It is indeed, I created this video on a contract for a company who sells diabetes products, I don't know where they got the data, so I can't really respond to its quality of content.
It seems strange that from 1975-1982 Obesity SKYROCKETS by 20%, then immediately plataeus, only marginally affected by HFCS by rising another 10 in 20 years... Clearly something happened that takes much more precedence than HFCS. And is that average intake? average ammount put in consumed food? The graph is quite ambigous.
I would respond with something worthwhile if I was the one who came up with this data, but I only made the "dancing lines", personally I think HFCS tastes wonderful and I don't have much of a clue if it makes people fat. It's calories, eating too many calories in comparison to how many you burn, you'll get fat. Thats all I know.
Table sugar has been around for centuries, HFCS is a relatively new product. High fructose corn syrup is more processed than any other form of more natural sugars, which means it has a lower glycemic index value. Having a lower GI value means that HFCS is converted to glucose in the blood stream faster than regular sugar or honey, which encourages the body to turn that "moderate" amount of HFCS into body fat. There is a direct relation between it and obesity. The reason it isn't banned is money.
fructose, either from HFCS or table sugar has NO GI response. (the liver needs no insulin to convert fructose.) further fructose is NOT converted to glucose. it's converted to ATP up to a point and from then to fatty acids. later the fatty acids are stored as fat.
it's the fructose in sugars that is the problem. sucrose is just as bad for you as HFCS.
lack of insulin response makes fructose impossible to eat in moderation since leptin isn't produced.
Nice to see someone who can look at a graph and not be dazzled by a couple dancing lines. I really worry about HFCS in our foods, but while this graph shows correlation, it doesn't make sense for the obesity to start shooting up before the HFCS use. This does not show causation.
Do Total Sugars vs Obesity and you will see a better graph.
wade2bosh 11 months ago
It is indeed, I created this video on a contract for a company who sells diabetes products, I don't know where they got the data, so I can't really respond to its quality of content.
generalhelaman 1 year ago
It seems strange that from 1975-1982 Obesity SKYROCKETS by 20%, then immediately plataeus, only marginally affected by HFCS by rising another 10 in 20 years... Clearly something happened that takes much more precedence than HFCS. And is that average intake? average ammount put in consumed food? The graph is quite ambigous.
3rdeye7thdimension 1 year ago
So you're telling me that by 1980 Obesity spiked 20%! 3 letters for you W O W!
rckpop9 1 year ago
I would respond with something worthwhile if I was the one who came up with this data, but I only made the "dancing lines", personally I think HFCS tastes wonderful and I don't have much of a clue if it makes people fat. It's calories, eating too many calories in comparison to how many you burn, you'll get fat. Thats all I know.
generalhelaman 1 year ago
Table sugar has been around for centuries, HFCS is a relatively new product. High fructose corn syrup is more processed than any other form of more natural sugars, which means it has a lower glycemic index value. Having a lower GI value means that HFCS is converted to glucose in the blood stream faster than regular sugar or honey, which encourages the body to turn that "moderate" amount of HFCS into body fat. There is a direct relation between it and obesity. The reason it isn't banned is money.
soullessgagdoll 3 years ago
@soullessgagdoll woah!
fructose, either from HFCS or table sugar has NO GI response. (the liver needs no insulin to convert fructose.) further fructose is NOT converted to glucose. it's converted to ATP up to a point and from then to fatty acids. later the fatty acids are stored as fat.
it's the fructose in sugars that is the problem. sucrose is just as bad for you as HFCS.
lack of insulin response makes fructose impossible to eat in moderation since leptin isn't produced.
stupidnamenoonecares 1 year ago
very weak correlation. To say HFCS is bad is to say that sugar is bad, it simply needs to be consumed in moderation.
spinapen 3 years ago
What was this video trying to prove? Obesity started to climb steeply in 1970 where as HFCS didn't climb until the mid 80s.
ThisMikeGuy 3 years ago
@ThisMikeGuy
Nice to see someone who can look at a graph and not be dazzled by a couple dancing lines. I really worry about HFCS in our foods, but while this graph shows correlation, it doesn't make sense for the obesity to start shooting up before the HFCS use. This does not show causation.
Zorroness 1 year ago
HFCS needs to be banned!
michaelmiyamoto 4 years ago