@C0nc0rdance Interesting piece in Nature today (Nature 482, 27–29) titled "Public health: The toxic truth about sugar". Dramatic title aside, it's worth a read. It talks about the use of government intervention to curb sales of added-sugar products, HFCS particularly. What are your thoughts? Do you think it'll take off, or get buried by lobbying?
Enjoying the vids as always, especially the readings of heretofore unknown essays by the likes of Ben Goldacre & others. Cheers for the uploads.
Fat is not bad for you, actually fat burns fat, it's the combo of fat and carbs (particularly simple/little fiber) that makes us gain weight My diet consists of cheeses, meats (beef, assorted fish, shellfish) veggies (low carb ones, such as cauliflower, broccoli onions, lettuce, cabbage, turnips - NO potatoes/carrots) My fat % has gone down, I drink lots of water and tea and I work out for about 20 minutes in interval training along with 5-10 of strength. I've lost 6 pounds in 1 1/2 weeks.
Not only this, but corn is >80% likely to be GMO. Now, the idea of GMO isn't bad, I'm not bashing it's general idea, but GMO which the way that it's done currently (to put it simply, it's all about profit, and they don't give a damn about our health, cuz you know, more people in the hospital means more money for the companies) so that makes HFCS even worse.
Well, a top sirloin, about 500 g, contains about 1200 calories, about half of which is fat. Bourbon butter is pure fat and alcohol, about 100 calories per tablespoon. If you eat like that very often... you will definitely regret it down the line.
The top consumers of vegetables tend to have the lowest rates of cancer and heart disease.
Face it, Americans won´t eat anything that doesn´t contain dangerously large amounts of artificial additives and high fructose corn syrup. I don´t even think that Americans can digest natural food anymore. Even the raw carrots are died an unnatural orange! That´s fucked up, just ban the shit like heroine.
@Rachemizan Heroine is profitable, it's the natural inclination of human curiosity. You're told not to do it, so you're more likely to do it, even if it's bad for you. Police get granted more money to fight the drugs, there is profit in the export in it, profit in people going to jail and profit in general in the circulation of money, legal or not. What ever makes profit is done, legal's or not has got very little to do with it and particularly America is obsessed with money, and cheap crap.
WHAT!!!!! You SIR!! are now on my last nerve!!! How dare you SAY! that stake smothered with delicious bourbon butter is BAD!! I cant F***n believe you, AAAAAAAAAHH! I am so pissed right now!!
@TommyWolaver I have a better idea: Change your diet to a mostly or all plants based diet and your acne will clear up. It worked for me; not any acne topical product. The reasons is because acne is created inside the body and not outside. Change your diet, change your life.
In response to fructose: Fructose is digested slower and thus has a lower glycemic index. The concern with such sweeteners is that they suppress satiety and thus contribute to overeating. Fruit does not have this issue due to the fiber content. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16820733
While most of this video is fascinating and accurate you didnt mention how high fructose corn syrup takes many times longer to digest than sucrose or simple sugars, slowing down a persons metabolism. Also many soft drinks have unnecessary acids added to them such as phosphoric acid in coke and pepsi which damages the lining of the stomach and reduces the ability to absorb nutrients from food.
Interesting claims. Why do you believe them? What is your source for these assertions?
Your claims:
1. HFCS take LONGER to digest than sucrose.
2. Phosphoric acid in soda damages the stomach lining, which reduces uptake of food nutrients.
It's important that we scrutinize our own beliefs. I think you may have gotten hold of some false info, but you can certainly prove me wrong with a good primary source from peer-reviewed literature.
@C0nc0rdance I was under the impression that HFCS took a shorter time to metabolize, which caused a spike in blood sugar, then insulin, causing the body to lower the production of insulin over time. I'm going to have to do some further reading.
This is a quote from the research of Satish Rao, M.D. and his colleagues at the University of Iowa:
"The problem, aside from added carbohydrates to the diet, is that there is no enzyme in the gut to digest fructose. It requires the presence of an equal amount of another sugar, glucose, to be appropriately absorbed into the small intestine. But some foods have far more fructose than glucose, or no glucose at all, and that spells trouble for some people." HFCS has more fructose.
@5avan10 To continue: You need both fructose AND glucose for it to be absorbed properly. Otherwise, it hangs out in your digestive system, being processed by bacteria causing gas and also absorbing water into the gut causing intestinal distress. news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/april/040108fructose_research(dot)html
@C0nc0rdance k; 1.) America is the largest producer of corn in the world 2.) "According to the USDA, high fructose corn syrup accounts for roughly 37% of all caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed in the U.S" "Around the world, high fructose corn syrup accounts for about 8 percent of caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed." 3.) Us obesity/diabetes rates highest in world
@C0nc0rdance because their diet is solely processed foods, consisting of only 3% natural fruit and all other food being imported due to the islands location
"Explanations for the epidemic proportions of diabetes, heart disease, obesity and hypertension in Nauru include: urbanization, low physical activity, the importation of processed foods and a diabetic genotype"
The most diabetic and obese population are the Pima Indians in AZ, in which that trait seems to be linked strongly to genetics.
@starshock01 I would think that HFCS is digested pretty fast, as it causes a huge insulin response in the body just like sugar and other simple carbs (sugars).
"Now we must learn to master our animal instincts; to behave like civilized people; we must demonstrate discipline, restraint, and wisdom in what we eat and what we do."
This was the wrong video to watch 30 minutes before dinner...
Talking about being driven by evolution it's interesting to see eating habits of people from third world countries living in a developed country. For instance, I have friends from Papua New Guinea who I will take to an all you can eat buffet and no matter how many times I tell them you can keep going back as many times as you want they will take two or three plates each and pile them as high as possible.
Your food-pyramid is upside down. In all but the polar regions, where animal flesh is the only game in town, a clear majority of calories are derived from plant-based foods(starchy roots, nuts, seeds, fruits, berries) and a big chunk of the animal-based foods is various larvae, bugs, spiders, eggs and other things that aren't red meat..
These aren't figures I draw myself. That pyramid is found on several "Paleodiet" websites, though I don't know the primary source.
What did ancient humans eat? Well, before the advent of fire, I doubt they ate many roots. Ever eaten a raw potato? Probably a variety of meats, including birds, raw eggs... actually I would imagine a bit like modern chimps but much heavier on meat.
@C0nc0rdance Cooking fires pre-date both homo sapiens sapiens and neanderthals. The were in wide use 200 000 years ago, and there's some evidence they may have been used as early as 800 000 years ago. Cooking is so old that it is evolutionarily relevant, it has changed our digestive systems.
I have eaten raw potato and it works. No bonus points for flavour, but you get the starch out of that thing pretty easily by just chewing it.
@C0nc0rdance Actually our ancient ancestors did have a diet consisting of roots. Paranthropus Boisei, an ancient cousin, had a diet very rich in reed roots. Homo habilis on the other hand had a diet that was higher in meat. It was this meat eating adaptation that allowed its survival that would eventually give rise to us.
A thousand years from now, children will learn that lead poisoning caused the downfall of the roman empire, and that high fructose corn syrup caused the downfall of the american empire.
Dude! You bore the shit out of me. Please cut to the chase, you blather too much. Use editing and cut down the droning on over explanations. If you were a teacher you'd have classes full of sleeping children. I'm not disagreeing with your videos, I just want them to be better, this one should have been 5-7 minutes without the "blah blah blah, here's information you don't need, look a tree, it's made of cellulose and here's the chemical breakdown, a chemical breakdown is standard blah blah blah"
@eran5005 go have sex with your mother. I was not talking to you, I was giving constructive criticism to the maker of the video. He adds information that is not educational, it's overkill. Now I will demonstrate my first sentence in his voice. Please Eran, walk to your mother's room which is down the hall and to the right, walk in the order of left right left right left right, remove your clothes in this order, shirt, shoes, socks, pants, underwear then remove her clothes in this order.......
@TheFuriousfunk Now i see the problem, in light of your response i have no other option but to agree with you, this video was overkill it was even over-overkill - knowledge and education are totally wasted on people like you, well, i guess human manure shovels are also necessary to society...
keep up the good work with the constructive criticism!
@eran5005 little man move along, go try to argue with you equals in the Tea Party chat room. My comment had nothing to do with your halfwitted opinions. Fuck off.
@TheFuriousfunk yes, promoting a little education and general knowledge usually marks you as a halfwit, solid reasoning as usual. you got one thing right - we are definitely not equals, i'll give you that.
I think there are a lot of reasons to recommend people avoid HFCS. The possible presence of mercury is one, but not the main one from my point of view. By all means present an evidence-based case that children in America are suffering from mercury toxicity, but please cite some clinical data to support this. Do children have a dose-dependent response? Serum mercury elevations? Do pathologists find elevated mercury in biopsies and post-mortem cytology?
By all means, it could be any of a thousand different mechanisms, or the effect could be a research artifact. The endocrine linkage has been investigated, and doesn't seem a very promising explanation on its own, but may play into a complex response.
I never said "purely psychological", I said "purely behavioral", which is a very different prospect. Psychology is what our brains/thoughts/mind are telling us to do, behavior is what we actually do, for whatever reasons.
Beware of these kinds of assumptions. The actual mechanism may have nothing to do with endocrine differences: it may be a purely behavioral effect, or it may be the 9% less glucose yield, or it may be something else entirely we can't predict. I prefer to wait for data, to alert people about what we do know (fructose containing sweeteners are bad), and to continue investigating.
Please source your factual claims. Environ Health. 2009; 8: 2.
"potential average daily total mercury exposure from HFCS could range from zero to 28.4 μg mercury."
It's not "a form of mercury" that is used. It's small amounts of alkali, used to balance the pH, which is purified in a process with mercury. If you have this article, read Table 1 for Manufacturer A: all but one sample contained NO detectable lead. It was Mfg B that had a problem.
Way to dishonestly quote mine me. the very next words in the sentence (that you cut off): "...but only because a certain portion of it goes almost straight to fat metabolism." and then I went on to explain why GI alone isn't a good indicator for obesigenic foods.
Small amounts of fructose, especially in concert with soluble fiber found in natural fruits, can represent a better choice than sucrose sweetened desserts.
"In 34 subjects, 24-h glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and TG profiles were similar between days that sucrose or HFCS was consumed.... Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different short-term endocrine/metabolic effects."
So your hypothesis that sucrose and HFCS cause different insulin-dependent cascades is not supported by recent studies, therefore your attitude of smug superiority is not warranted.
This research supports a role for insulin, but doesn't compare the triggering of metabolic response in sucrose vs. HFCS. This paper, however, does. Nutrition. 2007 Feb;23(2):103-12.
"These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses [glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin] do not differ from Suc in lean women."
Also the problem that the corn is genetically modified to take more of their special pesticide that is sprayed on the corn, this makes the corn syrup highly packed with pesticide.
@SigR1988 Genetically modified corn is fine, there is no evidence to suggest that it is in any way worse for us than non-genetically modified corn. Also the reason people tend to not like genetically modified food isn't that it gets sprayed with pesticide, almost all vegetables including organic vegetables get sprayed with pesticides. Having said that any trace amounts of pesticides that make it into HFCS (assuming it isn't all destroyed when the corn is processed into HFCS) is fine for you
@robertscooking The corn is genetically enhanced to absorbs pesticide in more quantities than regular corn because it's designed to do that don't take my word for it search for corn and pesticide and you'll see there's a legitimate concern about this.
@SigR1988 I could not find information to back up your claim but I'll assume your not making it up, this is still not a legitamate consern and heres why. Do you eat organic? Organic celery contains about 8 times more traces of pesticides than non-organic, which is enough that people who handle organic celery develop rashes from it, so why shouldn't you be concerned? Because the amount of cancer risk you get from all the pesticides you eat in life is equivalent to risk from a few cups of coffee
I've been asked about this and I keep saying that the problem with HFC is not it's sugar content, it's that it's used as a filler in EVERYTHING. Thickening, sweetener, etc etc etc. So it's more the sheer amount of it that's almost unavoidable in your diet (although I think less so here in Australia)
do you have any videos about salt,the reason i ask is my father has small stem cell cancer and for him because of his treatments the more salt he eats the better as treatment robs the body of salt and the internet is not the best place to get info on it though there are tons of web sight,since you seem to know what you are talking about and if you can find time to do something about salt it would be appreciated,thanks
I think that everyone is aware that they are different, you seem to say that they're not significantly different to our body. Because your overall point is that we should use less sugar you should hit on the evidence for people who use less sugar being healthier rather than focusing on what seems to be the irrelevent point on the differences in sugar types. Also I love many of your other videos and i'm just trying to help you make the ovrall argument on this one more convincing.
We also need awareness that HFCS and sucrose are chemically different, and require different processes to break down and be utilized by the body - not to mention that HFCS is man-made, and not all factors of this production are released publicly. Even the corn growers, with whom I was debating, just referred to some parts by misleading blanket terms (like "enzymes"). HFCS contains free glucose, which the body uses without expending essentially any calories. Blood sugar spike, and diabetes.
I am not sure a "mostly vegetable" diet is generally good advice. That is currently not was you get from major health organizations. Just the cost of eating this way would be very high, according to Dr. Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington, it would cost $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods, which is what mostly vegetable would considers This compare to $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food.
I am not saying eat junk food, but the idea of eating mostly veggies is a bit much, if not off the deep end. There is nothing wrong with whole gains which are far cheapest and still very nutritious. Eating a balanced diet with fresh fruit and veg, whole grains and reasonable low fat meat seem far better advice the "mostly vegetables".
@Loathomar I'm vegetarian more often than not because my spouse is. It costs less than meat. Just know where to get your proteins/vitamins/minerals, & cook fresh food. $80 p/ wk or less for groceries, & we're in one of the more expensive cities. That said, I agree with you. Key is cook fresh food and eat a healthy diet. I would rather mine included more meat and eggs, making it more balanced, but oh well. =) You can still be healthy without if you're careful.
@SisterOfKarn Generally vegetarianism can be cheap, far cheaper then non-vegetarian, but more vegetarians do not get mostly vegs. Most of most vegetarian's calories come from gains, rice and wheat being the main two. Rice, Wheat, oats and corn are all very very cheap in general and per calories. Fresh Veggies on the other can are reasonable costly in general and VERY costly per calorie. Example; 1 cup of Asparagus has 27 calories and will cost a few bucks, a cup of rice has 205 and cost cents.
@Loathomar I appreciate what you're saying, but statistics don't always accurately represent the general population. What I was trying to say, pretty poorly I admit, is the larger part of our diet, and all of our vege friends too, is veges and not grains. Most of our diet is legumes & veggies. We do have rice once or twice a week with a dish, & sometimes quinoa. We do have oatmeal for breakfast and make fresh bread at home, though I hate whole grain bread so we rarely make it.
@Loathomar My point is it does not cost $36 p/day for a mostly vege diet & you can still be healthy eating like that. We live in one of the more expensive cities and states in the US and it's nowhere near that much. More like $5.72 per day, which might still be more than if we ate more grains, but not by all that much. A study that puts the cost per day so high is skewed, based on by experience. I honestly don't know if grains are really that much cheaper, never checked. I should.
@Loathomar Ugh, there I go again, not thinking. I said "it does not cost $36 p/day for a mostly vege diet & you can still be healthy eating like that.". What I meant, and hope was more clear than I read it, is "... a mostly vege diet based on a lot more vegetables and legumes than grains...". Sorry. For some reason my brain doesn't seem to be working well this week. =)
@Zahlman I didn't do the study, but this was a question of buying 2,000 cal. 3 2L cola drinks will have well over that amount and cost around that. Cheap candy would be another way.
I agree we consume too much sugars. *I have a question* A documentery on Hulu.com "Future of Food" it spoke of All Corn crops being Bioengineered with a biotoxin to kill corn borers. Reason being a pesticide applied topicly (roundup) will not affect a borer. Most all creatures use bacteria to process (Digest) food. I have recently been made aware of the fact my daughter has IBS. We discussed the fact that this is an intestinal. I have started to research IBS and it affects like 1 in 6.
63% of domestic corn production is Bt transgenic (as of 2010). Bt is a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, and the product causes damage to insects, and only insects. Toxicon. 2007 Mar 15;49(4):423-35.
IBS is likely more to do with gut flora and I'm involved in a project around an IBS-like animal model. We see the greatest effect with regular dietary soluble fiber. Oatmeal and oat fiber change the gut flora over time.
Good vid! I've got a question for you. In one of our physiology classes, we compare glucose metabolism with fructose metabolism in a glucose tolerance test. Fructose has a low GI (from 13-25, depending on what paper you are reading) because of the differences in metabolism between the two. This slows insulin production, so it was said to be better for diabetic 2 sufferers than glucose.
I suppose it goes to show that low GI =/= healthy. What's your take on this?
Absolutely. Fructose has a lot of value for Type 2 diabetics, but only because a certain portion of it goes almost straight to fat metabolism. Butter has a low GI as well, that should tip you off on why GI is not an indication of potential to obesity.
Portions are important, of course. Butter isn't evil, but you don't want to eat four sticks a day. Excess fructose feeds fat biosynthesis, but it must be in excess.
Awesome vid! =) I only partially disagree with one thing though. Have you seen the epidemiology of how Fructose is broken down for energy? It's different in a few stages, particularly in the Kreb Cycle. The body can definitely tell the difference, & the effect is like long term alcoholism without the intoxication. Because HFCS is monomer, you don't need to break it down, it starts absorbing the moment it hits your mouth. & without Fiber to slow absorption... Anyway, great vid! thanks! =)
Alcohol is just a simple carbohydrate every thing that you consume your body breaks down to sugar’s for energy vegetables have fiber in them so that makes them complex carbohydrate, so your body has to work harder at deriving the sugar from it. Eat 3 to 5 times a day…Food mostly vegetables….The less refined the better.
Fantastic video! I hope that people begin to realize the negative effects found in the way we eat in modern times.Around two years ago I stopped eating foods and drinks with HFCS and also trans-fats(partially hydrogenated oils). I was a little over 15 years of age and weighed approximately 175 pounds. Now I'm 17 and after changing my diet I weigh 155 pounds;I haven't changed my activity/ excercise habits so I attribute that loss to my diet, though my hormonal changes might also have a part too.
@BreathingKnowledge First, the modern way of eating is way healthier than how humans ate before, during ancient ages it would be a miracle to reach the age of 40. Secondly, to just completely cutting out unhealthy foods is simply making the matter complicated. You will see way better results by just increasing your activity level. I personally eat anything, but i'm in perfect shape just because i work-out twice a day. It's positive for my daily life, and best of all it's simple.
@puppycow other way around, sugars break down into ethyl alcohol. however if memory serves this is only true in an environment without oxygen (or without enough). In humans this only happens in the muscles where sugars break down into alcohol and lactic acid, which is why your muscles burn after being active.
@puppycow an example of sugars breaking down into alcohol is fermentation. If you put hops, water, a few other things and yeast into a barrel and let it sit where it can't get air the yeast breaks down the sugars in the hops and turns them into alcohol, however the yeast lacks the ability to further break down the alcohol into simpler molecules, unlike the human body. This is how you get beer. Any alcohol you drink was at one point a sugar.
I suggest you review the findings of UCLA's study that was published last year in the journal Cancer Research regarding how pancreatic tumor cells use fructose and glucose, then perhaps you'd be inclined to revise your assertions about their similarity. Hint: fructose was proven much, much worse, regardless of its chemical similarity. While you're at it, research to what level corn production is subsidized in the U.S., then add that to why HFCS is going nowhere soon.
Loved your video, very informative. One thing about your last remark though, next to vegetables you also need the occasional fat. Most people take enough fat/oil on a daily basis and not eating enough fat for a while won't harm you.
In the long term you might get a shortage of certain things though.
Thank you for doing this, I just shake my ahead as people buy "organic, natural, no HFCS" sugar loaded drinks and food thinking they'll be healthier and then still complain about about how they're still overweight.
As note I have a sweet tooth which I usually use a mix of aspartame(cause it's cheap) and Stevia. I like the Stevia because it adds a unique flavor so I'm looking foward to your video on it. I will of course research it now anyway.
Would really love to watch your non nutritive sweetner video. It seems to me there isn't enough research to make claims for either side for me and theres lot of misinformation, bias and controversy floating about it on both sides. Or maybe there is now? id love to hear what youd have to say.
This could be the next smoking cause cancer or cell phone causes cancer. But smoking at least had strong correlation to people getting ill before we couldve proved it. That doesnt seem to be the case here.
I have to give my thumbs up to this video. This is some pretty solid science, not the usual HFCS apologetics I've come to expect from the "skeptical" community. I have heard that fructose is particularly bad in that the liver becomes a "sugar sponge" so to speak, soaking up an unusually high amount of sugars when fructose is present in the bloodstream which is of course hard on the liver. Perhaps you can look into that. I heard it on Robb Wolf's podcast.
I was diagnosed with fructose malabsorption after becoming very ill at the end of 06. I my diet wasnt very high in fructose relative to most but none the less it had devastating effects, the slow accumulation of toxins lowered my immune system enough for me to contract a retrovirus (XMRV) & now the lasting effects are manageable but not curable. I recommend to everybody out there to reduce their daily intake of fructose by at least 80%, you'll be much healthier, happier and probably live longer.
@AussieNaturalist What is your evidence for that 80% figure? In and of itself that figure would mean something different to everyone. Are you calling fructose toxic to others or just yourself?
@TheAlphaPyro Sorry I thought I was fairly clear when I said "I recommend", its just my opinion based on my travels around the world B4 I got sick. After reading my comment I also realised that I should have included ALL types of processed sugars, not to mention fast foods ie; the "super sizing" of meals & drinks, a small sized fast food meal is bad enough. As I stated that I have a fructose malabsorption I presumed that ppl would relate the "toxic" comment to ME and NOT to everyone else.
@C0nc0rdance WHO: Prof. K De Meirleir using R.E.D Labs (Belgium), in association with Dr. D Lewis (Aus, Melb).
HOW: RED Labs states that they "use the same method which was published in the Lombardi et al. October 09 issue of Science".
After some basic research I realised that there have been subsequent studies that failed to reproduce the same results and I have been somewhat troubled by this, do you have any data that may shine more light on the subject?
@AussieNaturalist The failure in your logic is: YOU have fructose malabsorption... people dont simply get fructose malabsorption from intaking large amounts of fructose. Generally, there are environmental and genetic factors that come into play. Yes, people would be healthier if they had less HFCS in their diets as compared to eating more grains and greens, but it alone won't make them more likely to get a virus.
WTF are you talking about! All I did was tell my story & give my opinion. I DIDNT claim nor was I implying that anybody will suffer the same fate as I. Studies done in Aus showed that 1 in 3 people have a glucose intolerance, the levels were varied ranging from celiac disease to flatulence, the point is that a LARGE number of people DONT KNOW of their problems, as I didnt, so lowering their intake of unnecessary sugars is a good thing.
0:01-2:15 Evolutionary theory is not history (it is informed speculation about our origins that is useful insofar as it explains current observations) -- stop talking as if it were history.
9:35-9:47 I think the author is neglecting biology -- he seems to be suggesting that fructose pure and simple is problematic (although he does mention this point briefly regarding eating apple skin and pulp to slow digestion).
Dude you contradict yourself at the 14:00 mark. You say that we should eat healthy meats but then say at 13:45 that a giant steak isn't healthy food. What's more healthy than a nice steak with veggies on the side? That's pretty much what our ancestors ate.....
Here is the mistake: Your doctor is probably not the best place to get nutritional advice. Doctors are educated on tons of diverse topics very quickly. Their education about nutrition is likely very outdated and they may be mis-remembering it. They also got their information from some biased viewpoint and as they are doctors probably didn't take the time to check studies about nutrition with the thousands of relevant studies they actually needed to check in med school.
I don't entirely agree with you there. c0nc0rdance's First Law is "Never take medical advice from the Internet". The corollary is: A doctor (or other health professional) is your best bet for health advice. Admittedly, not all doctors are current, not all are geniuses, and not all websites are worthless misinformation, but you're much safer with the average doctor's advice than a random website.
@PainefulMass I call bullshit on you thinking you have a better medical educational method for physicians than the modern international medical school system.
@PainefulMass "Your doctor is probably not the best place to get nutritional advice"
"Their education about nutrition is likely very outdated and they may be mis-remembering it."
"They also got their information from some biased viewpoint"
"as they are doctors probably didn't take the time to check studies about nutrition"
You said these things in a comment response to a video talking about the scientific facts of High Fructose Corn Syrup.Now if we can't trust our doctors about HFCS..........
@PainefulMass ..... then please tell the rest of the class just where one can get better nutritional information that one can't get from a trained medical professional who spent years in residency and forced memorization of scientific facts.
@PainefulMass Therefore an unspoken assumption arises where one thinks you must have a better method of training med students in nutrition than our current medical school system(which is among the best in the world if not the best).
tl:dr
If you criticize something that you think is very important to society and you have no actual method of improvement on hand,then you're just an asshole with an opinion.
And like everybody's asshole your opinion is stinky.
Very interesting indeed, in Australia we have a lot of sugar cane growth, so all the sweeteners we have are derived from sugar cane and not corn.
We have an obesity crisis of our own, so you can't blame HFCS alone, the high sugar and high fat diets we are eating with our relatively (compared to hunter gatherer lifestyles) lazy lifestyles are to blame.
The solution is to educate people the dangers of heavily processed foods and increase education in cooking healthy food.
@bertamon I doubt it. Education did little for smoking, even huge taxes didn't break the West's habit. Educating people that stuff they want to do (because it feels good) is bad for them is often a waste of resources.
Cane Sugar tastes and feels better than HFCS. Just stating an opinion. Working at a restaurant, and having free access to the soda machine, I notice that I was gravitating more towards the Sierra Mist, or at worst mixing it with the Dr Pepper. One day I realized that it was because the Sierra Mist was "Pure Cane Sugar" and the rest were HFCS.
HFCS is in nothing we evolved to eat. Fat, protein, veggies... pretty simple really. The closer you can get to paleo, the better for most people. I still see about 20% in our clinic that respond well to a higher starch content, but it's rare that they have any serious disease states. The ones that do simply get better without foods that convert to glucose. It is overly simplistic, but the adage that there are "no essential carbohydrates" is basically true.
I don't particularly care about your conclusion, but I'm a bit disturbed by the logic you use to get there. "We evolved to eat this" is not a very compelling argument. We evolved to die at 30, after all.
I worry that you're flirting with the naturalistic fallacy: "the primitive state of something is always ideal". That seems to be some of the thinking behind paleo diets, but unless it's supported empirically, I'm skeptical.
@C0nc0rdance Actually every study ever done is fairly direct support of a paleo diet. See the book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes for an amazing look at all these studies. The phrase that we evolved to eat this is not the justification, it is a later observation that this is probably the reason it is healthier (our digestive systems haven't had time to figure out how to digest it) but the fact of it comes from the studies.
I am skeptical of any claim that "all evidence supports X". I'm happy to entertain specific claims with specific evidence, but I find that sometimes people cherry-pick and cobble together studies that are tangential to a lifestyle.
A quick search of the medical literature finds only one group (in Lund, Sweden) testing the Paleo diet. Promising results, I agree, and I have nothing against Paleo. I just want to make sure your support is evidence-based.
@C0nc0rdance I don't know where you're checking, but google Volek et al. Listening to Volek almost turns me into a conspiracy theorist. Your fallacy is in how publications in nutritional fields work. Jeff (my guys as well) has waited 'years' to get something published despite overwhelming data, ideal study parameters, etc. Anyway, they examined sat fat in the blood post high-fat/high "healthy" carb LF meals. They've looked at insulin, MS, CHD... all difficult to argue. It's nasty out there.
@C0nc0rdance We didn't evolve to die at 30. Menopause is rare, humans evolved so that women have it; there was significant evolutionary pressure among women older than their mid 40's to cause this.
I worry you're assuming "the more developed state of something is always more ideal". Our cultural heritage pretty much begins with unhealthful agriculture, but farming did not necessarily produce healthier people than a forager society simply because agricultural societies out competed forager ones.
The fallacy is generalizing either way. I try to avoid any argument that says, "This is old, therefore it is good" or "this is new, therefore it is good". Each health practice must be empirically supported, independent of its source (natural vs. artificial) or antiquity (old vs. new).
I can cheat on my 30 years old claim. If I go back far enough, I can find an ancestor where longevity beyond 30 was rare. Selection usually favors diminishing resource use beyond fertile age.
@C0nc0rdance The fallacy is inappropriately using a null hypothesis rather than Solomonoff induction when making claims about what is probably true. Online: mdpi.com/1099-4300/13/6/1076/pdf
Science is a social system to create a body of almost certainly true knowledge. It is not designed to tell you what is probably true unless there is overwhelming evidence. In absence of scientifically validated nutrition knowledge, we must eat. Fortunately we can still say much about what is probably true.
I have a similar seven-word mantra.
Eat Pizza.
Sausage and Pepperoni.
Crust, Too.
:P
IrwinJohnFinster 3 days ago
@C0nc0rdance Interesting piece in Nature today (Nature 482, 27–29) titled "Public health: The toxic truth about sugar". Dramatic title aside, it's worth a read. It talks about the use of government intervention to curb sales of added-sugar products, HFCS particularly. What are your thoughts? Do you think it'll take off, or get buried by lobbying?
Enjoying the vids as always, especially the readings of heretofore unknown essays by the likes of Ben Goldacre & others. Cheers for the uploads.
G0lfYankee 3 weeks ago
The science was pretty balanced, you should probably have left it there since the social commentary was way off base.
1. People on welfare are misinformed about nutrition. Their food stamps are funded at a level that precludes healthy choices.
2. For the rest food manufacturers can legally hide ingredients in foods by a variety of legal tricks.
Try buying processed products that don't contain MSG and see how far you get reading labels.
Without clear labelling there is no informed choice.
wjestick 1 month ago
Mmmmmm... Sugar... Uuuugh...
DrSpooglemon 1 month ago
Damm it now I want a mixed fruit salad....
BlitzNeko 2 months ago
Stop giving little kids Twinkies.
Rachemizan 2 months ago
I love these kinds of videos as it I find it helps with eating the bad stuff in moderation although i still crave a coke after watching it ^_^
stuckupsue 2 months ago
Fat is not bad for you, actually fat burns fat, it's the combo of fat and carbs (particularly simple/little fiber) that makes us gain weight My diet consists of cheeses, meats (beef, assorted fish, shellfish) veggies (low carb ones, such as cauliflower, broccoli onions, lettuce, cabbage, turnips - NO potatoes/carrots) My fat % has gone down, I drink lots of water and tea and I work out for about 20 minutes in interval training along with 5-10 of strength. I've lost 6 pounds in 1 1/2 weeks.
z90OoAluYsioNoO09z 3 months ago
Not only this, but corn is >80% likely to be GMO. Now, the idea of GMO isn't bad, I'm not bashing it's general idea, but GMO which the way that it's done currently (to put it simply, it's all about profit, and they don't give a damn about our health, cuz you know, more people in the hospital means more money for the companies) so that makes HFCS even worse.
z90OoAluYsioNoO09z 3 months ago
Well done, but why is a fat steak bad for you? Why is butter bad for you? A diet of mostly vegetables? You lost me near the end.
Ddonjuan 3 months ago
@Ddonjuan
Well, a top sirloin, about 500 g, contains about 1200 calories, about half of which is fat. Bourbon butter is pure fat and alcohol, about 100 calories per tablespoon. If you eat like that very often... you will definitely regret it down the line.
The top consumers of vegetables tend to have the lowest rates of cancer and heart disease.
C0nc0rdance 3 months ago 3
@C0nc0rdance Thank you for the quick response. I assume you mean saturated fat. If so, what is bad about saturated fat? thank you
Ddonjuan 3 months ago
@C0nc0rdance 500g is more then a LB steak. have you ever sat and ate a whole 16oz+ steak
yeah....no one does
krypekeeper 2 months ago
are you comparing GMO HFCS to natural sugar from fruits?
krypekeeper 2 months ago
@krypekeeper
Yes?
C0nc0rdance 2 months ago
@krypekeeper so you think eating an apple is as bad as drinking a coke
krypekeeper 2 months ago
@krypekeeper
No.
C0nc0rdance 2 months ago
Why bring Hitler into this? Joseph Stalin killed 3 times as many!!
aqualane1 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance @14:07 I wasn't hungry until I saw that
MoMember88 4 months ago
Face it, Americans won´t eat anything that doesn´t contain dangerously large amounts of artificial additives and high fructose corn syrup. I don´t even think that Americans can digest natural food anymore. Even the raw carrots are died an unnatural orange! That´s fucked up, just ban the shit like heroine.
Rachemizan 4 months ago
@Rachemizan Heroine is profitable, it's the natural inclination of human curiosity. You're told not to do it, so you're more likely to do it, even if it's bad for you. Police get granted more money to fight the drugs, there is profit in the export in it, profit in people going to jail and profit in general in the circulation of money, legal or not. What ever makes profit is done, legal's or not has got very little to do with it and particularly America is obsessed with money, and cheap crap.
z90OoAluYsioNoO09z 3 months ago
you sir, have been subscribed to.
akpret 4 months ago
this video made me hungry for a HUGE mac lol
pumpuppthevolume 5 months ago
nothing wrong with steak nor butter
akinzu316 5 months ago
Science is awesome!
pjkilmer 5 months ago
but lime + water isn't sweet...
CristianApostol 5 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
WHAT!!!!! You SIR!! are now on my last nerve!!! How dare you SAY! that stake smothered with delicious bourbon butter is BAD!! I cant F***n believe you, AAAAAAAAAHH! I am so pissed right now!!
N0CR3AT0R 5 months ago in playlist More videos from C0nc0rdance
This concentration on HCFS seems to stem from a rather american attitude of only looking at the US and thinking that's the whole world.
Outside the US, we barely ever use HCFS.
ZarlanTheGreen 6 months ago
I have yet to see a soda (non-diet, anyway) with ANY sodium content.
ZarlanTheGreen 6 months ago
Sugar causes tooth decay.
True.
That is why they invented the toothbrush about 5000 years ago in Ancient Egypt.
MichaFFrg 6 months ago
I would like to see a video on acne products and the effects of the ingredients salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide.
TommyWolaver 7 months ago 10
@TommyWolaver I have a better idea: Change your diet to a mostly or all plants based diet and your acne will clear up. It worked for me; not any acne topical product. The reasons is because acne is created inside the body and not outside. Change your diet, change your life.
BayAreaROI 1 month ago
In response to fructose: Fructose is digested slower and thus has a lower glycemic index. The concern with such sweeteners is that they suppress satiety and thus contribute to overeating. Fruit does not have this issue due to the fiber content. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16820733
TheNubbbler 7 months ago
While most of this video is fascinating and accurate you didnt mention how high fructose corn syrup takes many times longer to digest than sucrose or simple sugars, slowing down a persons metabolism. Also many soft drinks have unnecessary acids added to them such as phosphoric acid in coke and pepsi which damages the lining of the stomach and reduces the ability to absorb nutrients from food.
starshock01 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@starshock01
Interesting claims. Why do you believe them? What is your source for these assertions?
Your claims:
1. HFCS take LONGER to digest than sucrose.
2. Phosphoric acid in soda damages the stomach lining, which reduces uptake of food nutrients.
It's important that we scrutinize our own beliefs. I think you may have gotten hold of some false info, but you can certainly prove me wrong with a good primary source from peer-reviewed literature.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago 4
@C0nc0rdance I was under the impression that HFCS took a shorter time to metabolize, which caused a spike in blood sugar, then insulin, causing the body to lower the production of insulin over time. I'm going to have to do some further reading.
EricZombie 6 months ago
@C0nc0rdance
This is a quote from the research of Satish Rao, M.D. and his colleagues at the University of Iowa:
"The problem, aside from added carbohydrates to the diet, is that there is no enzyme in the gut to digest fructose. It requires the presence of an equal amount of another sugar, glucose, to be appropriately absorbed into the small intestine. But some foods have far more fructose than glucose, or no glucose at all, and that spells trouble for some people." HFCS has more fructose.
5avan10 5 months ago
@5avan10 To continue: You need both fructose AND glucose for it to be absorbed properly. Otherwise, it hangs out in your digestive system, being processed by bacteria causing gas and also absorbing water into the gut causing intestinal distress. news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/april/040108fructose_research(dot)html
5avan10 5 months ago
@C0nc0rdance k; 1.) America is the largest producer of corn in the world 2.) "According to the USDA, high fructose corn syrup accounts for roughly 37% of all caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed in the U.S" "Around the world, high fructose corn syrup accounts for about 8 percent of caloric (nutritive) sweeteners consumed." 3.) Us obesity/diabetes rates highest in world
princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
Just stating facts
starshock01 4 months ago
@starshock01
The tiny island of Nauru has the highest RATE of Type 2 diabetes (and obesity) in the world.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@C0nc0rdance because their diet is solely processed foods, consisting of only 3% natural fruit and all other food being imported due to the islands location
starshock01 4 months ago
@starshock01
I was just correcting your facts, starshock.
The reason why is still an open question:
BMC Public Health. 2011 Sep 23;11:719.
"Explanations for the epidemic proportions of diabetes, heart disease, obesity and hypertension in Nauru include: urbanization, low physical activity, the importation of processed foods and a diabetic genotype"
The most diabetic and obese population are the Pima Indians in AZ, in which that trait seems to be linked strongly to genetics.
C0nc0rdance 4 months ago
@starshock01 I would think that HFCS is digested pretty fast, as it causes a huge insulin response in the body just like sugar and other simple carbs (sugars).
InspctrClouseau 4 months ago
"Now we must learn to master our animal instincts; to behave like civilized people; we must demonstrate discipline, restraint, and wisdom in what we eat and what we do."
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly vegetables."
VOLightPortal 7 months ago
Comment removed
VOLightPortal 7 months ago
This was the wrong video to watch 30 minutes before dinner...
Talking about being driven by evolution it's interesting to see eating habits of people from third world countries living in a developed country. For instance, I have friends from Papua New Guinea who I will take to an all you can eat buffet and no matter how many times I tell them you can keep going back as many times as you want they will take two or three plates each and pile them as high as possible.
GummoNZ 7 months ago
Your food-pyramid is upside down. In all but the polar regions, where animal flesh is the only game in town, a clear majority of calories are derived from plant-based foods(starchy roots, nuts, seeds, fruits, berries) and a big chunk of the animal-based foods is various larvae, bugs, spiders, eggs and other things that aren't red meat..
soylentgreenb 7 months ago
@soylentgreenb
These aren't figures I draw myself. That pyramid is found on several "Paleodiet" websites, though I don't know the primary source.
What did ancient humans eat? Well, before the advent of fire, I doubt they ate many roots. Ever eaten a raw potato? Probably a variety of meats, including birds, raw eggs... actually I would imagine a bit like modern chimps but much heavier on meat.
C0nc0rdance 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Cooking fires pre-date both homo sapiens sapiens and neanderthals. The were in wide use 200 000 years ago, and there's some evidence they may have been used as early as 800 000 years ago. Cooking is so old that it is evolutionarily relevant, it has changed our digestive systems.
I have eaten raw potato and it works. No bonus points for flavour, but you get the starch out of that thing pretty easily by just chewing it.
soylentgreenb 7 months ago
@C0nc0rdance Actually our ancient ancestors did have a diet consisting of roots. Paranthropus Boisei, an ancient cousin, had a diet very rich in reed roots. Homo habilis on the other hand had a diet that was higher in meat. It was this meat eating adaptation that allowed its survival that would eventually give rise to us.
TheNubbbler 7 months ago
A thousand years from now, children will learn that lead poisoning caused the downfall of the roman empire, and that high fructose corn syrup caused the downfall of the american empire.
Meurglys33 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think every person in the modern world should see this video.
eran5005 8 months ago
Evolution is a lie.
Oweboy1960 8 months ago
@Oweboy1960
The CAKE is a lie :) (Are you for real?)
Aaberg123 8 months ago
with the guy below me - I don't agree, the data is necessary...
At 5:37, the science-speak line: shouldn't it be Km/Kcat and not simply Km? (is close to diffusion rate)
r0galik 8 months ago
@r0galik I'm sorry!!! Kcat/Km
r0galik 8 months ago
Dude! You bore the shit out of me. Please cut to the chase, you blather too much. Use editing and cut down the droning on over explanations. If you were a teacher you'd have classes full of sleeping children. I'm not disagreeing with your videos, I just want them to be better, this one should have been 5-7 minutes without the "blah blah blah, here's information you don't need, look a tree, it's made of cellulose and here's the chemical breakdown, a chemical breakdown is standard blah blah blah"
TheFuriousfunk 8 months ago
@TheFuriousfunk Because heaven forbid that you will gain some knowledge! How dare he trying to poison your mind with education!!
No one asked you to Ph.D in biochemistry, just sit your ass for 14 minutes instead of 7.
eran5005 8 months ago
@eran5005 go have sex with your mother. I was not talking to you, I was giving constructive criticism to the maker of the video. He adds information that is not educational, it's overkill. Now I will demonstrate my first sentence in his voice. Please Eran, walk to your mother's room which is down the hall and to the right, walk in the order of left right left right left right, remove your clothes in this order, shirt, shoes, socks, pants, underwear then remove her clothes in this order.......
TheFuriousfunk 8 months ago
@TheFuriousfunk Now i see the problem, in light of your response i have no other option but to agree with you, this video was overkill it was even over-overkill - knowledge and education are totally wasted on people like you, well, i guess human manure shovels are also necessary to society...
keep up the good work with the constructive criticism!
eran5005 8 months ago
@eran5005 little man move along, go try to argue with you equals in the Tea Party chat room. My comment had nothing to do with your halfwitted opinions. Fuck off.
TheFuriousfunk 8 months ago
@TheFuriousfunk yes, promoting a little education and general knowledge usually marks you as a halfwit, solid reasoning as usual. you got one thing right - we are definitely not equals, i'll give you that.
I'll tell the Tea Party denizens you said hi.
eran5005 8 months ago
@DoesItAddUp101
I think there are a lot of reasons to recommend people avoid HFCS. The possible presence of mercury is one, but not the main one from my point of view. By all means present an evidence-based case that children in America are suffering from mercury toxicity, but please cite some clinical data to support this. Do children have a dose-dependent response? Serum mercury elevations? Do pathologists find elevated mercury in biopsies and post-mortem cytology?
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@DoesItAddUp101
By all means, it could be any of a thousand different mechanisms, or the effect could be a research artifact. The endocrine linkage has been investigated, and doesn't seem a very promising explanation on its own, but may play into a complex response.
I never said "purely psychological", I said "purely behavioral", which is a very different prospect. Psychology is what our brains/thoughts/mind are telling us to do, behavior is what we actually do, for whatever reasons.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@DoesItAddUp101
"...must alter insulin or leptin..."
Beware of these kinds of assumptions. The actual mechanism may have nothing to do with endocrine differences: it may be a purely behavioral effect, or it may be the 9% less glucose yield, or it may be something else entirely we can't predict. I prefer to wait for data, to alert people about what we do know (fructose containing sweeteners are bad), and to continue investigating.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@DoesItAddUp101
Please source your factual claims. Environ Health. 2009; 8: 2.
"potential average daily total mercury exposure from HFCS could range from zero to 28.4 μg mercury."
It's not "a form of mercury" that is used. It's small amounts of alkali, used to balance the pH, which is purified in a process with mercury. If you have this article, read Table 1 for Manufacturer A: all but one sample contained NO detectable lead. It was Mfg B that had a problem.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
Ha! My mistake, DoesItAddUp101:
"Table 1 for Manufacturer A: all but one sample contained NO detectable *mercury*"
Good catch.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@DoesItAddUp101
Way to dishonestly quote mine me. the very next words in the sentence (that you cut off): "...but only because a certain portion of it goes almost straight to fat metabolism." and then I went on to explain why GI alone isn't a good indicator for obesigenic foods.
Small amounts of fructose, especially in concert with soluble fiber found in natural fruits, can represent a better choice than sucrose sweetened desserts.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1194-203.
"In 34 subjects, 24-h glucose, insulin, leptin, ghrelin, and TG profiles were similar between days that sucrose or HFCS was consumed.... Sucrose and HFCS do not have substantially different short-term endocrine/metabolic effects."
So your hypothesis that sucrose and HFCS cause different insulin-dependent cascades is not supported by recent studies, therefore your attitude of smug superiority is not warranted.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@DoesItAddUp101
Please cite articles properly: Obes Res. 1998 May;6(3):225-30.
This research supports a role for insulin, but doesn't compare the triggering of metabolic response in sucrose vs. HFCS. This paper, however, does. Nutrition. 2007 Feb;23(2):103-12.
"These short-term results suggest that, when fructose is consumed in the form of HFCS, the measured metabolic responses [glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin] do not differ from Suc in lean women."
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
I don't drink sodas, but I drink a lot of V8 juice and cranberry juice. Is this a good idea, or should I lay off of it?
Abena20 8 months ago
Also the problem that the corn is genetically modified to take more of their special pesticide that is sprayed on the corn, this makes the corn syrup highly packed with pesticide.
SigR1988 8 months ago
@SigR1988 Genetically modified corn is fine, there is no evidence to suggest that it is in any way worse for us than non-genetically modified corn. Also the reason people tend to not like genetically modified food isn't that it gets sprayed with pesticide, almost all vegetables including organic vegetables get sprayed with pesticides. Having said that any trace amounts of pesticides that make it into HFCS (assuming it isn't all destroyed when the corn is processed into HFCS) is fine for you
robertscooking 8 months ago
@robertscooking The corn is genetically enhanced to absorbs pesticide in more quantities than regular corn because it's designed to do that don't take my word for it search for corn and pesticide and you'll see there's a legitimate concern about this.
SigR1988 8 months ago
@SigR1988 I could not find information to back up your claim but I'll assume your not making it up, this is still not a legitamate consern and heres why. Do you eat organic? Organic celery contains about 8 times more traces of pesticides than non-organic, which is enough that people who handle organic celery develop rashes from it, so why shouldn't you be concerned? Because the amount of cancer risk you get from all the pesticides you eat in life is equivalent to risk from a few cups of coffee
robertscooking 8 months ago
I've been asked about this and I keep saying that the problem with HFC is not it's sugar content, it's that it's used as a filler in EVERYTHING. Thickening, sweetener, etc etc etc. So it's more the sheer amount of it that's almost unavoidable in your diet (although I think less so here in Australia)
kelarael 8 months ago
do you have any videos about salt,the reason i ask is my father has small stem cell cancer and for him because of his treatments the more salt he eats the better as treatment robs the body of salt and the internet is not the best place to get info on it though there are tons of web sight,since you seem to know what you are talking about and if you can find time to do something about salt it would be appreciated,thanks
johndebbra 8 months ago
I think that everyone is aware that they are different, you seem to say that they're not significantly different to our body. Because your overall point is that we should use less sugar you should hit on the evidence for people who use less sugar being healthier rather than focusing on what seems to be the irrelevent point on the differences in sugar types. Also I love many of your other videos and i'm just trying to help you make the ovrall argument on this one more convincing.
robertscooking 8 months ago
Comment removed
robertscooking 8 months ago
Comment removed
robertscooking 8 months ago
We also need awareness that HFCS and sucrose are chemically different, and require different processes to break down and be utilized by the body - not to mention that HFCS is man-made, and not all factors of this production are released publicly. Even the corn growers, with whom I was debating, just referred to some parts by misleading blanket terms (like "enzymes"). HFCS contains free glucose, which the body uses without expending essentially any calories. Blood sugar spike, and diabetes.
UsagiJin 8 months ago
I am not sure a "mostly vegetable" diet is generally good advice. That is currently not was you get from major health organizations. Just the cost of eating this way would be very high, according to Dr. Drewnowski, director of the center for public health nutrition at the University of Washington, it would cost $36.32 a day for a diet of low-energy dense foods, which is what mostly vegetable would considers This compare to $3.52 a day if it consisted of junk food.
Loathomar 8 months ago
I am not saying eat junk food, but the idea of eating mostly veggies is a bit much, if not off the deep end. There is nothing wrong with whole gains which are far cheapest and still very nutritious. Eating a balanced diet with fresh fruit and veg, whole grains and reasonable low fat meat seem far better advice the "mostly vegetables".
Loathomar 8 months ago
@Loathomar I'm vegetarian more often than not because my spouse is. It costs less than meat. Just know where to get your proteins/vitamins/minerals, & cook fresh food. $80 p/ wk or less for groceries, & we're in one of the more expensive cities. That said, I agree with you. Key is cook fresh food and eat a healthy diet. I would rather mine included more meat and eggs, making it more balanced, but oh well. =) You can still be healthy without if you're careful.
SisterOfKarn 8 months ago
@SisterOfKarn Generally vegetarianism can be cheap, far cheaper then non-vegetarian, but more vegetarians do not get mostly vegs. Most of most vegetarian's calories come from gains, rice and wheat being the main two. Rice, Wheat, oats and corn are all very very cheap in general and per calories. Fresh Veggies on the other can are reasonable costly in general and VERY costly per calorie. Example; 1 cup of Asparagus has 27 calories and will cost a few bucks, a cup of rice has 205 and cost cents.
Loathomar 8 months ago
@Loathomar I appreciate what you're saying, but statistics don't always accurately represent the general population. What I was trying to say, pretty poorly I admit, is the larger part of our diet, and all of our vege friends too, is veges and not grains. Most of our diet is legumes & veggies. We do have rice once or twice a week with a dish, & sometimes quinoa. We do have oatmeal for breakfast and make fresh bread at home, though I hate whole grain bread so we rarely make it.
SisterOfKarn 8 months ago
@Loathomar My point is it does not cost $36 p/day for a mostly vege diet & you can still be healthy eating like that. We live in one of the more expensive cities and states in the US and it's nowhere near that much. More like $5.72 per day, which might still be more than if we ate more grains, but not by all that much. A study that puts the cost per day so high is skewed, based on by experience. I honestly don't know if grains are really that much cheaper, never checked. I should.
SisterOfKarn 8 months ago
@Loathomar Ugh, there I go again, not thinking. I said "it does not cost $36 p/day for a mostly vege diet & you can still be healthy eating like that.". What I meant, and hope was more clear than I read it, is "... a mostly vege diet based on a lot more vegetables and legumes than grains...". Sorry. For some reason my brain doesn't seem to be working well this week. =)
SisterOfKarn 8 months ago
@Loathomar o_O $3.52 must buy a lot more junk food in the US than it does in Canada...
Zahlman 8 months ago
@Zahlman I didn't do the study, but this was a question of buying 2,000 cal. 3 2L cola drinks will have well over that amount and cost around that. Cheap candy would be another way.
Loathomar 8 months ago
I agree we consume too much sugars. *I have a question* A documentery on Hulu.com "Future of Food" it spoke of All Corn crops being Bioengineered with a biotoxin to kill corn borers. Reason being a pesticide applied topicly (roundup) will not affect a borer. Most all creatures use bacteria to process (Digest) food. I have recently been made aware of the fact my daughter has IBS. We discussed the fact that this is an intestinal. I have started to research IBS and it affects like 1 in 6.
jgwoodworking 8 months ago
@jgwoodworking
63% of domestic corn production is Bt transgenic (as of 2010). Bt is a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis, and the product causes damage to insects, and only insects. Toxicon. 2007 Mar 15;49(4):423-35.
IBS is likely more to do with gut flora and I'm involved in a project around an IBS-like animal model. We see the greatest effect with regular dietary soluble fiber. Oatmeal and oat fiber change the gut flora over time.
Your doctor should advise you on treatment.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
Comment removed
jgwoodworking 8 months ago
well we are all gonna die somehow may as well enjoy yourself while you are here
pineapplejon 8 months ago
Good vid! I've got a question for you. In one of our physiology classes, we compare glucose metabolism with fructose metabolism in a glucose tolerance test. Fructose has a low GI (from 13-25, depending on what paper you are reading) because of the differences in metabolism between the two. This slows insulin production, so it was said to be better for diabetic 2 sufferers than glucose.
I suppose it goes to show that low GI =/= healthy. What's your take on this?
nervousneuron 8 months ago
@nervousneuron
Absolutely. Fructose has a lot of value for Type 2 diabetics, but only because a certain portion of it goes almost straight to fat metabolism. Butter has a low GI as well, that should tip you off on why GI is not an indication of potential to obesity.
Portions are important, of course. Butter isn't evil, but you don't want to eat four sticks a day. Excess fructose feeds fat biosynthesis, but it must be in excess.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
enjoyed the first 90% or so of your lecture - but - take issue with your prescription. THE REASON I disagree will have to wait for a later comment :)
ThisbeandPyramus 8 months ago
Awesome vid! =) I only partially disagree with one thing though. Have you seen the epidemiology of how Fructose is broken down for energy? It's different in a few stages, particularly in the Kreb Cycle. The body can definitely tell the difference, & the effect is like long term alcoholism without the intoxication. Because HFCS is monomer, you don't need to break it down, it starts absorbing the moment it hits your mouth. & without Fiber to slow absorption... Anyway, great vid! thanks! =)
SisterOfKarn 8 months ago
@SisterOfKarn The video explains exactly why the monomer nature of HFCS doesn't matter very much.
Zahlman 8 months ago
I was *this* close to having cheesecake for breakfast, and you ruined it. Gee thanks!
Actually, yeah... thanks.
ManicEightBall 8 months ago
Every time I'm tempted to buy a chocolate bar with lunch I need to remember videos like this in order to discourage myself.
SecondQuantisation 8 months ago
Alcohol is just a simple carbohydrate every thing that you consume your body breaks down to sugar’s for energy vegetables have fiber in them so that makes them complex carbohydrate, so your body has to work harder at deriving the sugar from it. Eat 3 to 5 times a day…Food mostly vegetables….The less refined the better.
ttopperr 8 months ago
Fantastic video! I hope that people begin to realize the negative effects found in the way we eat in modern times.Around two years ago I stopped eating foods and drinks with HFCS and also trans-fats(partially hydrogenated oils). I was a little over 15 years of age and weighed approximately 175 pounds. Now I'm 17 and after changing my diet I weigh 155 pounds;I haven't changed my activity/ excercise habits so I attribute that loss to my diet, though my hormonal changes might also have a part too.
BreathingKnowledge 8 months ago
@BreathingKnowledge First, the modern way of eating is way healthier than how humans ate before, during ancient ages it would be a miracle to reach the age of 40. Secondly, to just completely cutting out unhealthy foods is simply making the matter complicated. You will see way better results by just increasing your activity level. I personally eat anything, but i'm in perfect shape just because i work-out twice a day. It's positive for my daily life, and best of all it's simple.
cocacolaligification 8 months ago
I wonder what monomers alcohol breaks down into?
I've heard that the body breaks it down into sugars but which monomers, specifically?
puppycow 8 months ago
@puppycow other way around, sugars break down into ethyl alcohol. however if memory serves this is only true in an environment without oxygen (or without enough). In humans this only happens in the muscles where sugars break down into alcohol and lactic acid, which is why your muscles burn after being active.
satanisthetruegod666 8 months ago
@puppycow an example of sugars breaking down into alcohol is fermentation. If you put hops, water, a few other things and yeast into a barrel and let it sit where it can't get air the yeast breaks down the sugars in the hops and turns them into alcohol, however the yeast lacks the ability to further break down the alcohol into simpler molecules, unlike the human body. This is how you get beer. Any alcohol you drink was at one point a sugar.
satanisthetruegod666 8 months ago
I suggest you review the findings of UCLA's study that was published last year in the journal Cancer Research regarding how pancreatic tumor cells use fructose and glucose, then perhaps you'd be inclined to revise your assertions about their similarity. Hint: fructose was proven much, much worse, regardless of its chemical similarity. While you're at it, research to what level corn production is subsidized in the U.S., then add that to why HFCS is going nowhere soon.
nihilistsneedhugstoo 8 months ago
Because of this video, I have subscribed to you... this is brilliant work. Thanks :)
Nothingreallyexists 8 months ago
He gives us advice yet makes our mouth water To T
That's a test of will.
AkuZod 8 months ago
i want a buttery steak now
viperstrike0 8 months ago
Thank you for making this...
myst32YT 8 months ago
What are the yellow berries at 8:27? Are they just a variant of raspberries I haven't seen?
aliendragon17 8 months ago
Great video
I'm eagerly waiting for your Stevia video.
Platypus2048 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Loved your video, very informative. One thing about your last remark though, next to vegetables you also need the occasional fat. Most people take enough fat/oil on a daily basis and not eating enough fat for a while won't harm you.
In the long term you might get a shortage of certain things though.
ailidhe 8 months ago
Comment removed
ailidhe 8 months ago
Thank you for doing this, I just shake my ahead as people buy "organic, natural, no HFCS" sugar loaded drinks and food thinking they'll be healthier and then still complain about about how they're still overweight.
As note I have a sweet tooth which I usually use a mix of aspartame(cause it's cheap) and Stevia. I like the Stevia because it adds a unique flavor so I'm looking foward to your video on it. I will of course research it now anyway.
subach 8 months ago
Would really love to watch your non nutritive sweetner video. It seems to me there isn't enough research to make claims for either side for me and theres lot of misinformation, bias and controversy floating about it on both sides. Or maybe there is now? id love to hear what youd have to say.
This could be the next smoking cause cancer or cell phone causes cancer. But smoking at least had strong correlation to people getting ill before we couldve proved it. That doesnt seem to be the case here.
jkim1221 8 months ago
I have to give my thumbs up to this video. This is some pretty solid science, not the usual HFCS apologetics I've come to expect from the "skeptical" community. I have heard that fructose is particularly bad in that the liver becomes a "sugar sponge" so to speak, soaking up an unusually high amount of sugars when fructose is present in the bloodstream which is of course hard on the liver. Perhaps you can look into that. I heard it on Robb Wolf's podcast.
oggleman 8 months ago
I was diagnosed with fructose malabsorption after becoming very ill at the end of 06. I my diet wasnt very high in fructose relative to most but none the less it had devastating effects, the slow accumulation of toxins lowered my immune system enough for me to contract a retrovirus (XMRV) & now the lasting effects are manageable but not curable. I recommend to everybody out there to reduce their daily intake of fructose by at least 80%, you'll be much healthier, happier and probably live longer.
AussieNaturalist 8 months ago
@AussieNaturalist What is your evidence for that 80% figure? In and of itself that figure would mean something different to everyone. Are you calling fructose toxic to others or just yourself?
TheAlphaPyro 8 months ago
@TheAlphaPyro Sorry I thought I was fairly clear when I said "I recommend", its just my opinion based on my travels around the world B4 I got sick. After reading my comment I also realised that I should have included ALL types of processed sugars, not to mention fast foods ie; the "super sizing" of meals & drinks, a small sized fast food meal is bad enough. As I stated that I have a fructose malabsorption I presumed that ppl would relate the "toxic" comment to ME and NOT to everyone else.
AussieNaturalist 8 months ago
@AussieNaturalist
Who diagnosed you with XMRV infection? Do you know anything about what test was used?
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance WHO: Prof. K De Meirleir using R.E.D Labs (Belgium), in association with Dr. D Lewis (Aus, Melb).
HOW: RED Labs states that they "use the same method which was published in the Lombardi et al. October 09 issue of Science".
After some basic research I realised that there have been subsequent studies that failed to reproduce the same results and I have been somewhat troubled by this, do you have any data that may shine more light on the subject?
AussieNaturalist 8 months ago
@AussieNaturalist The failure in your logic is: YOU have fructose malabsorption... people dont simply get fructose malabsorption from intaking large amounts of fructose. Generally, there are environmental and genetic factors that come into play. Yes, people would be healthier if they had less HFCS in their diets as compared to eating more grains and greens, but it alone won't make them more likely to get a virus.
PalulukanMakto 8 months ago
@PalulukanMakto "The failure in your logic is"
WTF are you talking about! All I did was tell my story & give my opinion. I DIDNT claim nor was I implying that anybody will suffer the same fate as I. Studies done in Aus showed that 1 in 3 people have a glucose intolerance, the levels were varied ranging from celiac disease to flatulence, the point is that a LARGE number of people DONT KNOW of their problems, as I didnt, so lowering their intake of unnecessary sugars is a good thing.
AussieNaturalist 8 months ago
i naturally weaned myself off of sugar addiction because soda is about 1.50$ and i can't afford to drink alot of it
I do have a splurge and drink 2liters in a Long 4 hour stride
I know what i drink and i want to just say your info is top notch and have you considered being a nutritionist C0ncordance?
t3rr411 8 months ago
I could have sworn the quote was "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
SisyphusRedeemed 8 months ago 5
@SisyphusRedeemed
Okay, I'll come clean. I was quoting a misquote from an unreliable source. It is "plants" in his NY Times article on the topic.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Eat 3 to 5 times a day…Food mostly vegetables….The less refined the better.
ttopperr 8 months ago
13:50-14:07 Why would someone crave something that didn't exist? Sounds like bad thinking to me, and abuse of evolutionary theory.
AetheriusLamia 8 months ago
0:01-2:15 Evolutionary theory is not history (it is informed speculation about our origins that is useful insofar as it explains current observations) -- stop talking as if it were history.
9:35-9:47 I think the author is neglecting biology -- he seems to be suggesting that fructose pure and simple is problematic (although he does mention this point briefly regarding eating apple skin and pulp to slow digestion).
AetheriusLamia 8 months ago
Dude you contradict yourself at the 14:00 mark. You say that we should eat healthy meats but then say at 13:45 that a giant steak isn't healthy food. What's more healthy than a nice steak with veggies on the side? That's pretty much what our ancestors ate.....
tetzens 8 months ago
@tetzens
It is what humans ate when the managed to hunt and kill an animal, which was not all the time.
The point he is making is that meat and sugar are bad for you if you overindulge.
So have a stake with your veggies. Just not all the time.
lucienshand 8 months ago
06:12
You draw the swastikas wrong.
BlizBob 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
we are not civilized...
legionjdw 8 months ago
Why would anyone dislike this?
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago
Great video, common sense conclusion. I'm looking forward to the non-nutritive sweetener video.
mrlandby 8 months ago
Sub...didn't subscribe to you when I watched Longevity Gambit because I thought you were Evidence.
mruniverse27 8 months ago
Stupid delicious sugars.
What about the diet stuff? Is that gonna kill me?
Kreadus005 8 months ago
@Kreadus005 I'm wondering this as well. Diet sodas still do contain HFCS but I have no idea how much.
robotrock42 8 months ago
I thought you were going to say: "sponsored by Dasani" at the end of this...
feee99 8 months ago
@feee99 Dasani is owned by Coke
robotrock42 8 months ago
Here is the mistake: Your doctor is probably not the best place to get nutritional advice. Doctors are educated on tons of diverse topics very quickly. Their education about nutrition is likely very outdated and they may be mis-remembering it. They also got their information from some biased viewpoint and as they are doctors probably didn't take the time to check studies about nutrition with the thousands of relevant studies they actually needed to check in med school.
PainefulMass 8 months ago
@PainefulMass
I don't entirely agree with you there. c0nc0rdance's First Law is "Never take medical advice from the Internet". The corollary is: A doctor (or other health professional) is your best bet for health advice. Admittedly, not all doctors are current, not all are geniuses, and not all websites are worthless misinformation, but you're much safer with the average doctor's advice than a random website.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago 4
@PainefulMass I call bullshit on you thinking you have a better medical educational method for physicians than the modern international medical school system.
Just saying.
Christian121y 8 months ago 2
@Christian121y Please quote exactly where I say this. Thanks.
PainefulMass 8 months ago
@PainefulMass "Your doctor is probably not the best place to get nutritional advice"
"Their education about nutrition is likely very outdated and they may be mis-remembering it."
"They also got their information from some biased viewpoint"
"as they are doctors probably didn't take the time to check studies about nutrition"
You said these things in a comment response to a video talking about the scientific facts of High Fructose Corn Syrup.Now if we can't trust our doctors about HFCS..........
Christian121y 8 months ago
@PainefulMass ..... then please tell the rest of the class just where one can get better nutritional information that one can't get from a trained medical professional who spent years in residency and forced memorization of scientific facts.
Christian121y 8 months ago
@PainefulMass Therefore an unspoken assumption arises where one thinks you must have a better method of training med students in nutrition than our current medical school system(which is among the best in the world if not the best).
tl:dr
If you criticize something that you think is very important to society and you have no actual method of improvement on hand,then you're just an asshole with an opinion.
And like everybody's asshole your opinion is stinky.
Christian121y 8 months ago
Very interesting indeed, in Australia we have a lot of sugar cane growth, so all the sweeteners we have are derived from sugar cane and not corn.
We have an obesity crisis of our own, so you can't blame HFCS alone, the high sugar and high fat diets we are eating with our relatively (compared to hunter gatherer lifestyles) lazy lifestyles are to blame.
The solution is to educate people the dangers of heavily processed foods and increase education in cooking healthy food.
bertamon 8 months ago
@bertamon I doubt it. Education did little for smoking, even huge taxes didn't break the West's habit. Educating people that stuff they want to do (because it feels good) is bad for them is often a waste of resources.
undertehlaw 8 months ago
I actually like the taste of aspartame... : /
Harizl 8 months ago
Cane Sugar tastes and feels better than HFCS. Just stating an opinion. Working at a restaurant, and having free access to the soda machine, I notice that I was gravitating more towards the Sierra Mist, or at worst mixing it with the Dr Pepper. One day I realized that it was because the Sierra Mist was "Pure Cane Sugar" and the rest were HFCS.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 8 months ago
HFCS is in nothing we evolved to eat. Fat, protein, veggies... pretty simple really. The closer you can get to paleo, the better for most people. I still see about 20% in our clinic that respond well to a higher starch content, but it's rare that they have any serious disease states. The ones that do simply get better without foods that convert to glucose. It is overly simplistic, but the adage that there are "no essential carbohydrates" is basically true.
rationalmuscle 8 months ago
@rationalmuscle
I don't particularly care about your conclusion, but I'm a bit disturbed by the logic you use to get there. "We evolved to eat this" is not a very compelling argument. We evolved to die at 30, after all.
I worry that you're flirting with the naturalistic fallacy: "the primitive state of something is always ideal". That seems to be some of the thinking behind paleo diets, but unless it's supported empirically, I'm skeptical.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago 21
@C0nc0rdance Actually every study ever done is fairly direct support of a paleo diet. See the book Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes for an amazing look at all these studies. The phrase that we evolved to eat this is not the justification, it is a later observation that this is probably the reason it is healthier (our digestive systems haven't had time to figure out how to digest it) but the fact of it comes from the studies.
PainefulMass 8 months ago
@PainefulMass
I am skeptical of any claim that "all evidence supports X". I'm happy to entertain specific claims with specific evidence, but I find that sometimes people cherry-pick and cobble together studies that are tangential to a lifestyle.
A quick search of the medical literature finds only one group (in Lund, Sweden) testing the Paleo diet. Promising results, I agree, and I have nothing against Paleo. I just want to make sure your support is evidence-based.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago 7
@C0nc0rdance I don't know where you're checking, but google Volek et al. Listening to Volek almost turns me into a conspiracy theorist. Your fallacy is in how publications in nutritional fields work. Jeff (my guys as well) has waited 'years' to get something published despite overwhelming data, ideal study parameters, etc. Anyway, they examined sat fat in the blood post high-fat/high "healthy" carb LF meals. They've looked at insulin, MS, CHD... all difficult to argue. It's nasty out there.
rationalmuscle 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance We didn't evolve to die at 30. Menopause is rare, humans evolved so that women have it; there was significant evolutionary pressure among women older than their mid 40's to cause this.
I worry you're assuming "the more developed state of something is always more ideal". Our cultural heritage pretty much begins with unhealthful agriculture, but farming did not necessarily produce healthier people than a forager society simply because agricultural societies out competed forager ones.
undertehlaw 8 months ago
@undertehlaw
The fallacy is generalizing either way. I try to avoid any argument that says, "This is old, therefore it is good" or "this is new, therefore it is good". Each health practice must be empirically supported, independent of its source (natural vs. artificial) or antiquity (old vs. new).
I can cheat on my 30 years old claim. If I go back far enough, I can find an ancestor where longevity beyond 30 was rare. Selection usually favors diminishing resource use beyond fertile age.
C0nc0rdance 8 months ago
@C0nc0rdance The fallacy is inappropriately using a null hypothesis rather than Solomonoff induction when making claims about what is probably true. Online: mdpi.com/1099-4300/13/6/1076/pdf
Science is a social system to create a body of almost certainly true knowledge. It is not designed to tell you what is probably true unless there is overwhelming evidence. In absence of scientifically validated nutrition knowledge, we must eat. Fortunately we can still say much about what is probably true.
undertehlaw 8 months ago
@undertehlaw
Sorry for the link that won't work. The article is here.
Entropy 2011, 13, 1076-1136; doi:10.3390/e13061076
ISSN 1099-4300
A Philosophical Treatise of Universal Induction
Samuel Rathmanner and Marcus Hutter
undertehlaw 8 months ago