Arab Nights (imported) wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2010 12:27 pm I am not quite sure how this fits in, but I and several other people I know do get bigger when returning to the US. My joke is that two days after returning, I quit farting and loose a belt notch. But - it is amazing how quick that fills out if you don't really discipline yourself. I know one guy who had been happily working in Madagascar, enjoying the food, etc. The job ended, he came back and quickly added 70 pounds. I do not know exactly what goes on, but I do know that a lot of people quickly really gain when back on American food.

Too many calories and less activity equals weight gain. And most prepared food in the USA is loaded with sugars and Salt for taste. All the sugar calories go to weight gain if you are not active.

To many of the over weight persons are not active and the haverier you are, the harder it becomes to be active.

Active is not going to work walking 300 feet to be infront of a computer all morning, back to the car to get lunch, and then back to the computer, drive home, stopping to get takeout, watching TV, and going to bed. That is a way to become very large.

"

ramses (imported) wrote: Tue Mar 23, 2010 9:02 pm Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same".

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.

"When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse.

I think you skimed over too much. Read the condensed version that I am quoting here.

ramses (imported) wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:50 am The obesity epedmic very closely corelates to the commercial use in the US food supply. I don't generally get into politicizing food choices but I think this is one thing that affects the health of the nation to a point that we either need to tax HFCS to a point that makes real sugar a cost effective option or we need to start banning it like we have trans fats in many places.

This is going to infuriate "Big Corn" and they will fight it. Corn is about the most unhealthy plant products on the planet (and I enjoy it on the cob, corn chips, corn bread, corn flakes, corn nuts, corn tortillas) but it is a natural junk food that is probably better off used as fuel.

We do nt need to tax HFC. I have a better idea. There is a very heavy tax on importing sugar. We need to eliminate that instead. That is why U.S. firms use so much HFC. Tarrifs were put in place on sugar to help support sugar beet farmers. Raw sugar prices in the U.S. are nearly twice what they are in Canada or Mexico.

That is why Life Savers and Hershey chocolate moved out of the U.S. They cannot use HFC, they must use sugar. Life Savers moved to Canada where labor is more expensive, but they save a fortune on the cost of sugar. Hershey whent to Mexico where they save on both sugar and labor, but we cannot trust thier sanitary standards.

I think it was done in part to lower world sugar prices because Cuba's main export is sugar. It was part of the whole anti-Castro thing...

Sugar is the standard in most of the world, but the U.S. uses HFC.

micropenis (imported) wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:28 pm We do nt need to tax HFC. I have a better idea. There is a very heavy tax on importing sugar. We need to eliminate that instead. That is why U.S. firms use so much HFC. Tarrifs were put in place on sugar to help support sugar beet farmers. Raw sugar prices in the U.S. are nearly twice what they are in Canada or Mexico.

That is why Life Savers and Hershey chocolate moved out of the U.S. They cannot use HFC, they must use sugar. Life Savers moved to Canada where labor is more expensive, but they save a fortune on the cost of sugar. Hershey whent to Mexico where they save on both sugar and labor, but we cannot trust thier sanitary standards.

I think it was done in part to lower world sugar prices because Cuba's main export is sugar. It was part of the whole anti-Castro thing...

Sugar is the standard in most of the world, but the U.S. uses HFC.

It may halp to end subsities to "BIG CORN". It looks like corn and HFCS is doing more to arm the health of the world than tobacco!

HFCS is evil, as evil as is the company behind it ADM. ADM has more lobbyists lawyers protecting their interests than nearly any other company in the country. Anyone who doubts the impact of HFCS only needs to draw a line chart depicting increases in obesity and diabetes with the introduction of HFCS.

I am NOT a scientist, but I don't think the body is capable of responding to this chemical in the same way it does to sugar or better yet honey.

The biggest trouble with this crap is that it is in EVERYTHING. Ketchup, bread, pickles, relish, yogurt, pancake syrup, cereal (even granola)...you can find it so often. Certain brands don't use it, and I tend to stick to them. Trader Joe's is a great example, I've not seen much of anything they sell that has it, but it is hard to get away from, especially eating out.

Just read on the BBC where China is having an outbreak of diabetes in adults (T2).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8587032.stm

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/im ... s_logo.gif

China faces 'diabetes epidemic'

China faces a diabetes epidemic, with almost one in 10 adults having the disease while most cases remain undiagnosed, researchers have said.

Tests showed diabetes was more endemic than previously thought, according to the New England Journal of Medicine.

The figures suggest China has some 90 million diabetics, far more than India.

Rapid economic growth has affected public health, through urbanisation, changed diets and more sedentary lifestyles, researchers said.

Rigorous new tests suggested that more than 92 million Chinese adults had diabetes and that nearly 150 million more were showing early symptoms, researchers said.

This represents a major public health problem for the authorities in Beijing as diabetes is a major factor in illnesses such as heart disease, stroke and kidney disease, correspondents say.

"In the last 10 years, with the country's economy expanding quickly and people's standard of living improving, people's lifestyles have changed," said Yang Wenying, one of the report's 20 authors, who is head of endocrinology at Beijing's China-Japan Friendship Hospital.

"China's economic development has gone from a situation of not being able to eat enough, of poverty, to having enough food and warm clothes, and doing much less exercise," she told the AFP news agency.

The US has a similar percentage of sufferers, but China with its massive population now has more diabetics than anywhere else in the world, says the BBC's Michael Bristow in Beijing.

The Chinese study was based on a representative sample of more than 46,000 adults aged 20 years or older from 14 provinces and municipalities.

Last year, US research suggested that diabetes was becoming a global problem, with more than 60% of all cases likely to occur in Asia.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/a ... 587032.stm

Published: 2010/03/25 12:58:54 GMT

© BBC MMX

Print Sponsor

Too much plain ole white rice can do it too.

And under the Red Star, the Chinese people

enjoy a super sized bowl of rice

as never before in their history

Moi

Thanks, sugar tariffs and corn subsidies! </sarcasm>

I wonder how much cheaper healthcare would be in the US without HFCS contributing to obesity (as the study suggests that it does).

Now, can the American people stand up to the sugar and corn industries and get their government to stop these harmful policies? Note that I mean the subsidies; I am not suggesting new taxes or regulations.

I think people are missing an important point here. If you have to worry about the different effects of HFCS vs sucrose, it is a pretty good indication that you are eating too many sweets period. We have turned sweets from an occasional treat to a large part of our diet, and whatever the -ose you are talking about it is likely to have negative effects. Skip sodas and sweet drinks in favor of unsweetened seltzer and iced tea, and when you want a sweet go to a real bakery and get one of the real stuff. It will be infinitely tastier than the usual run of cokes, twinkies and candy.

Transward

Sadly it's hard these days to avoid sugar. The stuff is, well, addictive. There are even those who have made the claim that it's at least as addictive as heroin, if not moreso. Quite honestly, those who make foods know this and take advantage of it. How many fast food places load up everything on their menu with sugar (even the burgers)?

Take a look at the ingredient list of most of the processed foods you eat. Chances are, somewhere along the list you'll find an '-ose'. Hell, I was at the grocery store yesterday and saw (swear to God) a chicken dish in tomato sauce that proudly proclaimed it contained sucralose and some other artificial sweetener.

I can't help but ask... what the hell does chicken in tomato sauce need sweeteners for, artificial or otherwise? Who looks at a dish like that and thinks, "what this needs is a good boost of sugar'"???

HFCS vs sucrose may be a questionable choice if you're already eating too many sweets period, but even a small change towards the better can help. It's a start at least.

(My favourite drink? Club soda. More fizz than pop, yet no sugar. Flavour it however you want, if you feel so inclined. 75% soda, 25% pure fruit juice is very refreshing.)