U.S. obesity problem intensifies

[Sun Countess]

Re HFCS:

How in the world did you manage that? The stuff is in everything.

I eat only whole foods and drink only water (not as boring as it sounds!). I don't eat any processed foods. There are no boxes on my cupboard shelves anymore! I guess there's a possibility that I ingested some at a restaurant at some point....but not at home. It means a lot of cooking and prep work, but the health benefits have been tremendous, and I was fairly healthy to start with.

 

[Dymanic]

In everything processed, but not in real food. That's the point in the beginning of the subtitle of Pollan's book: "Eat food." By food he means, real whole foods, not processed foods or food-like substances.

Real food. You mean like yogurt?

...ooooops!

Seriously, I know what Pollan means. My point (and one of Pollan's, for that matter) is that HFCS in particular is ubiquitous; it's very hard to avoid it altogether.

 

[rsaavedra]

Re HFCS:
I eat only whole foods and drink only water (not as boring as it sounds!). I don't eat any processed foods. There are no boxes on my cupboard shelves anymore! I guess there's a possibility that I ingested some at a restaurant at some point....but not at home. It means a lot of cooking and prep work, but the health benefits have been tremendous, and I was fairly healthy to start with.

That's exactly what I'm starting to do, except that I'm also drinking some red wine every night.

My main problem will be to learn how to cook, since I've never been good at it. Starting to read "The Joy of Cooking" but not sure if that's a good place to start. Any cooking book recommendations for total beginners are welcome

PS. I'm also thinking that having your own farm is a good long term goal; or else, living near enough good healthy farms with variety of crops and yields.

 

[ZirconBlue]

My main problem will be to learn how to cook, since I've never been good at it. Starting to read "The Joy of Cooking" but not sure if that's a good place to start. Any cooking book recommendations for total beginners are welcome

I turn to the America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook time and again. Clear instructions & well-tested recipes. Anything by America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Illustrated is good. Weeknights I often cook from their Best 30-minute Recipes book.

 

[rsaavedra]

Thanks ZirconBlue!

 

[tyr_13]

In everything processed, but not in real food. That's the point in the beginning of the subtitle of Pollan's book: "Eat food." By food he means, real whole foods, not processed foods or food-like substances.

I'm sorry, but this sets off my 'woo meter' something fierce. 'Real' food is non processed? How are the noodles I buy from the store any different from the one's I make? Why would it being in a box or can change it? Why is food grown in my (rather sizable) garden supposed to be better for me than the genetically identical ones from the store?

Please, I know it must be a very good book, but it just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy writ large. How are processed foods bad for you? What is the research cited? So far I've seen a lot of personal anecdotes and nothing else.

HFCS is no different than sugar. Too much is bad. But how is it so bad that one should avoid it altogether?

I guess, in short, evidence? How, why, and what?

EDIT: Also, what are 'food like substances'? This reminds me of raw food BS.

 

[rsaavedra]

I'm sorry, but this sets off my 'woo meter' something fierce. 'Real' food is non processed? How are the noodles I buy from the store any different from the one's I make? Why would it being in a box or can change it? Why is food grown in my (rather sizable) garden supposed to be better for me than the genetically identical ones from the store?

Please, I know it must be a very good book, but it just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy writ large. How are processed foods bad for you? What is the research cited? So far I've seen a lot of personal anecdotes and nothing else.

HFCS is no different than sugar. Too much is bad. But how is it so bad that one should avoid it altogether?

I guess, in short, evidence? How, why, and what?

EDIT: Also, what are 'food like substances'? This reminds me of raw food BS.

Very interesting questions. But those are too many, will address just one of them.

So you think any two cows are equal? Regardless of how healthy and well fed one might be, and the other might be underfed and sick? Would you think milk and meat from either cows might have equal nutritious value to you? Well, they don't, even if they are genetic clones. Same for plants. Any two genetically identical plants might have grown in very different soils, fertilized differently, under different environmental conditions, and under different pesticide concentrations, ending up having very different nutritious values (and toxicity values for that matter). So they can end up in effect being very different foods depending on how they were grown, regardless of their genetic identity.

I encourage you to read the book. Might sound again like a degradation to RTFM, but really, you'll get a lot betters answers to your questions there, and references to the research and supporting evidence, than the ones you'll see here on a forum.

 

[tyr_13]

Very interesting questions. But those are too many, will address just one of them.

So you think any two cows are equal? Regardless of how healthy and well fed one might be, and the other might be underfed and sick? Would you think meat from both cows might have equal nutritious value to you? Well, they don't, even if they are genetic clones. Same for plants. Any two genetically identical plants might have grown in very different soils, fertilized differently, under different environmental conditions, and under different pesticide concentrations, ending up having very different nutritious values (and toxicity values for that matter). So they can end up in effect being very different foods depending on how they were grown, regardless of their genetic identity.

I encourage you to read the book. Might sound again like a degradation to RTFM, but really, you'll get a lot betters answers to your questions there, and references to the research and supporting evidence, than the ones you'll see here on a forum.

Disease would introduce unwanted things into the meat, yes. However, regulations limit this. They would have the same nutrients unless they were withed something. The meat would still be the same proteins, the same fats, the same enzymes, in different quantities.

Plants are going to have the same things in them unless one was planted in say, cadmium. Of course it's a good thing the big food produces have to follow regulations huh? No, they will not have different nutrients. One might be larger than the other, or more well formed, but excepting disease, they will be the same carbohydrates, the same anti-oxidants, in different quantities.

Organic produce, for example, has been shown over and over to be identical to conventionally grown food. This is despite using different almost everything in production except for land and tractors. These plants were grown in very different soils, fertilized differently, under different environmental conditions, and under different pesticide concentrations, yet didn't end up having very different nutritious values or toxicity values for that matter. They did have a difference in disease though (organic as more).

Food production is among the most regulated of industries, and for good reason.

 

[Sun Countess]

I'm sorry, but this sets off my 'woo meter' something fierce. 'Real' food is non processed? How are the noodles I buy from the store any different from the one's I make? Why would it being in a box or can change it? Why is food grown in my (rather sizable) garden supposed to be better for me than the genetically identical ones from the store?

Noodles from the store may be the same as ones you make at home. But many of those boxes contain little packets of powder that turn into some kind of sauce when mixed with boiling water. That will not be the same as what you make at home.

HFCS is no different than sugar. Too much is bad. But how is it so bad that one should avoid it altogether?

The issues around HFCS are more environmental than calorie-based. It's a whole corn-growing industrial farm issue that I'm too tired to address with any justice.

I guess, in short, evidence? How, why, and what?

I'll grab my books tomorrow and try to link some of Pollan's cites.

EDIT: Also, what are 'food like substances'? This reminds me of raw food BS.

Yogurt in-a-tube, fruit roll-ups, twinkies, fudgicles, packets of powder sauces, many microwaveable frozen meals, etc. Basically he's referencing foods your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize.

Pollan talks a lot about the benefits of real food, but it's more about being aware of where the food you eat comes from. How did your food get from the ground to your plate? His books are well-written and will probably change some of your eating habits. I don't think it's woo to want to prepare your own meals from real ingredients.

 

[tyr_13]

Pollan talks a lot about the benefits of real food, but it's more about being aware of where the food you eat comes from. How did your food get from the ground to your plate? His books are well-written and will probably change some of your eating habits. I don't think it's woo to want to prepare your own meals from real ingredients.

I've very tired, and will likely address more of your post in the morning, but I would like to point out that I very much doubt that. I'm very aware where my food comes from. My family has been in the food service industry longer than I've been alive. That's owning and operating a diner on and off, my mother is a waitress, and my father was the director of marketing and purchasing for a food distributor for many years until recently. I'm surrounded by dairy farms and vineyards. We've always had a garden. I've toured slaughter houses and canning operations, winerys and cheese factories. My grape jam from my own grape vines is great.

In many cases, I know exactly how the food got to my plate. I've done the growth, transport, and preparation stages myself enough times.

Can we all stop calling some things 'real' food? It's an alarmist buzz word. "This is REAL food, it's safe," actually means, "the other food is not really food at all," so it's dirt? Real food is whatever your body can digest for energy. Rawhide leather can even be food. Real food.

 

[Kaylee]

HFCS is no different than sugar. Too much is bad. But how is it so bad that one should avoid it altogether?

The issues around HFCS are more environmental than calorie-based. It's a whole corn-growing industrial farm issue that I'm too tired to address with any justice.

My problem with HFCS is that it's everywhere.
It takes time and effort to find the brands that have no or at least very little sugar.

Some manufacturers use several types of sugar in their ingredients so if you don't look carefully it may at first glance appear that the food has less sugar than you think. I understand that despite consumer requests for this change in nutrition labels, food manufacturers have been very resistant to showing a breakdown in sugars grams between which is added to the manufactured food and what is naturally part of the main ingredient. Canned crushed tomatoes or cereal would be a good example where this info would be very helpful.

A little sugar is OK -- but honestly with some food manufacturers its seems like their motto is: have a little food with your sugar!

 

[GreNME]

I'm sorry, but this sets off my 'woo meter' something fierce. 'Real' food is non processed? How are the noodles I buy from the store any different from the one's I make? Why would it being in a box or can change it? Why is food grown in my (rather sizable) garden supposed to be better for me than the genetically identical ones from the store?

Mmm, the difference is often in the amount of corn or soy products that go into them. The preponderance of corn products is especially troublesome, which I'll get into.

HFCS is no different than sugar. Too much is bad. But how is it so bad that one should avoid it altogether?

HFCS is different in that causes the body to not produce the hormone leptin, which tells the brain you are full and can stop eating. There are also reports that HFCS initiates the "fat producing gene" in bodies, though in all honesty I believe this is tied to the suppression of leptin, which causes the body to accumulate the extra calories in the form of fats and fat deposits.

I guess, in short, evidence? How, why, and what?

EDIT: Also, what are 'food like substances'? This reminds me of raw food BS.

It's not like the raw food nonsense because it's addressing real concerns about the production of things like HFCS, the processes that go into making it, the differences it actually has from sugar (in how it affects the body), and possible issues regarding the regulation of it. This blog post is an example of some criticisms that can be brought up against HFCS that are rarely, if ever, adequately addressed by the Corn Refiners Association, and are instead dismissed because there is still not scientific consensus on the issue-- which isn't surprising, since much like the (anti) Global Climate Change lobbies in the US there are plenty of organizations that can claim to produce conflicting results (though I know of no real conflicts on the leptin issue).

Disease would introduce unwanted things into the meat, yes. However, regulations limit this. They would have the same nutrients unless they were withed something. The meat would still be the same proteins, the same fats, the same enzymes, in different quantities.

Plants are going to have the same things in them unless one was planted in say, cadmium. Of course it's a good thing the big food produces have to follow regulations huh? No, they will not have different nutrients. One might be larger than the other, or more well formed, but excepting disease, they will be the same carbohydrates, the same anti-oxidants, in different quantities.

Organic produce, for example, has been shown over and over to be identical to conventionally grown food. This is despite using different almost everything in production except for land and tractors. These plants were grown in very different soils, fertilized differently, under different environmental conditions, and under different pesticide concentrations, yet didn't end up having very different nutritious values or toxicity values for that matter. They did have a difference in disease though (organic as more).

Food production is among the most regulated of industries, and for good reason.

The US food regulation, with regard to corn and soy-- the two most re-engineered and patented types of food in the US-- is mostly a joke. The US regulations require no company that makes processed food to include anything but basic ingredient lists on their packaging, which compared to most of Europe is brief and non-informative. You're not even going to be able to get any kind of food that doesn't have some form of engineered corn or soy any more, which while there's no need to buy into the woo arguments about genetically-engineered food there should be concerns about transgenic crosses getting into other plants, since the properties in the genetically-enhanced crops are meant to serve insecticidal and herbicidal purposes (which can cause ecological damage if those properties multiply unchecked). Considering transgenic crops do not actually produce any appreciably larger crop yields than non-engineered foods, despite these expensive (and proprietary) crop lines, the case in favor of producing them begins to fail on a level that goes beyond general health and into environmental factors.

Can we all stop calling some things 'real' food? It's an alarmist buzz word. "This is REAL food, it's safe," actually means, "the other food is not really food at all," so it's dirt? Real food is whatever your body can digest for energy. Rawhide leather can even be food. Real food.

Actually, regulatory agencies elsewhere (not in the US) make distinctions between genetically engineered (transgenic) foods and non-engineered foods, and for several good reasons. For a good (but long) read on the subject opposing transgenic crops in agriculture, check out this link.

Honestly, the main thing that nations with high obesity rates need to think about is a general change in consumption levels, but beyond that very basic point there are other mitigating factors that really do seem to be working against this being an easy (or simple) thing to accomplish, particularly in the US.

 

[Sun Countess]

I'm very aware where my food comes from. My family has been in the food service industry longer than I've been alive. That's owning and operating a diner on and off, my mother is a waitress, and my father was the director of marketing and purchasing for a food distributor for many years until recently. I'm surrounded by dairy farms and vineyards. We've always had a garden. I've toured slaughter houses and canning operations, winerys and cheese factories. My grape jam from my own grape vines is great.

In many cases, I know exactly how the food got to my plate. I've done the growth, transport, and preparation stages myself enough times.

Clearly, your experience within the food industry is not typical for most North Americans. Many are happy to pick up something convenient from a box or a drive-through window and never stop to think about how it got there.

Can we all stop calling some things 'real' food? It's an alarmist buzz word. "This is REAL food, it's safe," actually means, "the other food is not really food at all," so it's dirt? Real food is whatever your body can digest for energy. Rawhide leather can even be food. Real food.

I know I mentioned Pollan's recommendation of: Real Food. Not too much. Mostly plants. I personally don't care what anyone calls it, but I know that I much prefer eating foods that are prepared from a natural state, that are not processed, that are more nutritionally dense. A big bowl of Captain Crunch may provide energy, but it's not as nutritionally dense as a bowl of whole oats and fresh fruit.

I eat the way Pollan (and others) recommends, but the rest of my family does not. It's not about being an ogre, but about becoming more educated. As I got into my forties, I needed to make some changes for my health and I'm glad I did so. My kids enjoy fast food now and then, as I did when I was in my teens. I'm not some "whole foods woo-monger" trying to scare processed foods out of anyone, but I do think people should be educated so that they may choose healthier options more often.

eta: Thanks to GreNME for providing links to info on HFCS.

 

[tyr_13]

Clearly, your experience within the food industry is not typical for most North Americans. Many are happy to pick up something convenient from a box or a drive-through window and never stop to think about how it got there.


I know I mentioned Pollan's recommendation of: Real Food. Not too much. Mostly plants. I personally don't care what anyone calls it, but I know that I much prefer eating foods that are prepared from a natural state, that are not processed, that are more nutritionally dense. A big bowl of Captain Crunch may provide energy, but it's not as nutritionally dense as a bowl of whole oats and fresh fruit.

I eat the way Pollan (and others) recommends, but the rest of my family does not. It's not about being an ogre, but about becoming more educated. As I got into my forties, I needed to make some changes for my health and I'm glad I did so. My kids enjoy fast food now and then, as I did when I was in my teens. I'm not some "whole foods woo-monger" trying to scare processed foods out of anyone, but I do think people should be educated so that they may choose healthier options more often.

eta: Thanks to GreNME for providing links to info on HFCS.

If 'real food' actually means 'unsweetened' than 'unsweetened' is the word that should be used. It appears that HFCS is the sole basis for this 'real' food thing. My view of it is essentially the same as Mr. Dunning's. The Skeptoid is episode 157, High Fructose Corn Syrup: Toxic or Tame?

I'd also point out that I'm against many protective tariffs, hate a lot of the aggro law that makes it illegal to say, grow peanuts just to protect some southern morons, and that corn is being used for things it shouldn't, like ethanol.

I just checked some of the 'unreal food' in my house. The bread? No HFCS or sugar. The milk? Nope. None in the cheese. In my tea? Nope, just tea and water. There it is! In the fruit juice and cookies. There is some in the ketchup too. The pop? No, although I do drink diet and recently picked up some 'Coke de Mexico' for my family. ("Made in Mexico with real Mexican sugar! Under real Mexican health codes, using real Mexican water.)

I'm sorry, but the one link was just an extremely alarmist editorial that wants all HFCS banned. Yes, it had links. Those links had links. There were some studies. Some said it was bad, some said it was not worse than sugar. Some of the authors are even quoted as saying, "I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more." Wiki

If this isn't just about HFCS, or sweeteners, what is it about? Corporate evil? Preservatives? Cardboard boxes?

Obviously high calorie is bad. Obviously fruits and veggies are good. No one is saying otherwise. I've enjoyed the fruits of my labor (pun intended) for years. The time that sucks is right around now, where the only thing I can get from my garden is kale. Everything else, like the beans, peas, various tomatoes, grapes, apples, apples, apples, potatoes, etc, has to wait till fall. I really want a tomato sandwich right now.

EDIT: I am, of course, willing to be wrong. I just don't see the evidence coming down against the specific ingredients of the 'western diet'. Too much without enough exercise yes. But not specifically wrong with industrial production.

 

[GreNME]

If 'real food' actually means 'unsweetened' than 'unsweetened' is the word that should be used. It appears that HFCS is the sole basis for this 'real' food thing. My view of it is essentially the same as Mr. Dunning's. The Skeptoid is episode 157, High Fructose Corn Syrup: Toxic or Tame?

Well, I'm not the one who brought up the "real food" thing, but my guess would be that the reason for HFCS being the basis for that discussion is that the producers of HFCS have lobbied heavily in order to use the "natural" designation on foods made with HFCS, including television campaigns and publications. Throwing that back as ridiculous is kind of like criticizing the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movements for their names-- in that it doesn't really address the concerns made by the groups. Anyhow, the reality is that HFCS turned about this whole 'real' food phenomenon by spending so much time, money, and effort in the cause to call itself "natural" when used as an ingredient. (see the wiki link you gave for more data)

I'm sorry, but the one link was just an extremely alarmist editorial that wants all HFCS banned. Yes, it had links. Those links had links. There were some studies. Some said it was bad, some said it was not worse than sugar. Some of the authors are even quoted as saying, "I don't think there should be a perception that high-fructose corn syrup has caused obesity until we know more." Wiki

Which link were you referring to? If you're interested, this link points to the study involving the accusations of leptin resistance from HFCS consumption. The very conclusion of the study is that HFCS affects leptin resistance, and it's not simply a correlative relationship, but a causal one. A quote from the abstract: "Absence of anorexic response to intraperitoneal leptin injection was associated with 25.7% decrease in hypothalamic signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) phosphorylation in the high-fructose fed rats compared with controls (p=0.015). Subsequent exposure of the fructose-mediated leptin-resistant rats to a high fat diet lead to exacerbated weight gain (50.2 ± 2 g) compared with correspondingly fed leptin-responsive animals that were pre-treated with the fructose-free diet (30.4 ± 5.8 g, p= 0.012). Our data indicate that chronic fructose consumption induces leptin resistance prior to body weight, adiposity, serum leptin, insulin or glucose increases, and this fructose-induced leptin resistance accelerates high fat induced obesity."

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure what study you're talking about, but there have been links made to HFCS and rises in obesity.

If this isn't just about HFCS, or sweeteners, what is it about? Corporate evil? Preservatives? Cardboard boxes?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but what it's about for me is the fact that transgenic agriculture, which has created such a dominance of corn and soy in our food (it's in about 85-95% of people's daily food intake) that people are now starting to notice side-effects of too heavy an intake of these food and food products (like HFCS), one of which happens to be obesity. In short, it speaks to a likely problem with the over-presence of a certain type of food in the national diet that is beginning to show signs of negative effects on the population. It's not completely conclusive as of yet, but the growing amount of data suggests that there is likely at least some concern.

Obviously high calorie is bad. Obviously fruits and veggies are good. No one is saying otherwise. I've enjoyed the fruits of my labor (pun intended) for years. The time that sucks is right around now, where the only thing I can get from my garden is kale. Everything else, like the beans, peas, various tomatoes, grapes, apples, apples, apples, potatoes, etc, has to wait till fall. I really want a tomato sandwich right now.

EDIT: I am, of course, willing to be wrong. I just don't see the evidence coming down against the specific ingredients of the 'western diet'. Too much without enough exercise yes. But not specifically wrong with industrial production.

Actually, industrial production could very well be part of the problem, but not in the way you might think. It's not that industrial production is in and of itself bad-- in other words, those raging against the corporate machine as a principle are likely not as on-target as they may think-- but the fact that US agriculture has become so extremely focused on corn and soy production, which makes up a vast majority of agricultural product in this country (and the even more vast preponderance of transgenic lines being used to practically nil efficacy). Just as the idea that over-consumption of any one thing is (in a practical sense) not a healthy thing, the industry that is currently producing food, nearly all of the food that's eaten by people in general, has been utilizing corn in various processed forms to such a degree that over-consumption is unavoidable. In a very real sense, that means the food industry has placed most of its proverbial eggs into one basket (corn), which aside from being a bad policy is also proving to show some negative side effects. From an industry perspective, though, the fact that corn is so dominantly used in raw or processed form in practically everything is a sloppy and dangerous policy-- health issues aside, what would happen if corn harvests failed this year? What would happen to the food industry as a whole? At best it could rival the Dust Bowl in magnitude.

 

[shuize]

About a year and a half ago I decided I was tired of being overweight. I went from 213lbs (97kg) to 172lbs (78kg).

The answer?

Eat less. Exercise more.

Everything else is just noise.

 

[Sun Countess]

I just checked some of the 'unreal food' in my house. The bread? No HFCS or sugar. The milk? Nope. None in the cheese. In my tea? Nope, just tea and water. There it is! In the fruit juice and cookies. There is some in the ketchup too. The pop? No, although I do drink diet and recently picked up some 'Coke de Mexico' for my family. ("Made in Mexico with real Mexican sugar! Under real Mexican health codes, using real Mexican water.)

Bread, milk, sugar, tea, and cheese are all foods that your great-grandmother would recognize. I know you don't like the "real food" label, but the definition (as used by Michael Pollan) is still fairly easy to understand. Bread is a real food; pop tarts are not. Milk is a real food; sweetened fruit beverages are not. Cheese is a real food; cheez whiz is not. And before you get on my case for the "real food" label, just know that I'm not particularly attached to it. I know that you can derive calories, energy, and even some nutrients from all those "unreal" foods. Are they as nutritionally dense as their real counterparts? No.

And it's not strictly about whether products are sweetened or not, but about being overly processed to the point that the end result barely resembles its counterpart in either nutritional value or taste. The "real food" label came up because of Pollan, but I don't use that label in my daily life. I avoid overly processed foods and fast foods. Nothing woo about it.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, I'm not the one who brought up the "real food" thing, but my guess would be that the reason for HFCS being the basis for that discussion is that the producers of HFCS have lobbied heavily in order to use the "natural" designation on foods made with HFCS, including television campaigns and publications. Throwing that back as ridiculous is kind of like criticizing the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" movements for their names-- in that it doesn't really address the concerns made by the groups. Anyhow, the reality is that HFCS turned about this whole 'real' food phenomenon by spending so much time, money, and effort in the cause to call itself "natural" when used as an ingredient. (see the wiki link you gave for more data)

Two wrongs don't make a right. I do criticize the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' movements for their stupid names. It's the availability and legality of abortion they are for or against. The corn industry misusing the term 'natural' doesn't mean that it's ok to call some food 'real'.

Alright, I don't eat any food with hate crystals. It's the anti hate crystal diet!

Which link were you referring to? If you're interested, this link points to the study involving the accusations of leptin resistance from HFCS consumption. The very conclusion of the study is that HFCS affects leptin resistance, and it's not simply a correlative relationship, but a causal one. A quote from the abstract: "Absence of anorexic response to intraperitoneal leptin injection was associated with 25.7% decrease in hypothalamic signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) phosphorylation in the high-fructose fed rats compared with controls (p=0.015). Subsequent exposure of the fructose-mediated leptin-resistant rats to a high fat diet lead to exacerbated weight gain (50.2 ± 2 g) compared with correspondingly fed leptin-responsive animals that were pre-treated with the fructose-free diet (30.4 ± 5.8 g, p= 0.012). Our data indicate that chronic fructose consumption induces leptin resistance prior to body weight, adiposity, serum leptin, insulin or glucose increases, and this fructose-induced leptin resistance accelerates high fat induced obesity."

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure what study you're talking about, but there have been links made to HFCS and rises in obesity.

Your other link was the one I was talking about. Besides that, there are studies that looked into the leptin resistance claim and came to the opposite conclusion. I can't just dismiss all the studies funded by industry, just because they're funded by industry.

The links have almost exclusively been correlation.

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but what it's about for me is the fact that transgenic agriculture, which has created such a dominance of corn and soy in our food (it's in about 85-95% of people's daily food intake) that people are now starting to notice side-effects of too heavy an intake of these food and food products (like HFCS), one of which happens to be obesity. In short, it speaks to a likely problem with the over-presence of a certain type of food in the national diet that is beginning to show signs of negative effects on the population. It's not completely conclusive as of yet, but the growing amount of data suggests that there is likely at least some concern.

This is true, and I actually share those concerns. However, I don't think people in the US are mal-nutritioned because of it.

Actually, industrial production could very well be part of the problem, but not in the way you might think. It's not that industrial production is in and of itself bad-- in other words, those raging against the corporate machine as a principle are likely not as on-target as they may think-- but the fact that US agriculture has become so extremely focused on corn and soy production, which makes up a vast majority of agricultural product in this country (and the even more vast preponderance of transgenic lines being used to practically nil efficacy). Just as the idea that over-consumption of any one thing is (in a practical sense) not a healthy thing, the industry that is currently producing food, nearly all of the food that's eaten by people in general, has been utilizing corn in various processed forms to such a degree that over-consumption is unavoidable. In a very real sense, that means the food industry has placed most of its proverbial eggs into one basket (corn), which aside from being a bad policy is also proving to show some negative side effects. From an industry perspective, though, the fact that corn is so dominantly used in raw or processed form in practically everything is a sloppy and dangerous policy-- health issues aside, what would happen if corn harvests failed this year? What would happen to the food industry as a whole? At best it could rival the Dust Bowl in magnitude.

True, yet completely irrelevant to the current topic.

 

[GreNME]

Two wrongs don't make a right. I do criticize the 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' movements for their stupid names. It's the availability and legality of abortion they are for or against. The corn industry misusing the term 'natural' doesn't mean that it's ok to call some food 'real'.

Alright, I don't eat any food with hate crystals. It's the anti hate crystal diet!

Down with the hate crystal lobby!

No, I understand where you're coming from with the "real food" thing. I don't use that term, hadn't heard of it until this thread, but I am aware of the HFCS lobby with regard to the "natural" distinction and the FDA.

Your other link was the one I was talking about. Besides that, there are studies that looked into the leptin resistance claim and came to the opposite conclusion. I can't just dismiss all the studies funded by industry, just because they're funded by industry.

The links have almost exclusively been correlation.

You keep saying that, but I've pointed out at least one study where it definitely wasn't correlation, and it's a study that's been repeated as far as I'm aware. The problem right now is in finding what in the HFCS is causing the result, which is currently inconclusive. Not knowing the exact cause isn't a good reason to disregard the studies that have found a causal relationship, though.

This is true, and I actually share those concerns. However, I don't think people in the US are mal-nutritioned because of it.

True. Poorly nutritioned, but probably not malnutritioned.

True, yet completely irrelevant to the current topic.

Not quite irrelevant. It contributes to the influence and force behind the lobby that keeps things like HFCS in wide use. Consider it in a position not too dissimilar to tobacco or groups who have promoted anti-global-warming rhetoric-- there is a lot of money and political influence to maintain certain manners of operation, and in such cases science be damned when publicity and political influence is also at play.

That's not to say that HFCS is the key to rising obesity all on its own-- ever-increasing portions and more sedentary lifestyles play a large, obvious role-- but the more we learn about our modern diets (especially in comparison to diets elsewhere), the more we're learning that there might be more to it than "get up and jog a few laps, fatty."

 

[Dymanic]

If 'real food' actually means 'unsweetened' than 'unsweetened' is the word that should be used.

Well, it doesn't, and explaining what it does mean is complicated only because our entire society has adopted a complicated approach to what was once a much simpler matter (you know, back when obesity was not a widespread problem). I doubt if anyone here can explain Pollan's ideas more concisely than does Pollan himself, and if you haven't time to read what he's written, I don't know who is going to find time to hand feed his points to you one by one. I guess you could try checking out some of the YouTube videos of his talks.

If this isn't just about HFCS, or sweeteners, what is it about?

If, by "this", you are referring to Pollan's distinction between "food" (Pollan himself doesn't place great emphasis on calling it "real food", by the way) and what he calls "edible food-like substances", then you might consider his advice: "Don't eat anything that doesn't rot" (the Twinkie is perhaps the most poignant example), or: "Stay out of the middle of the grocery store" -- because the stuff your grandparents would recognize as food (vegetables, meat, dairy, bread) is around the perimeter, while the middle of the store is where the most processed, over-packaged, over-priced, stuff is found; the stuff that is sold on its perceived value (value that is created through marketing, much of it based on claims of "nutritional value"); the stuff for people who are convinced they can't cook, or who just don't have time (despite the plethora of time-saving devices like automatic dishwashers and can openers, we somehow still have less time available for cooking than did our agrarian ancestors who began their twelve-hour workdays by rising before dawn to milk the cows).

We're obsessed with omega-3 fatty acids and fructose/sucrose/glucose and, what, fiber and gluten and carbs and a hundred other things our (healthy, non-obese) grandparents never heard of. We discuss food choices in the context of studies (some of the posts to this thread being good examples). It's all quite scientific, doncha know -- yet we keep getting fatter and fatter in spite of it all. We've been conditioned to think in terms of "nutrients" by advertising and by misguided (though some of them well-intentioned) government policies. Our grandparents didn't study food, they just ate it.

Sorry for the edit there is a problem with the thread and just trying to sort it.

Posted By: Darat