, mad cow disease was going to turn the entire population of europe to invalids, and the use of any pesiticide was going to kill babies left and right?

[LQDMTL]

If you bothered to actually read any of the articles I linked, or search for any information on your own, this wouldn't even be a conversation. At least two of the articles I linked sighted scientific studies, one of them was basically a review of a doctor's work in the field. Like everything else scientific, there are opposing views. So the article writers used words like "theory" to cover their bases. You just came off with a ton of attitude (honestly most of your posts come off that way to me), immediately discounting everything I said just because you couldn't fathom that something worked differently than you expected.

Not all calories are consumed by your body in the same way. And it's rather assanine to think that just because one kind of food works via method A that every other similar food is going to also work via method A. Jumping up and screaming "yeah, well PROVE IT" when someone states such isn't comming off as 'interested', it comes off as purely argumentative. Which is why I responded like I did. Deal with it, or be more concientious of how you word your posts. Your call.

As articles linked herein, and elsewhere, will tell you Fructose can only be processed into your system via your liver. It turns most of it into fat, clogs your liver and forces your body to store more fat as a result. And since it only processes there, the chemicals which tell your body you're full and that you've consumed enough calories do not get created and sent into your system. Sucrose (pure sugar from cane, beet, etc) by contrast can be absorbed by your entire digestive tract, triggers far more chemical reactions and hormone release, registers as consumed carbs and lowers your appetite.

Since you're so adamant about pure scientific data on the subject, why bother asking posters on a message board about it? Why not just look it up for yourself until you're satisfied? Sheesh...