Things would probably work themselves out if there weren't so much in the sugar subsidy. If sugary treats and drinks were rare instead of common we probably wouldn't have as much diabetes or overweight people, myself included. I feel this kind of stuff is sadly typical of the world we live in, propaganda at its finest.
I'm not sure this has to do with subsidies. Companies like Coca Cola put billions of dollars into marketing and advertising, and sugar is very addictive. On the other hand, there are a lot of protests when governments try to regulate junk food (like when Bloomberg tried to ban big sodas), the whole "nanny state" debate. In that context, no wonder there's an obesity issue in the US (and other countries). I had some heated discussion with some american friends over this topic, it gets very ideological.
If sugar and other sweeteners weren't so dirt cheap, maybe people wouldn't eat a dozen donuts for breakfast and maybe if these sugary "treats" went back to being treats instead of staples of the American, possibly other, diets we wouldn't be in this predicament. I agree that sugar is quite addictive. The craving for a pizza or ice cream can be overwhelming for me. Some of the food manufacturers in my opinion should almost be regulated like the tobacco industry. They do the same thing. Just no one wants to talk about favorite sugary food or drink causing ailments, it is like the greatest secret everyone knows.
"Both controversy and confusion exist concerning fructose, sucrose, and high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with respect to their metabolism and health effects. These concerns have often been fueled by speculation based on limited data or animal studies. In retrospect, recent controversies arose when a scientific commentary was published suggesting a possible unique link between HFCS consumption and obesity. Since then, a broad scientific consensus has emerged that there are no metabolic or endocrine response differences between HFCS and sucrose related to obesity or any other adverse health outcome."
The primary author is the central driver behind his own Rippe Lifestyle Institute [http://www.rippehealth.com/] who, turns out, partners directly with Coca-Cola [http://www.rippehealth.com/partners/index.htm], including "outreach" and "coordinat[ing] a number of symposia", which in all likelihood means paid speaking engagements. He and Coca-Cola may have honorable intentions, or he may be paid to advance their agenda. We don't know either way, but what we do know is they are connected to each other.
Hahaha, this is too funny. I was wondering if I could find some info suggesting that they are being paid off but I didn't think of looking for it on their site. Good detective work.
Actually not. The fructose is indeed the problem, but HFCS contains only slightly more fructose than sucrose (table sugar) does: sucrose is 50% fructose, HFCS is about 55% fructose.
In sucrose, the fructose and glucose are chemically bonded together in pairs, while in HFCS, they're just mixed together. But this also doesn't help much; although the body must split the sucrose molecule into its parts in order to metabolize it, this doesn't take very long.
Okay, well, other experts like Robert Lustig think they're not very different.
The thing you have to watch out for is that lots of people want to find the "good" form of sugar. That's why we see products in the stores with ingredients listed like brown sugar, "evaporated cane juice", etc.
I concede that there might be a bigger difference between sucrose and HFCS metabolism than I was aware, and you did start off your comment with "Sugar would be bad but...". Nonetheless I think it would be easy for someone reading your comment to take away the idea that HFCS is the big problem and sucrose is okay, because people want to do that.
So I think the point that sucrose is not really okay either deserves more emphasis than you gave it.
I can't find the actual papers but it seems like his opinion is not exactly conclusive and his wiki page suggests something along those lines as well.
> The thing you have to watch out for is that lots of people want to find the "good" form of sugar.
> Nonetheless I think it would be easy for someone reading your comment to take away the idea that HFCS is the big problem and sucrose is okay, because people want to do that.
I literally said that they both bad. They can takeaway whatever they want but I can't really be blamed for that.
It's less about replacing HFCS with sugar leading to good outcomes than it is replacing sugar with HFCS leading to worse outcomes. Neither is good, but table sugar is (marginally) less bad.
Choosing between two evils is still evil... How about xylitol with stevia, which has fewer calories, while still having some (not screwing with receptors as much) and combining the two actually curbs the less desirable flavors of both.
I've been using this combination for kool-aid for a while, Generally about 25% of the calories in a pitcher vs sugar. Though I don't do it that often.... sometimes I just want some grape (or black cherry) koolaid.
I'm pretty sure it all feeds into the same system... as do things advertised as healthy lifestyle choices. Fruit smoothies are probably about as bad as soda (except you get a bit of fiber, and some micro-nutrients) in terms of the affect on your blood sugar. HFCS is only part of the problem...
The bigger thing is the human (and all, really) body is complex and varied. A lot of things play into the nutritional needs of a person. We've also had a lot of migration and mixed heritage the past couple hundred years, much broader and deeper than any point in history before it. It usually takes some time for a society to optimize for certain food sources.
Even then, we have some vary diverse cultures coming together (and I do love great fusion foods)... Combined with mixed family allergies, and a lot of mono-crops and ever limited diets by huge swaths of society. The body does adapt, as it stands though, most people are too sedentary (myself included)...
Once metabolic syndrom sets in, it gets very complicated... I'm at a point where a bit of heavy starch (bread, pasta) throws me off for a couple days... many grains will mess me up too... if I have more than around 100g of net carbs a day, I have issues. Most people have way more than 100g of just sugar any given day.
The "food pyramid" is mostly lopsided.. and subsidies mostly push some of the worst things for us. In general, we get too much grains, more meat than needed, not enough vegetables and fruits (I mean the likes of peppers, tomatoes, squash and cucumber here)... far too many heavily refined foods (from vegetable oils that are really unnatural, to fruit juices). Many people don't gain weight or really show it, but are just as unhealthy from their diets.
I'm really bad at sticking with what works best for me... because I like pasta, and bread, and rice, and potatoes. I just know I shouldn't have them anymore, and when I do (a couple times a week) I really feel it. Not to mention that even if I go weeks with really minimal carbs/sugars, my body is really efficient with gluconeogenesis and starts creating a lot of keytones, which has its' own issues.
It all sucks. I'm over 350#, and excercise is all but impossible with my bad knees... it's all I can do to not gain more weight. Since starting Invokana, my weight and blood sugar levels are at least stable (but elevated), but getting farther is difficult to say the least. I wish I know a lot of what I know today a few decades ago... I would have never started drinking "diet" soda, which is way worse in a lot of ways, and also would have cut most of the carbs back when it would have made more of a difference.
The system being what happens when your body processes sugars. Sugar by itself isn't too different from what your body easily converts into sugars (that being all carbs besides fiber), and glycemic index/load values for foods vary a lot.
My point is that what is advertised, subsidized and promoted by the government is lopsided from what's really ideal. The food industry is both part of the problem and responding to consumer demand. As to my body telling me something, that's another point.... That being that not everyone notices or feels the affect as significantly even though it's there.
It's not just sugar, it having too much starch/grains in our diet as well... mostly the heavily refined foods. People are also mislead into believing that some things are healthier when they really aren't... fruit snacks, smoothies, etc are just about as bad as the sugary stuff, or worse if you consider the deceptive marketing.
I don't think we should, as a society, ban any given food, but the marketing allowed, and the information distributed in education really needs to change.
