![]() |
Quote:
It's just more fuel to an already blazing fire. |
Quote:
I was reading in my microeconomics book yesterday about this very topic. The very politicians who are screaming at the outrage over this are the same ones causing the problem. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't know if HFCS directly causes obesity but those are rodent studies. Rats are not furry little humans and there are a lot of things that can affect rats that don't affect humans, and vice versa. Rat studies are a good starting point but you need double-blinded human studies to know for sure. IMO, the worst thing about HFCS is that it is very cheap, so it ends up in everything to add more palatability, which can motivate people to overeat. Plus, it adds extra calories that aren't necessary. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
HFCS issue is the amount of insulin needed to clear it from the blood. You can eat in a caloric deficit all day, and drink tons of soda. You won't end up fat, but will be diagnosed with diabetes. people sippin on pop all day or eating small sugary snacks will lead to insulin issues. |
Quote:
The second paragraph makes zero sense. You seem to forget that all food that we take in and utilized must be converted to glucose and is stored in cells by insulin. It's not just being bombarded with sugar, but an assault of our system with all foods because the final common pathway is the same. If you eat an unhealthy diet full of carbohydrates and fat, you will increase your blood glucose and down-regulate receptors that mediate the release of insulin. Once those receptors are fully desensitized, you will be clinically diagnosed with Type II diabetes. The problem with pop is you can get to the end much easier due to its caloric density from sugar. And, as Dick Pull (ROFL) mentioned, HFCS does impede normal metabolism, according to a study he cited that compared a HFCS drink and a Sugar drink with the same caloric amount. I don't know how it translates to a quantitative risk factor for diabetes and obesity, but suffice it to say that it likely doesn't help. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
To the other point, I don't really care. It wasn't my intention to be fact checked when it was shown by another poster to be true. To be honest, I just agreed, and though it may be a minor contributing factor in humans, I don't really care. It's certainly not worth winning a dumb argument over. |
Quote:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/6/1716S.full Also, you are posting that Princeton study with rat trials. Rats have a very different carbohydrate metabolism than humans do. They aren't comparable 1:1. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Insulin is absolutely imperative to the storage of everything that has caloric value. My point has nothing to do with the slang term "slin". I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who calls fundamental processes related to Glycolysis, glycogenolysis, and gluconeogenesis broscience, while you use terms like "slin" (common broscience term) or "fatties" (totally unscientific term) and phrases like "I don't see" (implying you've observed the dietary habits of individuals extensively). Dude, you reek of bro, bodybuilding terms that have no substance or place in academic discussions about these things. It's really not worth the time. |
Quote:
Your right, not worth the time. |
Quote:
It's not glucose goes in, it's utilized by cells for energy, and then that's it. Metabolism is a continuous spectrum whereby gluconeogenesis and glycolysis are occurring at the same time to different degrees based on the current metabolic needs of the individual. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.