[quote]7thSonofa7thSon wrote:
My frustration comes more from the fact that the girl in question feels a need to tear down my accomplishments in order to validate her own lifestyle (one which I have myself forsaken). [/quote]
People too weak to follow their own dreams will always try to discourage others.
I have a T-Shirt that says this and I wear it on occasion when it fits the surroundings. Usually with the in-laws.
Agreed, thanks Shug.
To build on what Chris said: yes, it does seem that HFCS is worse than sugar, even for the same caloric value. That’s what you get when you only consider food a “calories-in/calories-out”
Here’s an interview with Dr Johnson by Dr. Mercola about this:
There’s also a follow-up interview for those of you interested in looking into this further:
Also, consider Robert Lustig’s “Sugar, the bitter truth” vid:
Sugar: The Bitter Truth - YouTube (loooong vid, but worth watching)
[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Fantastic info, thank you.
BBB[/quote]
There are two well written articles I know of that completely RIP APART the Princeton study. Some contentions include:
1)Rat carbohydrate metabolism is vastly different from that of humans.
2)Badly designed control groups.
3)Manipulation of data to produce a desired result.
4)Making large conclusions about human physiology based on those so/so results about rat carbohydrate metabolism.
One article was written by James Krieger: Weightology – The Science of Body Metamorphosis
Second one was written by Alan Aragon in his research review. Feel free to PM me about that.
EDIT: On another note, here is a good commentary on the Robert Lustig video.
Thanks for posting that article Josh, good read
The study posted in this thread is weak, at best. Rat metabolism is different from human metabolism wrt sugar and carbohydrates. Rat’s also eat ad libitum since it’s impossible to communicate to a rat that it needs to eat all of the food provided to it. Because of this, caloric intake is not standardized and you can’t make inferences regarding how equal caloric intakes of different macronutrients and food sources react differently based on this study.
Moving on from the design flaws, the results of the study are grossly misinterpreted by whoever wrote that article and most likely the omissions were made in order to further some sort of personal confirmation bias. People see what they want to see.
In the short term, the rats who had access to HFCS sweetened water in addition to their regular food for 12 hours per day gained the most fat, with 24-hour access to HFCS coming in second, 12-hour sucrose in third, and the control group (no added sugar) gained the least amount of weight.
Now, based simply on the short term portion of the study, you could infer some correlation, BUT the results of the long-term (6 month) measurements are confounding and make it impossible to infer correlation, let alone causality. In the long term measurements, the 12-HFCS group lost more weight than any other group, including the control group who consumed no additional sugars. The 24-HFCS gained the most weight of all groups. Since the short and long term results are contradictory, then its likely that some, if not all of the results of this study are a result of the randomness created by poor design of the study.
OP, Chris and I disagree about HFCS, but I can assure you we both agree that your attitude towards fruit is probably not healthy. How many people have you ever encountered who got fat just from eating fruit? While it is true that fruit does contain some sugar and some fructose, the health benefits of consuming a piece or two of fruit each day in conjunction with an otherwise healthy diet far outweigh any possible negative consequences of consuming 20-30g of extra sugar from fruit sources. I’m not talking about sweetened fruit juices or sugar-syrup coated fruits, but fresh fruit, mind you.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
The study posted in this thread is weak, at best. Rat metabolism is different from human metabolism wrt sugar and carbohydrates. Rat’s also eat ad libitum since it’s impossible to communicate to a rat that it needs to eat all of the food provided to it. Because of this, caloric intake is not standardized and you can’t make inferences regarding how equal caloric intakes of different macronutrients and food sources react differently based on this study.
Moving on from the design flaws, the results of the study are grossly misinterpreted by whoever wrote that article and most likely the omissions were made in order to further some sort of personal confirmation bias. People see what they want to see.
In the short term, the rats who had access to HFCS sweetened water in addition to their regular food for 12 hours per day gained the most fat, with 24-hour access to HFCS coming in second, 12-hour sucrose in third, and the control group (no added sugar) gained the least amount of weight.
Now, based simply on the short term portion of the study, you could infer some correlation, BUT the results of the long-term (6 month) measurements are confounding and make it impossible to infer correlation, let alone causality. In the long term measurements, the 12-HFCS group lost more weight than any other group, including the control group who consumed no additional sugars. The 24-HFCS gained the most weight of all groups. Since the short and long term results are contradictory, then its likely that some, if not all of the results of this study are a result of the randomness created by poor design of the study.
OP, Chris and I disagree about HFCS, but I can assure you we both agree that your attitude towards fruit is probably not healthy. How many people have you ever encountered who got fat just from eating fruit? While it is true that fruit does contain some sugar and some fructose, the health benefits of consuming a piece or two of fruit each day in conjunction with an otherwise healthy diet far outweigh any possible negative consequences of consuming 20-30g of extra sugar from fruit sources. I’m not talking about sweetened fruit juices or sugar-syrup coated fruits, but fresh fruit, mind you.[/quote]
Perhaps I phrased my beliefs on fruit poorly. I eat some fruit. Just not nearly as much as I do other types of food (not to say that I eat tons of other types). My mistake, didn’t mean to confer the wrong idea. I appreciate the interest and advice regardless.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
You are whining about someone else being incorrect and believing that they are informed when you yourself are incorrect and believing you are informed. Funny how that works.
[/quote]
It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect Strong. Incompetent retards tend to view themselves as HIGHLY competent, and actual competent people tend to view themselves as LESS competent, leading to the ridiculous and perverse situation you’re describing. It explains a lot, right? : )
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
There are two well written articles I know of that completely RIP APART the Princeton study. Some contentions include:
1)Rat carbohydrate metabolism is vastly different from that of humans.
2)Badly designed control groups.
3)Manipulation of data to produce a desired result.
4)Making large conclusions about human physiology based on those so/so results about rat carbohydrate metabolism.
One article was written by James Krieger: Weightology – The Science of Body Metamorphosis
Second one was written by Alan Aragon in his research review. Feel free to PM me about that.
EDIT: On another note, here is a good commentary on the Robert Lustig video.
[/quote]
Great points. It’s always amusing when someone trots out ONE study and attempts to claim that “this explains it ALL and is IRREFUTABLE.”
2010 - The dawn of broism!! I can’t take credit for that - Brick came up with that little funny. : )
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
The study posted in this thread is weak, at best. Rat metabolism is different from human metabolism wrt sugar and carbohydrates. Rat’s also eat ad libitum since it’s impossible to communicate to a rat that it needs to eat all of the food provided to it. Because of this, caloric intake is not standardized and you can’t make inferences regarding how equal caloric intakes of different macronutrients and food sources react differently based on this study.
Moving on from the design flaws, the results of the study are grossly misinterpreted by whoever wrote that article and most likely the omissions were made in order to further some sort of personal confirmation bias. People see what they want to see.
In the short term, the rats who had access to HFCS sweetened water in addition to their regular food for 12 hours per day gained the most fat, with 24-hour access to HFCS coming in second, 12-hour sucrose in third, and the control group (no added sugar) gained the least amount of weight.
Now, based simply on the short term portion of the study, you could infer some correlation, BUT the results of the long-term (6 month) measurements are confounding and make it impossible to infer correlation, let alone causality. In the long term measurements, the 12-HFCS group lost more weight than any other group, including the control group who consumed no additional sugars. The 24-HFCS gained the most weight of all groups. Since the short and long term results are contradictory, then its likely that some, if not all of the results of this study are a result of the randomness created by poor design of the study.
OP, Chris and I disagree about HFCS, but I can assure you we both agree that your attitude towards fruit is probably not healthy. How many people have you ever encountered who got fat just from eating fruit? While it is true that fruit does contain some sugar and some fructose, the health benefits of consuming a piece or two of fruit each day in conjunction with an otherwise healthy diet far outweigh any possible negative consequences of consuming 20-30g of extra sugar from fruit sources. I’m not talking about sweetened fruit juices or sugar-syrup coated fruits, but fresh fruit, mind you.[/quote]
Mamma said KNOCK YOU OUT.
Good points Strong.
BTW Seventh Son (great album btw) wasn’t directing the Dunning-Kruger effect thing at you, just pointing out what he described. I do think you just worded your question poorly - I believe you understand that fruit is an important part of anyone’s diet.
[quote]SkyNett wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
You are whining about someone else being incorrect and believing that they are informed when you yourself are incorrect and believing you are informed. Funny how that works.
[/quote]
It’s called the Dunning-Kruger Effect Strong. Incompetent retards tend to view themselves as HIGHLY competent, and actual competent people tend to view themselves as LESS competent, leading to the ridiculous and perverse situation you’re describing. It explains a lot, right? : ) [/quote]
lol I’m an incompetent retard.
Edit: Didn’t read the last post before I said this and thus essentially called myself an incompetent retard. Maybe I actually an?!
Double Edit: FUCK I just said maybe I AN?! Damnit. Every time I post in here I sound dumber and dumber.
funny thing about rat studies. they are used to justify sales of a ton of diet and bodybuilding supplements sold in the industry. but there is only one teensy little problem. THE RESULTS CANNOT BE DUPLICATED IN HUMANS!
haha I didn’t read your last post SkyNett. Seventh Son is probably my favorite Maiden album. On the topic of ignorance, my cousin saw my Metabolic Drive and was like “OMG ARE THOSE STEROIDZ?!” I just laughed at her because it CLEARLY SAYS WHEY PROTEIN on it.
I’m glad Strong posted here sooner than I could, because he’s a far better writer than I am.
Just reducing the amount of HFCS-laden foods is not going to make someone lose weight unless they are in a caloric deficit from activity and/or reduced food intake.
Many athletes consume a shitoad of sugar and HFCS and have stellar body composition.
I figured you wouldn’t see it right away - this site is a technical nightmare and posts take FOREVER to show up sometimes. Lol - no worries. : )
As for Shugs rats though, I wanted to point out that the Princeton study is riddled with poor scientific methodology - the rats were fed the human equivalent of 3,000 kcals per day from that single source HFCS.
So, if you want to see if three fucking thousand calories a day from a simple sugar source will contribute to abdominal obesity then let’s have at it - lol. Obviously that’s ridiculous, and it’s why this study is ridiculous - no one disputes that drinking an ocean of sugared soda every day will make you fat…lol…
Anyway, this is a dogshit study through and through. Chris has a psych degree, so I KNOW he’s taken some statistics and likely a research methodology course - I am sorely disappointed that he’s even bringing out that particular POS.
Sorry Shugs - I ain’t buyin’ it… : )
And I don’t know why peope take liberties in using studies to back up their beliefs or what they want to shove down other people’s throats when they can’t critique or interpret ACADEMIC, SCIENTIFIC literature approppriately.
Go take a basic research methodology and biostatistics class at a local community college for cheap if you want to get involved. Or you can do as Strong does–THOROUGHLY educate yourself in these areas.
A good start is the book Studying a Study and Testing a Test.
[quote]Chris Shugart wrote:
“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests.”
[/quote]
I bolded the part of the quote that (I guess) was mistakenly omitted from your highlight reel. Small thing, but I feel it is an important asterisk to make note of when deciding how to extrapolate this information.
Awesome Bro-Fist dude.