Genocidal psychopath NuttyYahoo STILL planning to start World War III

[ThrillsNSpills]

Brian, next time you go to the doctor , ask them how much nutrition training they got in medical school. (trying to be respectful)

or do you go to the plumber to get your carpet installed. (okay so I failed)

[jhale667]

How many medical schools actually teach nutrition (besides a few electives) much less offer degrees in the science? Not as many as you think.


But by all means, keep drinking Karo syrup straight from the tap, BBB - ya fat bastard!

[Nickdfresh]

Though numerous studies of the health effects of high fructose corn syrup are continually ongoing, no study has ever conclusively confirmed that HFCS is processed any different in the human body at the cellular level than cane sugar, beet sugar, or honey.

Really dude, you're going to high jack this thread with a fucking corn syrup martyrdom defense?

What do you think of the ethanol in my gas? The gas in my car that is?

[SunisinuS]

REPORT 3 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-08)
The Health Effects of High Fructose Syrup

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objective: To review the chemical properties and health effects of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) in comparison to other added caloric sweeteners and to evaluate the potential impact of restricting use of fructose-containing sweeteners, including the use of warning labels on foods containing high fructose syrups.
Methods: Literature searches for articles published though December 2007 were conducted in the PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the search terms “high fructose corn syrup” and “high fructose syrup.” Web sites managed by federal and world health agencies, and applicable professional and advocacy organizations, were also reviewed for relevant information. Additional articles were identified by reviewing the reference lists of pertinent publications.

Results: HFCS has been increasingly added to foods since its development in the late 1960s. The most commonly used types of HFCS (HFCS-42 and HFCS-55) are similar in composition to sucrose, consisting of roughly equal amounts of fructose and glucose. The primary difference is that these monosaccharides exist free in solution in HFCS, but in disaccharide form in sucrose. The disaccharide sucrose is easily cleaved in the small intestine, so free fructose and glucose are absorbed from both sucrose and HFCS. The advantage to food manufacturers is that the free monosaccharides in HFCS provide better flavor enhancement, stability, freshness, texture, color, pourability, and consistency in foods in comparison to sucrose. Concern about HFCS developed after ecological studies, using per capita estimates of HFCS consumption, found direct correlations between HFCS and obesity. In addition, human and animal studies have found direct associations between fructose and adverse health outcomes. However, the adverse health effects of HFCS, beyond those of other caloric sweeteners, most of which contain fructose, are not well established. Consumption of added caloric sweeteners in general has increased over the last 30 years, as has total calories. Likewise, rates of obesity have risen even in countries where little HFCS is consumed. Only a few small, short-term experimental studies have compared the effects of HFCS to sucrose, and most involved some form of industry support. Epidemiological studies on HFCS and health outcomes are unavailable, beyond ecological studies, because nutrient databases do not contain information on the HFCS content of foods and have only limited data on added sugars in general.

Conclusions: Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body,

it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose. Nevertheless, few studies have evaluated the potentially differential effect of various sweeteners, particularly as they relate to health conditions such as obesity, which develop over relatively long periods of time. Improved nutrient databases are needed to analyze food consumption in epidemiological studies, as are more strongly designed experimental studies. At the present time, there is insufficient evidence to restrict use of HFCS or other fructose-containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The following statements, recommended by the Council on Science and Public Health, were adopted by the AMA House of Delegates as AMA directives at the 2008 Annual Meeting:
1. That our American Medical Association (AMA) recognize that at the present time, insufficient evidence exists to specifically restrict use of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or other fructose-
containing sweeteners in the food supply or to require the use of warning labels on products containing HFCS. (Directive)
2. That our AMA encourage independent research (including epidemiological studies) on the health effects of HFCS and other sweeteners, and evaluation of the mechanism of action and relationship between fructose dose and response. (Directive)
3. That our AMA, in concert with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, recommend that consumers limit the amount of added caloric sweeteners in their diet. (Directive)

caps kill kittens though....has been proved

[chefcraig]

caps kill kittens though....has been proved

Yeah, it is sort of interesting to note that every single time Brian gets called out for his astoundingly consistent manner of quoting references that end up refuting, rather than supporting whatever nebulous point he attempts to make, more often than not he fails to respond. It is sort of goofy.

It more or less makes you wish to ignore anything he posts further, ya know?

[SunisinuS]

Yeah, it is sort of interesting to note that every single time Brian gets called out for his astoundingly consistent manner of quoting references that end up refuting, rather than supporting whatever nebulous point he attempts to make, more often than not he fails to respond. It is sort of goofy.

It more or less makes you wish to ignore anything he posts further, ya know?

I just don't get the shouting to make a point...I mean it is all over but the shouting.

[BigBadBrian]

Yeah, it is sort of interesting to note that every single time Brian gets called out for his astoundingly consistent manner of quoting references that end up refuting, rather than supporting whatever nebulous point he attempts to make, more often than not he fails to respond. It is sort of goofy.

I hurt your feelings, huh Buttercup? Need a tissue?

Nobody refuted anything of mine in this thread. I quoted a source by the AMA. True, physicians don't get much training in nutrition. My neurologist, whom I see for my peripheral neuropathy, told me one time most doctors only get maybe one elective course in nutrition in medical school. Anyway, the AMA is a large organization composed of medical professionals besides doctors, such as researchers (bio-bhemists, micro-biologists, etc) and dieticians.

I knew quoting facts would throw you guys for a loop.

I have no dog in this hunt. I really don't know whether HFCS is worse than cane sugar or not. I'm justm saying there isn't too muchm proof to suggest it.

Besides, with all the demand for sugar in food products, how many cane fields do you see driving across the nation's breadbasket like Iowa and Illinois? Using HFCS is more of a supply/demand issue than anything.

[chefcraig]

I hurt your feelings, huh Buttercup? Need a tissue?.

Yep. I can't count how many times I've either pointed out how miserably wrong or uninformed you've been with regard to a subject, and rather than reply, you simply fail to respond. It just leaves me empty and pining away the hours into my pillow. Sadly enough, a couple of days later you come up with more poorly researched nonsense, and the process starts all over again. It just breaks my semi-informed, somewhat logical and capable of reading comprehension-filled heart.

[jhale667]

Besides, with all the demand for sugar in food products, how many cane fields do you see driving across the nation's breadbasket like Iowa and Illinois? Using HFCS is more of a supply/demand issue than anything.

One of my docs IS a nutritionist, and guess what - you're full of shit. The prevalence of HFCS has more to do with the fucking corn lobby than supply and demand. In reality, if the US was smart we'd be making Ethanol out of cane sugar rather than corn (much like Brazil)- it's cheaper and more efficient, but due to the corn lobbyists having more clout than anyone touting sugar, it's not gonna happen. Face it dude, you're on the WRONG side of 90% of the shit you post about. No wonder you're bitter!

[hambon4lif]

One of my docs IS a nutritionist, and guess what - you're full of shit.

It doesn't really take a nutritionist to figure that out.

Hell, I could have told you that!

[jhale667]

It doesn't really take a nutritionist to figure that out.

Hell, I could have told you that!

True, but since he was ranting about "credible sources"...I personally have one that proves he's a 'tard!


Plus, I can attest that since cutting out 90% of the HFCS-laden shit I was eating, I've dropped over 20lbs.

[FORD]

Funny how a thread about NuttyYahoo & Israel declaring war on Iran morphed into a thread about MonSatan & Iowa declaring biological warfare on all of humanity.

[BigBadBrian]

Plus, I can attest that since cutting out 90% of the HFCS-laden shit I was eating, I've dropped over 20lbs.

And also calories too, huh Shortbus? Fuck dude, try to figure something out. I realize you're not too well educated and not too bright, but even you should be able to realize that a calorie deficit is the only way one loses weight. I'll bet you think doing situps will reduce that large gut of yours too, right?

[BigBadBrian]

Yep. I can't count how many times I've either pointed out how miserably wrong or uninformed you've been with regard to a subject, and rather than reply, you simply fail to respond.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to immediately respond to your assinine observations within the hour. I don't lurk on this site all damned day like you obviously do since I have a JOB. Obviously you don't. Also, I don't feel the need to respond to all that you do post that I do read since I don't respect your intelligence (or lack thereof, I should say) or your reasoning ability. Your turn, Buttercup. Dance Pinocchio!

[chefcraig]

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to immediately respond to your assinine observations within the hour. I don't lurk on this site all damned day like you obviously do since I have a JOB. Obviously you don't. Also, I don't feel the need to respond to all that you do post that I do read since I don't respect your intelligence (or lack thereof, I should say) or your reasoning ability. Your turn, Buttercup. Dance Pinocchio!

And that would be the difference between us, Brian. You see, I do respect your passion for things political, I simply question the way you go about presenting things. If you would invest the time to actually read the articles you post and therefor understand the material, your efforts would hold a bit more water. And believe it or not, just because a person chooses to respond to one of your posts, it does not imply they are dancing to your tune. It's called conversation, and if this concept somehow escapes you, then perhaps you are confused as to how a message board works, as well.