# High Fructose Corn Syrup Propaganda now on TV



## Anthony (Oct 7, 2008)

God damn, these commercials piss me off. I was shocked when I saw the first one. Even though they said it's safe in moderation, that's not the point of the add at all. They might as well have a cigarette commercial "It's not dangerous at all in moderation."


----------



## Regor (Oct 7, 2008)

Are you fucking kidding me?? There's ads promoting high fructose corn syrup???? I didn't even know there was a fucking debate over it! Its bloody sugar!!!!! Who cares?  OMG I can't believe someone actually convinced someone else it was a good idea to spend money on a commercial over something so trivial as this! When did syrup get a bad rap??


"That has high fructose corn syrup in it"
"No shit?! I wondered why it tasted so damn good!"


I'm willing to bet 95&#37; of the population doesn't even know WTF 'fructose' is


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 7, 2008)

*Sigh* Corporate powers flex their muscles and some people will believe anything. That is truly shocking...


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 7, 2008)

Regor said:


> Are you fucking kidding me?? There's ads promoting high fructose corn syrup???? I didn't even know there was a fucking debate over it! Its bloody sugar!!!!! Who cares?  OMG I can't believe someone actually convinced someone else it was a good idea to spend money on a commercial over something so trivial as this! When did syrup get a bad rap??



When it's really fucking bad for you?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 7, 2008)




----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 7, 2008)

It's about as dumb as commercials for milk or plastic.


----------



## Metal Ken (Oct 7, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> It's about as dumb as commercials for milk or plastic.



Except milk is healthy and plastic is useful.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 7, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Except milk is healthy and plastic is useful.



But do we really need to raise milk and plastic awareness amongst the American populous?


"Styrofoam: Get yours today!"


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 7, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> But do we really need to raise milk and plastic awareness amongst the American populous?
> 
> 
> "Styrofoam: Get yours today!"



Actually, I think you may be missing the point. To go back to what Anthony said in the OP: "It's like saying cigarettes are healthy in moderation".


----------



## Se7enMeister (Oct 7, 2008)

how is it unhealthy for you? i dont eat much sugar so how do the affect health?


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 7, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Actually, I think you may be missing the point. To go back to what Anthony said in the OP: "It's like saying cigarettes are healthy in moderation".



I guess I am missing the point, then again, I don't need a commercial to educate me about fructose...


----------



## playstopause (Oct 7, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I guess I am missing the point, then again, I don't need a commercial to educate me about fructose...



Maybe not you, but i'm pretty sure a very large part of american people do.
U.S.A. is at no.9 spot for "world fattest countries". Many people (not just americans) swallow tons of sugar and don't have a clue it's bad for them. So they need to be adressed to like they are childrens. 

World's Fattest Countries - Forbes.com


----------



## Anthony (Oct 7, 2008)

I have a really good article on this in a folder in school. I'll see if I can get it tomorrow.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 7, 2008)

Thats awesome, i need fructose!


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 7, 2008)

Hmmm.... this really irritates me, so I'm going to kind of rant. 

1. Sugar is not bad for you. 

Anyone who says it is speaks a less-than-half-truth. Sugar- glucose specifically- is the compound broken down to form ATP, the basic unit used for energy in cells. 

Proteins and lipids (fats) can be used for energy, but the process is different. 

2. Not using the calories is what makes sugar "bad" for you. If the energy isn't used, then it's stored as fat for later use. 

3. If I recall correctly, Fructose is a disaccharide, which, when ingested, is promptly broken down into glucose for use in cellular respiration. 

Therefore, unless there are unseen health complications of which I'm unaware, then again the sugar's not to blame, the lack of burning the calories is. 

3.) These taste good for a reason: they're not evil. 

Simple sugars (toted as "bad" for you) do not need to be broken down into simpler and simpler sugars until they become glucose for energy. Big-assed polysaccharides, like starches, do. 

Biologists would likely say that this is why simple sugars taste good to us: they take less work to process (though they yield less energy). 

In conclusion, I don't really see what the problem is for consumption save that those who eat too much and move too little will gain weight because their use of energy is significantly lower than their intake. 


As a caveat:

I know that vitamins and minerals are necessary and that "empty" calories don't have them, but calories are also necessary, but we need to use what we take in. 

Also, the caloric content listed on the container of food items tells you what you need to now. I don't at this time (and I'm not a super-qualified expert with a Ph.D.) see what magical mystical difference high-fructose corn syrup would bring. A product without them might have less calories, but they might also use more of a simple sugar. 

Calories are calories.

Also, to drive you mad, while people often rag on simple sugars, but if we were to just look at it from a caloric standpoint, the complex carbohydrates are technically _worse_ for you by the definition used by dieticians because they have more energy.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Oct 7, 2008)

Fructose, glucose, and galactose (found in dairy and sugar beets) are the 3 basic simple sugars (monosaccharide) and are a part of the building block for most fruits and vegetables. 

Disaccharide is when you combine monosacchrides together.

Polysacchrides are basicly complex carbohydrates. Not really good for you in large amounts. But ok for you in moderation.

The more processed a sugar, or food (in general for that matter), is the worse for you it gets. The body has a harder time of breaking it down for energy and subsequently stores it. That is why it is bad for you. That is why most Americans are obese


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 7, 2008)

Robert and J, thank you.


----------



## Naren (Oct 7, 2008)

TonalArchitect, good post. It seems that a lot of people in this thread need to up their health and science knowledge.

Fructose Corn Syrup isn't "healthy" for you, but it isn't unhealthy for you either (as in, consuming fructose corn syrup will not get rid of sickness or build your muscles). Your body runs on energy and it gets that energy from sugar. With the exception of water, all things have sugar in them from fish to fruits to bread to meat. Glucose is the kind of sugar that enters the blood stream the fastest, which is why it is used for diabetics and hypoglycemics. In fact, the body regulates one's blood sugar through the pancreas' insulin which lowers the blood sugar and the liver and kidney's glucose. Exercising or exerting force uses up energy (in the form of sugar), which lowers one's blood sugar level and gets rid of one's supply of energy. If you intake a lot of sugar, that's fine if you use it as energy and burn it off. If you eat and drink a lot of high-sugar content and then go to sleep or just sit and do nothing, almost none of that energy will be used and it will most likely convert to fat. Most of us are guilty of not using the energy that we consume, but this isn't exclusive to fructose corn syrup.

Fructose Corn Syrup in itself is not unhealthy or bad for you in any way. If you think it is, you need to look further into the issue.


----------



## willith (Oct 8, 2008)

The last few posts sum it up pretty well. OP needs to do a little more reading and a little less posting.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 8, 2008)

willith said:


> The last few posts sum it up pretty well. OP needs to do a little more reading and a little less posting.



Easy tiger. He's been around far longer than you and contributed a hell of a lot more than you did.

High-fructose corn syrup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## willith (Oct 8, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Easy tiger. He's been around far longer than you and contributed a hell of a lot more than you did.
> 
> High-fructose corn syrup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





And how is that relevant in a conversation about fructose? 
If I've done far more research on diet and nutrition or gone to school for it- people should listen to him over me because he's been posting on a GUITAR FORUM longer?

Is this the standard around here? 


And LOL at citing wikipedia as The credible source for all information regarding fructose.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 8, 2008)

No need for ePissing_matches, longevity on a forum says nothing for knowledge in a certain field, especially when it has nothing to do with the forum itself.

Comparing fructose to cigarettes is absolutely rediculous, humans need fructose to produce energy and survive, humans do not need cigarettes. 

I seriously have no idea what the hell is up with a lot of this health nut marketing, for one thing natural products are by far better for you than "healthy" products such as splenda, equate, etc. Lose weight, gain cancer, good job FDA. 

Fructose is not a danger unless you eat too much of it and sit on your ass all day (like me, but...I'm not blaming the fructose for my fat ass now am I?). 

I learned all this in high school, if people really need a god damned commercial to inform them of this then we truely are stupid.


----------



## playstopause (Oct 8, 2008)

Naren said:


> TonalArchitect, good post. It seems that a lot of people in this thread need to up their health and science knowledge.
> 
> Fructose Corn Syrup isn't "healthy" for you, but it isn't unhealthy for you either (as in, consuming fructose corn syrup will not get rid of sickness or build your muscles). Your body runs on energy and it gets that energy from sugar. With the exception of water, all things have sugar in them from fish to fruits to bread to meat. Glucose is the kind of sugar that enters the blood stream the fastest, which is why it is used for diabetics and hypoglycemics. In fact, the body regulates one's blood sugar through the pancreas' insulin which lowers the blood sugar and the liver and kidney's glucose. Exercising or exerting force uses up energy (in the form of sugar), which lowers one's blood sugar level and gets rid of one's supply of energy. If you intake a lot of sugar, that's fine if you use it as energy and burn it off. If you eat and drink a lot of high-sugar content and then go to sleep or just sit and do nothing, almost none of that energy will be used and it will most likely convert to fat. Most of us are guilty of not using the energy that we consume, but this isn't exclusive to fructose corn syrup.
> 
> Fructose Corn Syrup in itself is not unhealthy or bad for you in any way. If you think it is, you need to look further into the issue.



I guess this is right for the most part (honestly, I don't have a clue and I don't give a fuck ), but sincerely, even if 3-4 guys in this very thread are quite "nutrition awared", that doesn't mean that the biggest part of the population is.

I mean, for christ's sake, a large part of the american population don't even know where Groenland is so don't ask them to know about fructose, glucose or whatever. They know a lot about eating sugar all day long though.


----------



## Naren (Oct 8, 2008)

Yeah, and the main problem with that is that they are overdoing it. You should know from common sense that there's something wrong with consuming so much sugar, but... 

The amount of sugar in stuff like Pepsi, Coke, and other sodas out there is actually pretty crazy. I knew people who would drink like 5 cans of soda a day. That is incredibly excessive. And I saw this video where this guy said he had this Super Gulp cup from 7-11 that was ridiculously huge and he said that he drank like 6 of those a day, full of cherry coke. In addition to that, he ate a ton of obviously unhealthy food.

If you only take enough that your body can take care of, there won't be any problems. However, most of these people seriously overdo it.


----------



## Groff (Oct 8, 2008)

I'm not opposed to corn syrup, I'm not going to walk around preaching against it. But I DO think that sodas and juices made with pure cane sugar taste better and doesn't leave that syrupy phlegm in my throat after I drink it.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 8, 2008)

To further ramble, I would like to say that the U.S. does have a problem with consuming too much sugar and no moving enough, but it really is flawed logic to condemn sugar itself-- which is easier, I suppose, than giving a detailed explanation or saying "in moderation."

I just wanted to rant (kinda) because sugar's not bad for you, neither is fat. Hell, you can have too high of a_ vitamin _intake (though this could only conceivably happen with the fat-solubles: A, E, D, and K. To "OD" on Vitamin C-- a water-soluble vitamin-- you'd need like several _grams _or something ridiculous.) 

Back to sugars 

This is why you may have heard that if you were in a plane crash that a chocolate bar would be one of the most valuable items.That's because of the relatively high caloric content. If you just had celery, you be screwed. 

So the solution to the weight problem isn't so mystical: eat less, eat sugary foods sparingly, and get off your ass and move. (I can say this because I walk to and from college each day which is about 2.4 miles round trip. So walk to school/work if you can!)

Note: I know there's people who can't seem to lose weight no matter what they do, but that doesn't include all of America. 

Also, listen to your body: when you're hungry eat, when you're full stop. And see Twain's irony: "Whenever I feel the urge to exercise, I lie down until it goes away."


----------



## Anthony (Oct 8, 2008)

willith said:


> And how is that relevant in a conversation about fructose?
> If I've done far more research on diet and nutrition or gone to school for it- people should listen to him over me because he's been posting on a GUITAR FORUM longer?
> 
> Is this the standard around here?
> ...



Whoa, who the fuck are you? I never said "HAY LISTEN TO ME I NO SHIT!"
I opened a topic for _discussion. _ You do know what discussion means, don't you? Take the stick out of your ass, everyone here will have a better time.


According to my research, HFCS is bad. 
HFCS is often manipulated to contain different amounts of fructose and glucose, usually leaning heavily to the fructose side, because it tastes sweeter. HFCS mostly uses pure, unbound fructose in it, and pure fructose contains no enzymes, vitamins or minerals. It isn't beneficial to the body at all. Research indicates that pure, free fructose interferes with the heart's use of key minerals such as magnesium, copper, and chromium. It interferes with the body to such an extent that collagen and elastin cannot form as much as it should in growing animals.

Aside from that, HFCS has been correlated to elevation in blood cholesterol levels, and the creation of blood clots. It takes the place of white blood cells, so WBC are unable to defend the body against harmful foreign substances. 


Much more to read here.

The Double Danger of High Fructose Corn Syrup


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 8, 2008)

Interesting article. I would have preferred if it were published in a scientific journal like _The Journal of American Medicine. _Just to cause irritation and general argument  I would like to say that "pure fructose doesn't contain any vitamins or minerals" as said in the article might (notice might; I don't have a Ph.D. in nutritional biological processes) be a bit misleading. Pure protein probably doesn't have any vitamins or minerals because it's _pure protein_ (if it's pure, there can't be other stuff, right?).

Same thing, pure vitamin C won't have any protein or enzymes (I read the article quickly, but I thought the body manufactured all its protein [enzymes are proteins]; I'm pretty sure we don't get them from food, just the basic amino acids from which they're made). 

I want to reiterate that it seems odd that they would argue about a food not having an enzyme. That's what the crap our DNA is for: the codes for protein synthesis. Since enzymes are proteinaceous (damn, what an awful adjective form), I'm like 99.978586797858794839283&#37; sure that our bodies made them. 

But again, my bio classes haven't got too in depth with them. BUT, here's our definition of vitamin "substances necessary to biological processes which the body cannot synthesize." And minerals are just inorganic substances that we need. 

Enzymes do not fit that bill.


----------



## Anthony (Oct 8, 2008)

I state pure/ free fructose has no enzymes/vitamins because normal fructose and other bound sugars are helpful to the body, and contain various vitamins and minerals.
It's just completely empty, non beneficial calories.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Oct 8, 2008)

willith said:


> And how is that relevant in a conversation about fructose?
> If I've done far more research on diet and nutrition or gone to school for it- people should listen to him over me because he's been posting on a GUITAR FORUM longer?
> 
> Is this the standard around here?
> ...



Chill. Don't be so disparaging of the other posters. And this isn't a peer-reviewed science journal. Wikipedia is fine as a source as long as the information is correct (which in this case, as in most, it pretty much is).

Consider it a warning. Thanks.


----------



## Buzz762 (Oct 8, 2008)

Regor said:


> I'm willing to bet 95% of the population doesn't even know WTF 'fructose' is



The funny thing is that I just got into a debate with someone over something like this. They were attempting to tell me everything we eat is artificial and cited fructose as one such ingredient. I had to explain what a monosaccharide was...I either won the argument or made her afraid to eat anything ever again


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 8, 2008)

Anthony said:


> I state pure/ free fructose has no enzymes/vitamins because normal fructose and other bound sugars are helpful to the body, and contain various vitamins and minerals.
> It's just completely empty, non beneficial calories.



Yeah, I'm just creating havoc (playfully) with syntax. The sugar doesn't contain the vitamins and minerals, the crap in which the sugar resides (a piece of fruit for example). 

But yes, the point of it being empty calories is correct, unless the product is fortified with vitamins, and the chances of that are slim for the junk food we're talking about. 

It just irks me that sugar is given the blame when it's the lack of other nutritional value and the over-consumption of sugary foods combined with a lack of exercise that are major contributing factors to obesity.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 8, 2008)

Fructose is fine and dandy in many situations.
But even one of the sweetest fruits Banana has only 70calories which is a midget compared to corn syrup.
That means ,you get "extreme high dose" of the real deal.
That leads the body to produce too much Insuline to keep the blood shugar level in balance.
The avarage age level of Diabetis in our population is sinking extremely . That's because of extreme shugar consumption.

Fructose could't get used by brain without small tweaks either (Glucose is the only energy source for brain) ,so it doesn't contribute to the intelligence.

Oh and since the Corn syrup has soo much energy ,all the fat you are eating get pumped to the belly and heart and whatnot ,so it makes fat. It enters the blood extremely fast ,that leads to high blood pressure and heart problems in higher age.

Yess fructose is good in moderation ,that means 1/10 can soda or a small drop ketchup or a 1/5 ice cream etc.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 8, 2008)

daemon barbeque said:


> Fructose is fine and dandy in many situations.
> But even one of the sweetest fruits Banana has only 70calories which is a midget compared to corn syrup.
> That means ,you get "extreme high dose" of the real deal.
> That leads the body to produce too much Insuline to keep the blood shugar level in balance.
> ...



This is exactly the kind of point that I was trying to make but you managed to put it into words perfectly for me.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Oct 9, 2008)

Man I suck in english.Nice to hear that at least 1 post made my point clear.


----------



## willith (Oct 9, 2008)

Anthony said:


> Whoa, who the fuck are you? I never said "HAY LISTEN TO ME I NO SHIT!"
> I opened a topic for _discussion. _ You do know what discussion means, don't you? Take the stick out of your ass, everyone here will have a better time.




No, you didn't open a topic for discussion- you opened one-sided shit-slinging campaign against Fructose. I'm asking what your credentials are and why anyone should listen to you.

Am I out of line when inquiring about your credibility?




The Dark Wolf said:


> Chill. Don't be so disparaging of the other posters. And this isn't a peer-reviewed science journal. Wikipedia is fine as a source as long as the information is correct (which in this case, as in most, it pretty much is).
> 
> Consider it a warning. Thanks.




Don't be so disparaging of other posters? Take a peek at the above post I just quoted. 
Wikipedia is not "fine as a source"- and there have been many articles written that link it to declining test scores due to lack of credible information.
If we can't question someones logic, then what can we question? Just because you're a mod on the be-all end-all of websites doesn't mean you're going to change my line of questioning just so I don't step on somebodies toes and hurt their fweelings. And if I have to get banned just for ASKING why someone says something, then fine- go on with your 1984 thought police tactics and make a difference in the world.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 10, 2008)

Dude, you can express you opinions freely here, we all do. But your manner is combative and offensive. Don't like wikipedia? Cite another source that we can all read and then return to discussion. 

1984? Really? 

Make a difference in the world? I don't think anyone posting on an internet forum is making much of a difference in the world in the first place.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 10, 2008)

Naren said:


> Yeah, and the main problem with that is that they are overdoing it. You should know from common sense that there's something wrong with consuming so much sugar, but...
> 
> The amount of sugar in stuff like Pepsi, Coke, and other sodas out there is actually pretty crazy. I knew people who would drink like 5 cans of soda a day. That is incredibly excessive. And I saw this video where this guy said he had this Super Gulp cup from 7-11 that was ridiculously huge and he said that he drank like 6 of those a day, full of cherry coke. In addition to that, he ate a ton of obviously unhealthy food.
> 
> If you only take enough that your body can take care of, there won't be any problems. However, most of these people seriously overdo it.



Those Super Gulp cups are seriously rediculous, but as long as people are buying that stuff they'll continue to sell it. I myself really need to cut down on the fast food+soda, I'm just always swayed by the convenience factor.


----------



## Naren (Oct 10, 2008)

And the cheapness. I avoid fast food as much as possible, but I had my health exam today for my company so I wasn't allowed to eat after 8pm. I normally get off work at 8pm and eat around 9pm, so yesterday I just went to the first floor at 7pm (while still on the clock) and the only restaurant down there that was open was the McDonalds (a bunch of coffee shops were open, but that doesn't do me any good for dinner), so I just bought McDonalds, because it was fast and cheap and to eat something else, I'd have to leave the company building and go somewhere else. 

I was surprised at my exam. I expected that I had probably gained weight, but it seems that I'd lost like 5-7 pounds. It said I'm 201 pounds (well, they told me in kilograms, but most of the people here are from countries that understand pounds). Kinda surprising. And since I'm 6 foot 2 inches tall, I was like, "I was expecting something like 220 pounds."  Crazy stuff.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 10, 2008)

[action=Zepp88] is avoiding the scale.. [/action]


----------



## Naren (Oct 10, 2008)

I don't even have a scale. The last time I had my weight checked before today was like 8 months ago, I think. So I literally had no idea what it'd be. I was actually scared getting up on that thing, "Oh no... here we go." But, it ended up being a lot lower than I thought and I was just like, "... oh... hm... wow..."

I should have memorized my height too, but I think it was either 186 or 187 centimeters.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 10, 2008)

I can never remember the Standard vs. Metric conversions


----------



## Naren (Oct 10, 2008)

I can pretty much tell you how much kilograms are in pounds and vice versa or the same with inches and centimeters, or celsius and fahreinheit, but I have no idea what the conversion math for it is. I mainly just got used to how long something looks in inches and feet in the US and then got used to it in centimeters and meters in Japan. Celsius I memorized before coming to Japan. 

It's a good thing to know, especially if you plan on travelling outside of the US -- or if you plan on working in science (which generally deals in the metric system and with both celsius and kelvin instead of fahrenheit).


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 10, 2008)

Yeah, it always confused me in Germany "So how far are we going?" "15 Kilometer till we're there" "Huh?" "Ja" "Okay"


----------



## Naren (Oct 10, 2008)

If you would've spent more time in Germany, I guarantee that you would've gotten used to it.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 10, 2008)

Oh of course, just like language other cultural things become easier and more natural over time.


----------



## Anthony (Oct 10, 2008)

willith said:


> No, you didn't open a topic for discussion- you opened one-sided shit-slinging campaign against Fructose. I'm asking what your credentials are and why anyone should listen to you.
> 
> Am I out of line when inquiring about your credibility?
> 
> ...


Chill the fuck out


----------



## Tiger (Oct 10, 2008)

willith said:


> Don't be so disparaging of other posters? Take a peek at the above post I just quoted.
> Wikipedia is not "fine as a source"- and there have been many articles written that link it to declining test scores due to lack of credible information.
> If we can't question someones logic, then what can we question? Just because you're a mod on the be-all end-all of websites doesn't mean you're going to change my line of questioning just so I don't step on somebodies toes and hurt their fweelings. And if I have to get banned just for ASKING why someone says something, then fine- go on with your 1984 thought police tactics and make a difference in the world.



Reading through this thread was as follows:

Informative post
Informative post
You being a drama queen
Informative post
Informative post
You derailing the thread and turning it into internet-nazi bullshit
Informative post

Etc. Please stop posting and get over it.


----------



## Jason (Oct 10, 2008)

Naren said:


> Fructose Corn Syrup in itself is not unhealthy or bad for you in any way. If you think it is, you need to look further into the issue.



Really?

Ok you guys there is a difference between High Fructose corn syrup and just fructose.

For everyone who does not know the difference. 

High fructose corn syrup can get sweeter than regular sugar AND it does not allow the hormone in your brain to release and realize it has taking in sugar SO there for it is worse than sugar and your more likely to binge on say 6 cokes before your body says "WHOA!!"

Also HFCS is more likely to be stored as fat glycogen and not muscle glycogen.

So _really_ everyone needs to learn what the fuck they're talking about 


My guess on why we use it instead of cane sugar? Corn is domestic and sugar cane is imported(more $$) So there for it's cheaper.


----------



## Tiger (Oct 10, 2008)

Jason said:


> So _really_ everyone needs to learn what the fuck there* talking about



*they're

/undermining post


----------



## Jason (Oct 10, 2008)

Tiger said:


> *they're
> 
> /undermining post


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 10, 2008)

Here's some more words from the Mayo Clinic: High-fructose corn syrup: Why is it so bad for me? - MayoClinic.com 

On a side note: 100&#37; fruit juices have high concentrations of sugar according to the article. I wonder if this is analogous to dried fruit having high concentrations of sugar. Meaning that it's because the product is essentially a condensed form of the fruit.


----------



## Tiger (Oct 11, 2008)

Well yea, I think V8 splash is about 30 grams of sugar. Hell even a glass of milk has 12. 

I love my natural sugars.

'Some nutrition experts blame increased consumption of high-fructose corn syrup for the growing obesity problem. ' 


EEEEEH wrong answer nutrition experts. Its because Americans do not move around. I live with an average fat person and its easy to see his energy expenditure vs his intake. Its so silly to blame a sweetener for fatasses.

Consume all the high fructose corn syrup you want. Burn enough calories a day and its gone.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 11, 2008)

Tiger said:


> Well yea, I think V8 splash is about 30 grams of sugar. Hell even a glass of milk has 12.
> 
> I love my natural sugars.
> 
> ...



That was my initial argument. 

I _love _V8 Fusion, because, for me, eating fresh fruit is really easy, but some vegetables (not all) taste vile, and this is an easy way to get some vegetable servings. 

Also the "average fat person" reminds me of something from my Psychology book. It was asserting that it's a misconception that all fat people eat a lot, but I can't fully remember the counter argument. 

That said, we Americans to actually need to get off our lazy asses. I actually think one of the best things to do is, if you can, walk instead of drive. As I think I stated earlier, I walk to and from college most every day, a round trip of 2.4 miles. And I love it. 

And yes, I will walk in the crazy-ass blizzards of winter for two reasons: 

1.) I'm batshit insane  and would be undaunted by cold and snow.
2.) In South Dakota, we have had pitiful winters... though this one might be a little more bitter.


----------



## Tiger (Oct 11, 2008)

I love regular V8, the vegetable kind, but it lacks the carbohydrate content of the actual vegetables, so I forgo it for real vegetables. (Even though I would love dearly to just be able to drink the Fusion and skip all the fruits and vegetables)


----------



## willith (Oct 11, 2008)

TonalArchitect said:


> That said, we Americans to actually need to get off our lazy asses. I actually think one of the best things to do is, if you can, walk instead of drive.




Walking? Ok, so where does 'going to the gym' fall in among the possible things you could do? 





Tiger said:


> I love regular V8, the vegetable kind, but it lacks the carbohydrate content of the actual vegetables, so I forgo it for real vegetables.




Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but It looks like you're talking about carbs purely in an quantity sense- not a quality sense- which yielded the following response:

Those v8 drinks are loaded with carbs. 
http://www.campbellwellness.com/product-list.asp?brandCatID=833&brandID=8&productID=120209&catID=499

I believe they come in 16 oz. bottles- so that's 56g/carbs which isn't too shabby for such a small drink with *some* nutritional value.
Then if you compare that to this table:
Vegetable Carbohydrates in vegetables what is the carbohydrate content of vegetable carbs
it appears that v8fusion is not carb-deficient when compared to vegetables. The only really *strong* source of carbs from veggies is yams and potatoes.


Obviously veggies are better for you than v8, but if you're lacking carbs, which is pretty hard to do unless you're on the V-diet, substituting v8 for veggies won't get you anywhere like eating anytype of grains will.


----------



## Tiger (Oct 11, 2008)

I think you're reading it wrong.

V8&#174; 100&#37; Vegetable Juice
Nutrition Facts*

Amount Per Serving (serving size) = 8 oz.

Calories 50
Total Fat 0g
Sat. Fat 0g
Trans Fat 0g
Cholesterol 0mg
Sodium 480mg
Potassium 470mg
Total Carb. 10g
Dietary Fiber 2g


Sugars 8g
Protein 2g

You were probably reading the fruit ones, as their carb load is just from the sugar itself. You're definitely right about it being good sugar though. You can get a lot of carbs from vegetables.

http://www.annecollins.com/dietary-carbs/carbs-vegetables.htm


----------



## Durero (Oct 17, 2008)

An article relevant to the discussion:

The story behind the corn industry's cloying ad blitz | By Tom Philpott | Grist | Victual Reality | 17 Oct 2008


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 17, 2008)

Durero said:


> An article relevant to the discussion:
> 
> The story behind the corn industry's cloying ad blitz | By Tom Philpott | Grist | Victual Reality | 17 Oct 2008



Hmmm... That was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 17, 2008)

willith said:


> Walking? Ok, so where does 'going to the gym' fall in among the possible things you could do?



 

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying there, but I'm going to assume that it's "gym > walking."

I see going to the gym as being relatively pointless. Paying money to burn calories that could be expended in more useless ways doesn't make sense to me. 

Small amounts of exercise added to one's day are an excellent way to improve one's health. 

It's more gradual and less intensive than bursts at the gym, but it's less difficult to maintain than a regimen at the gym, and it doesn't cost a damn cent. And if it replaces some driving, then it will save you money.


----------



## willith (Oct 18, 2008)

TonalArchitect said:


> I see going to the gym as being relatively pointless. Paying money to burn calories that could be expended in more useless ways doesn't make sense to me.



LOL, that's exactly why YOU don't go to a gym and exactly why YOU are not in good shape.



> Small amounts of exercise added to one's day are an excellent way to improve one's health.


....No they aren't. All that amounts to is "Well I had two big macs for lunch...but I took the stairs at work/school so it all evens out."



> It's more gradual and less intensive than bursts at the gym, but it's less difficult to maintain than a regimen at the gym, and it doesn't cost a damn cent. And if it replaces some driving, then it will save you money.


Gradual (if you MAINTAIN- which it sounds like you're claiming is too hard to do) and less intensive (i.e. less effective). How do you think a gym regiment starts? Everyone goes in benching 225 x 10 and follows a split religiously? 


All you've done is make excuses and say nothing other than "I'm lazy and I'm going to continue to be lazy", which if that's what you want and have no problem with, is fine.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 18, 2008)

willith said:


> LOL, that's exactly why YOU don't go to a gym and exactly why YOU are not in good shape.
> 
> ....No they aren't. All that amounts to is "Well I had two big macs for lunch...but I took the stairs at work/school so it all evens out."
> 
> ...


 

Dude, if all you are going to do is sling shit at other members of this forum about _their_ opinions, then get the fuck off the forum. You arent contributing shit, you arent being nice about not contributing shit, you crack it when other people try and get it back on track, and your frankly just here to be a cunt. Go away.

That wasnt what he was saying at ALL anyway, it is a good way to IMPROVE health, not make you 100&#37; healthy, but if you do start to walk up and down the 4 flights of stairs at work, and walking to work, or riding, it WILL make a difference slowly and is a good way to start, or even to just add to an existing regimen. 

Besides, adding a Gym regimen to your lifestyle CAN BE DIFFICULT IF YOU LIVE A FULL LIFE. Like me. I work 5 days a week, i sleep in late because i am physically unable to wake up earlier, and i have ADD, and have difficulty keeping focused on ANYTHING. So as such, RIDING TO WORK or going for a walk is a far better thing to do, than try and go to the gym early in the morning doing something that is to me, totally unenjoyable, and hard to maintain as opposed to get up, ride to work, ride home.

Also, less intensive does NOT mean less effective, it means that YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO TAKE IT FUCKING SLOWER. I was riding to school every single day of my last 3 years of school, and it worked just fine, it was _necessairy_ for me to get home, so there was no trouble sticking to it, and i enjoyed the ride, unlike getting up specifically to go to the gym, followed by an hour or 2 of what felt like a pointless waste of time that could have been used for something i actually enjoy (and, working 5 days a wekk do not have much time to do) Chances are, im expecting you to come back with "_oh but i work 5 days a week as well and i find the time just fine"_ or something along those lines, which is fine because you probably ENJOY going to the gym, have no problem spenidn the money, and dont mind. He does. Its not excuses, its an opinion, one that DOES work, and all you are doing is looking down on him, and every one else who has disagreed with you so far.

Im sorry to the mods, this is an abusive post, but seriously dude, go the fuck away if this is all you are going to do like in every post ive seen of yours.


----------



## Tiger (Oct 18, 2008)

He intentional ignored the logic and reason behind the user's post so he could start an argument. Sounds like a woman.


(Ha _kidding_! Dont ban me too)


----------



## Anthony (Oct 18, 2008)

willith said:


> LOL, that's exactly why YOU don't go to a gym and exactly why YOU are not in good shape.


I disagree too, the gym is far from pointless, but why don't YOU calm the fuck down. 


willith said:


> ....No they aren't. All that amounts to is "Well I had two big macs for lunch...but I took the stairs at work/school so it all evens out."


You do realize that you sound like a complete douche bag when you assume and exaggerate like that, don't you? It's clear you don't give a shit what we think of you (or do you, considering you're still here?), but show some respect.


willith said:


> All you've done is make excuses and say nothing other than "I'm lazy and I'm going to continue to be lazy", which if that's what you want and have no problem with, is fine.



All you've done here is instigate fights. Quit being an asshole.


----------



## willith (Oct 18, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> Dude, if all you are going to do is sling shit at other members of this forum about _their_ opinions, then get the fuck off the forum. You arent contributing shit, you arent being nice about not contributing shit, you crack it when other people try and get it back on track, and your frankly just here to be a cunt. Go away.
> 
> That wasnt what he was saying at ALL anyway, it is a good way to IMPROVE health, not make you 100% healthy, but if you do start to walk up and down the 4 flights of stairs at work, and walking to work, or riding, it WILL make a difference slowly and is a good way to start, or even to just add to an existing regimen.
> 
> ...




Wow, talk about being butt-hurt over the internet. If you think all of my posts are like this- then you never leave the P&CE forum. That's your issue, not mine. I'm hesitant to write anything else in this post- given your lack of understanding and comprehension which was displayed all too well in other posts you've made.

The bottom line is- people who go to a gym know how worthwhile it is- and other people just make excuses. Being "busy", being "add" (lol), being green with 9 eyes and purple hair- they're nothing but excuses. We're all busy and we all have other things to do- the difference lies in whether or not you're willing to commit, sacrifice, motivate, and push yourself.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 18, 2008)

willith said:


> Wow, talk about being butt-hurt over the internet. If you think all of my posts are like this- then you never leave the P&CE forum. That's your issue, not mine. I'm hesitant to write anything else in this post- given your lack of understanding and comprehension which was displayed all too well in other posts you've made.
> 
> The bottom line is- people who go to a gym know how worthwhile it is- and other people just make excuses. Being "busy", being "add" (lol), being green with 9 eyes and purple hair- they're nothing but excuses. We're all busy and we all have other things to do- the difference lies in whether or not you're willing to commit, sacrifice, motivate, and push yourself.



I honestly have no idea why you're still here. 

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/search.php?searchid=1510576


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 18, 2008)

willith said:


> Words.





1.) I don't know if you envision me as some kind of beached whale, but I'm not. 

2.) I didn't mean to say that for all persons in all circumstances going to the gym is a pointless waste of time, but that for me there are better alternatives. 
a.) Going to lift weights is an excellent reason, since not everyone can afford them, and even if they can afford some, a proper gym's facilities will almost always be more extensive than private ones. 
b.) For enjoyment of just working out. If you like it very much and can find the time, then by all means go. 
c.) I personally do not need to lose 80 pounds. It's been awhile since I've calculated it, but if I recall correctly my Body Mass Index was healthy, and to be overweight I would have to be much heavier or much shorter.
1.) Therefore I do not require especially intensive exercise, because I'm not a body builder, Olympic athlete, nor an overweight person. 
2.) Because of the aforementioned, exercise over the coarse of the day is sufficient. 

3.) About the intensive workout of going to the gym
a.) I didn't mean the degree of difficulty (e.g. how much you lift), but the amount of time. Two hours of time every day can be a large commitment.
b.) Rather than having people trying to lose weight jump from little or no exercise a day to spending a few hours each day at a gym, doctors recommend adding exercise in small amounts like (oh, for the sake of example _walking_). About thirty minutes a day is a decent amount. This is easier for people to maintain.

4.) About your hyperbole. 
a.) Who said that walking up one flight of stairs will compensate for two Big Macs? 
b.) I know that walking to school/work is not possible for everyone (distance, time, etc), but in my example I walk to and from college pert near every day. For me, that's about 2.4 miles, which is a little more than going up a single flight of stairs. 


There, in outline format (a couple layers in, though) for organization/no real reason.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 18, 2008)

willith said:


> The bottom line is- people who go to a gym know how worthwhile it is- and other people just make excuses. Being "busy", being "add" (lol), being green with 9 eyes and purple hair- they're nothing but excuses. We're all busy and we all have other things to do- the difference lies in whether or not you're willing to commit, sacrifice, motivate, and push yourself.



This is exactly what i am saying though: _they arent just excuses._ And you are utterly incapable of seeing anyone elses point of view.

I appreciate that the gym does work, and is worth while, what you fail to see or accept is that there are people who do OTHER things that are just as effective, that can be involved in things they would do that day anyway, because as TonalArchitect says; 2 hours in a day is a long time. Also, you _are_ making massive assumptions about people you have never met, based on standards that are so prejudicial its not funny.

What works for you isnt for everyone, and you need to understand that.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 19, 2008)

I'm tiring of this thread quite quickly, why in the hell are we arguing about peoples personal excersize routines? 

Look, here's a good post a couple pages back I missed.



Jason said:


> Really?
> 
> Ok you guys there is a difference between High Fructose corn syrup and just fructose.
> 
> ...



I didn't know this, I'd like to hear more about it, so....can we return to discussion please?

I have a bit to learn about how the body handles different forms of sugars, aside from the basics, and also why HFCS is different from pure cane sugar.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 19, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> I didn't know this, I'd like to hear more about it, so....can we return to discussion please?
> 
> I have a bit to learn about how the body handles different forms of sugars, aside from the basics, and also why HFCS is different from pure cane sugar.


 
Sorry dude  Back on with the discussion!

Also, its a shame companies put their $ ahead of peoples welfare. It seems wrong. Hving said that, everyone knows the dangers of much of the more basic fake sugar (Aspartame etc.) and while the thread isnt about that, id just like to point out that its sad how underhanded some companies seem to go about their sugar/fake sugar businesses.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 19, 2008)

Aspartame in my opinion (also as far as my knowledge goes) is too dangerous to use as a replacement sugar, as I understand it's really no better for you than real sugar. HFCS I honestly don't know much about versus the pure cane stuff, I know it tastes different! 

And now I know that HFCS is apparently worse for you than the pure cane stuff, why is this? There is the moderation and exercise standpoint, but then there is the question "now what exactly are we putting in our bodies" thing.

Education trumps arrogance, so...lets go!


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 19, 2008)

Well, I have a friend whose parents are into organic foods and such, and he knows quite a bit about foods. I asked him about it, and he told me that-- as has been discussed-- it's sweeter than sugar. He also told me that because of the effective increased sugar content (sweetness, I suppose being a built-in subjective calorimeter) that the consumption of high fructose corn syrup stresses the pancreas.


----------



## Jason (Oct 19, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Aspartame in my opinion (also as far as my knowledge goes) is too dangerous to use as a replacement sugar, as I understand it's really no better for you than real sugar. HFCS I honestly don't know much about versus the pure cane stuff, I know it tastes different!
> 
> And now I know that HFCS is apparently worse for you than the pure cane stuff, why is this? There is the moderation and exercise standpoint, but then there is the question "now what exactly are we putting in our bodies" thing.
> 
> Education trumps arrogance, so...lets go!



Since you liked my last post. Did you know Aspartame turns in to fermaldahyde in the body? Ya know the shit they use to keep you fresh after you die? Yeah...


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 19, 2008)

Jason said:


> Since you liked my last post. Did you know Aspartame turns in to fermaldahyde in the body? Ya know the shit they use to keep you fresh after you die? Yeah...



Did you know that formaldehyde is a natural by-product of the body's metabolism? It occurs from the breakdown of methanol, and is converted into formic acid. Now high concentrations of formic acid aren't good, and I'm not waving the flag for aspartame, but I thought I'd say that formaldehyde is produced by the body (it's just converted into other stuff, like a crap-ton of other stuff produced by the body).


----------



## Jason (Oct 19, 2008)

TonalArchitect said:


> Did you know that formaldehyde is a natural by-product of the body's metabolism? It occurs from the breakdown of methanol, and is converted into formic acid. Now high concentrations of formic acid aren't good, and I'm not waving the flag for aspartame, but I thought I'd say that formaldehyde is produced by the body (it's just converted into other stuff, like a crap-ton of other stuff produced by the body).



Yes but it is in much higher amounts


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 19, 2008)

Jason said:


> Yes but it is in much higher amounts



Exactly, I just wanted to say this similar to my original argument about high fructose corn syrup. I just want to point out that it's more the quantity of the substance than the attributes or presence of the substance itself.


----------



## willith (Oct 19, 2008)

TonalArchitect said:


> b.) For enjoyment of just working out. If you like it very much and can find the time, then by all means go.
> c.) I personally do not need to lose 80 pounds. It's been awhile since I've calculated it, but if I recall correctly my Body Mass Index was healthy, and to be overweight I would have to be much heavier or much shorter.
> 1.) Therefore I do not require especially intensive exercise, because I'm not a body builder, Olympic athlete, nor an overweight person.
> 2.) Because of the aforementioned, exercise over the coarse of the day is sufficient.
> ...



BMI is a worthless calculation method. According to that method, almost all professional sports players are overweight. Is a college level linebacker at 6'1" 220 with 7% bf overweight? Quite the opposite...

NOBODY should be spending 2 hours at a gym, everyday, unless they're on anabolic steroids. It leads to over-training in no time. Your body needs time to recover- typically 48-72 hours. That's why people follow splits. While one body part is recovering- you work out another. (ex- Mon- Chest/Back; T- Legs; etc.) Even on my biggest day (which is chest/back) It usually only takes about 90 minutes. 
When you can't even nail down an appropriate time frame for working out, (let alone, a workout routine) I know, beyond any doubt, that you don't know anything about fitness. I'm not just saying it to get a rise out of you....it's because you really don't know anything- and that can be harmful when you're trying to pass on false information. I don't need to "know you" to know whether or not you have a clue about what you're talking about. It's quite obvious right off the bat with such novice mistakes.

And for jr.- YOU are incapable of understanding period.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 19, 2008)

willith said:


> And for jr.- YOU are incapable of understanding period.


 
Of course, your intens eamounts of _NOTHING_ certainly go to show how shit i am.

All we (and it is we) are trying to say, is that yuo _do not need to go to the gym to be healthy_. It is not a prerequisite of health that you go to a gym, it is simply a matter of eating well, and _finding A way (NOT necessairily the gym) to burn the calories._

My apologies again to Zepp, and the original poster. Please continue the discussion.


----------



## willith (Oct 19, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> Of course, your intens eamounts of _NOTHING_ certainly go to show how shit i am.
> 
> All we (and it is we) are trying to say, is that yuo _do not need to go to the gym to be healthy_. It is not a prerequisite of health that you go to a gym, it is simply a matter of eating well, and _finding A way (NOT necessairily the gym) to burn the calories._
> 
> My apologies again to Zepp, and the original poster. Please continue the discussion.



? still can't understand the first sentence. 

No one said you have to go to a gym to be healthy....you just have to workout to be healthy (along with a good diet). I know a lot of people that work out at home. It's "diet and exercise" ...not "DIET...and figure out some way to get rid of excess calories."
Seriously, you're reaching....


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 20, 2008)

willith said:


> ? still can't understand the first sentence.
> 
> No one said you have to go to a gym to be healthy....you just have to workout to be healthy (along with a good diet). I know a lot of people that work out at home. It's "diet and exercise" ...not "DIET...and figure out some way to get rid of excess calories."
> Seriously, you're reaching....


 
That first sentence is what i (and many others) like to call sarcasm. As for the rest, what everyone is saying is doing little things like riding to work, or to school/study, or to a lesson you have, or even to the beach, walking up and down the stairs at work instead of taking the lift, walking instead of driving places, riding instead of driving places, and all the other suggestions that have been tossed around, ARE ALL FORMS OF EXERCISE THAT CAN HELP LOSE WEIGHT, And that it is not _necessairy_ to go to a gym. Everything you have said to this point, has hinted at or blatantly stated that going to the gym is the only way to lose weight or stay healthy, and even went so far as to have a go at a fellow member when he said he didnt see the need to go to the gym and that he was healthy and fit, and assumed that because of that, he was unfit and overweight.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 20, 2008)

willith said:


> No one said you have to go to a gym to be healthy....you just have to workout to be healthy (along with a good diet). I know a lot of people that work out at home. It's "diet and exercise" ...not "DIET...and figure out some way to get rid of excess calories."
> Seriously, you're reaching....



No you _don't_ have to work out to be healthy. I go to the gym but I know that you don't have to work out to be healthy. And it really is as simple as burning excess calories unless you're a body builder.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 20, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> No you _don't_ have to work out to be healthy. I go to the gym but I know that you don't have to work out to be healthy. And it really is as simple as burning excess calories unless you're a body builder.


 
Thank you. This ^ is exactly what everyone from basically the start of this post has been saying.

If there are any mods still active, please delete my posts, and also Williths posts, we've both hijacked and derailed the thread.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 20, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> No you _don't_ have to work out to be healthy. I go to the gym but I know that you don't have to work out to be healthy. And it really is as simple as burning excess calories unless you're a body builder.



Thank you. This is what I meant. The gym isn't pointless insofar as it's ineffective, but that for me personally going, unless I want to build muscle, is unnecessary, since I'm not overweight. 

Willith, please leave. You've left not one constructive post here. 

As for a attempt to bring back an interesting thread, does anyone know the relative calories which high fructose corn syrup has to other sugars, such as in a convenient table or graph (which I'm too lazy to look up)?

Also I think that HFCS is preferred because it takes on a liquid form and is easier to store/transport and maybe has a better shelf life. (Not that it's not cheaper either; that's probably a factor, one which would easily override health in the eyes of Corporate America.)


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 22, 2008)

Well, it looks like you guys took care of it, but willith, if you haven't got the point yet, you need to chill out.

That's more than a suggestion. Curb your attitude.


----------



## willith (Oct 23, 2008)

eaeolian said:


> Well, it looks like you guys took care of it, but willith, if you haven't got the point yet, you need to chill out.
> 
> That's more than a suggestion. Curb your attitude.





lol, wtf brah, that was like a week ago. Where you been?


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 23, 2008)

Probably not the smartest move...


----------



## ZeroSignal (Oct 23, 2008)

willith said:


> lol, wtf brah, that was like a week ago. Where you been?



Goodbye!


----------



## willith (Oct 23, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Probably not the smartest move...



Because it was an unnecessary bump? I was all but done with this thread- no activity from me in 4-5 days...and THEN I'm called out and told to "chill out". I thought "being gone" was even better than being 'chilled out'?

BTW, what'd YOU find that was offensive in that post?


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 23, 2008)

It's the condescending attitude in your posts that I take offense to. If you haven't noticed there was just a change of ownership of the board and some confusion with the mod situation, there was a thread about it somewhere.

Now they seem to be back in action, and I'd rather not see the guys that keep this forum a pleasant place to be treated disrespectfully. Especially since you're already on thin ice with them.


----------



## Daemoniac (Oct 23, 2008)

And just generally because you act like a cunt.


----------

