Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is it the HFCS to blame for America's Obesity ?

  1. #1 Is it the HFCS to blame for America's Obesity ? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    52
    There isn't one product in USA that haven’t HFCS substitute instead of Sugar. And if you go else ware like Europe they use real Sugar in their drinks and sweets and of course Obesity rate is much lower ... The thing is that sugar much simpler and potent as Fructose, Glucose and Sucrose.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Wellllll.....I'd say the reason why 30% of Americans are such disgusting fatasses is plain and simple: too much food, too little exercise. Our body is a very effective energy storage device. If the input of calories is higher than what the body needs to function properly, your body WILL store the excess energy as fat. No food additives or artificial sweeteners will change this.


    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    927
    its true you know. theres obese people in europe too.
    when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth
    A.C Doyle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree samcdkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    640
    Its quantity and quality. Look at the amount of processed foods, the amount of soft drinks, juices, ice teas.
    Homeland Security Advisory System: RED
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Obesity rate is much lower [in Europe than in USA]
    You're probably right that it's lower, but "much" lower might be a stretch.

    From what little I've read on the subject there doesn't seem to any justification for the belief that different types of sugars are to blame for obesity in general. Do you know of a definitive study or studies?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Prenatal exposure to phthalates (hormone analogs found in plastics) has been shown to have a dramatic effect on obesity.

    "Certain environmental substances called endocrine-disrupting chemicals can change the functioning of a fetus's genes, altering a baby's metabolic system and predisposing him or her to obesity. This individual could eat the same thing and exercise the same amount as someone with a normal metabolic system, but he or she would become obese, while the other person remained thin. This is a serious problem because obesity puts people at risk for other problems, including cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension," vom Saal said.

    Using lab mice, vom Saal has studied the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including bisphenol-A, which recently made news in San Francisco, where controversy has ensued over an ordinance that seeks to ban its use in children's products. In vom Saal's recent study, which he will present at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), he found that endocrine-disrupting chemicals cause mice to be born at very low birth weights and then gain abnormally large amounts of weight in a short period of time, more than doubling their body weight in just seven days. Vom Saal followed the mice as they got older and found that these mice were obese throughout their lives. He said studies of low-birth-weight children have shown a similar overcompensation after birth, resulting in lifelong obesity.
    The mice in the image are genetically identical and raised in the same environments. They differ in whether or not they were exposed to chemicals found in many plastics, in utero.




    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1100918_2.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I wonder if the ongoing effects, when exposure to phthalates has stopped, are psychological, as an innate survival response to low birth weight, or if the genes' functioning has been permanently changed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Thanks for the facts, Free Radical, and I wonder if you know the answer to Bunbury's question - seems a fascinating thought.

    EDIT:

    Oh, and I just found this. Seemed apropos (get to glory in The Grauniad, learn a bit more science, and gaze pityingly upon the Daily Mail and what Ben Goldacre describes: "The Daily Mail, as you know, is engaged in a philosophical project of mythic proportions: for many years now it has diligently been sifting through all the inanimate objects in the world, soberly dividing them into the ones which either cause - or cure - cancer. " :P ).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Paralith and Spurious Monkey may be better suited to weigh in on this point, as they evidently have strong backgrounds in developmental biology.

    (However, it should go without saying that many factors seem to contribute to the expansion of our middles. Lest the phthalate research leave the impression that it’s all down to hormone analogues.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •