It just dawned on me that he is also attacking all types of strawman arguments that I at least never even brought up. I never jumped up and down and started an anti HCFS campaign.
But regardless of the topic Xahrx has a history of ranting. So I suppose I shouldn’t have allowed myself to get sucked in, no doubt much to his pleasure.
I recall that doc that gets listed on LRC a lot(Mercala?) mentioning that sodas have a 65/35 fructose/sucrose balance(and that your body apparently hates to let fructose to go to waste and won’t let hardly any escape unabsorbed); does that have any special impact? Besides making coke taste like crap, that is.
You’re saying restaurants open around midnight? I mean “late” by any standards. He went all over Europe and could find barely any restaurants open from like 10pm to 4 in the morning except bars.
That isn’t a bad thing. People who frown about others “over-eating” are the same people who frown upon smoking cigarettes because they think they have some kind of high moral ground. It’s clearly not true for everyone, but over-eating and smoking may calm people down to the point where the effects of their habits are less of a risk than the stress may cause their bodies without the habits.
I’ve never been to America (I’m from the Netherlands), but my mother has been to several parts of the country.
She, and other Dutch people who have been there had the same experience at breakfast: everything is so damn
fat. Also, the sizes of each meal was so much bigger, just half the sizes would have been OK. The Dutch Mc Donald’s
doesn’t have a supersized meal for example. America has also a more junk food culture, but the Netherlands and other European countries are in the rise, the same with our obesity figures.
Now, you could say that it is a wealth issue, but I disagree. I have been raised in a middle class family and my parents usually spent
a lot on food, but more on quality than on quantity. In the lower parts of Europe that’s even more extreem. They tend to eat more
tradionally, so more fresh food and less processed food.
well yes, American food portion and European food portions differ… well not in Italy, because they serve you ALOT of food… but for the most part, the food portions are different. Yet, i do not know why people call America a fat nation, I have seen many fat Europeans, for example, if you go to Greece, you are bound to see fat people in speedos getting a tan at the beach, not a pretty sight, but its true. I think the big criticism is that kid obesity in America is far larger than kid obesity in Europe. But I just think that parents should stop acting like ‘best friends’ to their kids and be parents and tell them go outside and ride a bike instead of sitting at home eating all the damn food!
“It did provide a nice explanation for why Americans are so much fatter than Europeans though. Why do you think that is?” - Nero
We eat more. As to why, i couldn’t hazzard a guess for each individual but I do think culturally we’re more inclined toward consumption as an end in and of itself, and the purest way to consume something is to eat it. From what I can see European attitudes toward food are different too. I know a few people of French origin as a friend married one and they just kind of became part of our circule of friends, and I have relatives I talk to regularly from the Netherlands as well. None of them seem to see food as a reward to the degree Americans do. As far as I can see it’s a cultural thing, we just think of food in different ways for one, and Americans tend toward extremes more so than other nationalities in my experience.
“xahrx, are you confusing me with another poster?” - Nero
Probably.
This post will probably get lost by now but anyway: the term overweight emanates from the speaker’s teleogy i.e. the body should be used for x.y and z so being a weight which means you cannot perform these actions well is bad. Hence the debate is actually hinges on the desirablity of certain individual’s ends.
Overweight is a similar term as being bad for the environment which of course presupposes what would be good for it even though such people are loathe to express it as it would unmask them.
“I recall that doc that gets listed on LRC a lot(Mercala?) mentioning that sodas have a 65/35 fructose/sucrose balance(and that your body apparently hates to let fructose to go to waste and won’t let hardly any escape unabsorbed); does that have any special impact? Besides making coke taste like crap, that is.” - BioTube
Depends on what he means by being ‘absorbed’. Unless you suffer from some kind of serious pathological condition your body will always use carbs for fuel preferentially over other macro nutrients, be they fructose or sucrose. It’s a question of energy balance when it comes to weight gain/loss. If you’re eating excess calories and a lot of carbs you’ll burn the carbs, likely have high blood sugar, and cut the oxidation of any dietery fat intake which will then be preferentially stored. If you’re eating excess calories but no carbs you’ll have moderate to low blood sugar and you’ll still be storing excess dietery fat and oxidizing a little as well, as well as oxidizing some dietery protein for your daily energy needs. If you cut the carbs and the fat you’ll start oxidizing protein and eventually get very sick, go nuts, and die of rabbit starvation otherwise known as protein poisoning.
Yup, that’s right. When lean protein is ingested solely in large doses and to the exclusion of all other forms of food, serious health consequences result. That is if you consider malnutrition and madness followed by death a serious health consequence. So, by the logic of those who are alarmed about fructose, protein should actually be higher on your hitlist, boys. It has actually killed people before. There are studies that show in isolation and in megadoses it causes malnutrition and is fatal. Therefore, using your same logic, protein is the cause of malnutrition and must be avoided and removed from the diet altogether. What’s that you say? People have been eating it for centuries in varying amounts without ill effect so long as it’s part of balanced diet? Boulderdash! We have the studies! If it’s not proven, it’s at least controversial, because we have studies you see, and they show people eating meat and dying.
The cool thing is, because of the inherrent imperfections in all research, you can pretty much take this same stance with anything that has ever been studied, ever. If there’s a reasonable body of research available on a subject there’s probably some studies some where that correlate that thing with health problems and/or death. Guess we’re fucked.
“This post will probably get lost by now but anyway: the term overweight emanates from the speaker’s teleogy i.e. the body should be used for x.y and z so being a weight which means you cannot perform these actions well is bad. Hence the debate is actually hinges on the desirablity of certain individual’s ends.” - Physiocrat
True in a subjective sense. That doesn’t change the health risks and social consequences of obesity though, it just correctly points out that people value changes in those areas of their lives less or more than the rewards they do or do not find in eating. The only question I could see getting thrown into the mix is the possible addictive properties of food. While it doesn’t change the ultimate nature of choice, it does put it into a different perspective when you realize a Denny’s sausage is possibly comparable to heroin for some people given how their brains react to eating it.
I agree, but my main point is that to talk about overweight one needs a proper discussion of an ideal weight and the lifestyle associated with it; it wll in my opinion unmask the health brigade as it does the environmentalists. In regards health risks, or more specifically physical survival risks, being “overweight” is bad. And I’d also agree in a free market and proper discriminatory powers being “overweight” would be financially punished thus reducing its incidence.
Don’t be so sure. Being fat gets you status in some societies, as does big ears and other physical anomolies. I consider it a praxeological truth that people are fucking weird.
He is. It’s worth nothing that the only person here dramaticizing anything is Xahrx. Though this is typical of his behavior. Self restraint is virtue we cannot all enjoy.
The only point you raise Xahrx is that you argue that it’s still a controversy. Which leads me back to my prior point. Of the two parties arguing, your side is the one shouting.
In my time posting on these forums I’ve noticed that Xahrx may be one of posters who uses a more inflammatory tone. However, in this case, he appears to be correct and even if he isn’t, he’s actually willing to look at the research and take his claims to the fact. Unlike many others who may come across as more “polite”.
You’re saying restaurants open around midnight? I mean “late” by any standards. He went all over Europe and could find barely any restaurants open from like 10pm to 4 in the morning except bars.
Go to Western Europe (where I live) and yes you’ll find a few who don’t open too long before midnight, the majority outside of the tourist areas won’t start serving before 8 - 9 with dinner carrying well on until after midnight. Off the top of my head, I can name quite various restaurants in my area where you’ll find all night service of food and drinks.
And nor is it limited to fast food, in fact I can only really think of a single Burger King and a single McDo that’s open after midnight. And this is where the difference is, when I come back from a bar or a club in the morning and I find myself hungry I go get a baguette with tuna or a piece of grilled pork in between freshly cooked bread with mustard. People place greater emphasis on the quality of food in Europe than they do in the US (or UK), I’ve seen people in the latter eating stuff I would flat out refuse to touch.
That isn’t a bad thing. People who frown about others “over-eating” are the same people who frown upon smoking cigarettes because they think they have some kind of high moral ground. It’s clearly not true for everyone, but over-eating and smoking may calm people down to the point where the effects of their habits are less of a risk than the stress may cause their bodies without the habits.
Europe is hardly homogenous, so it’s a little hard to generalise, but speaking about Western Europe I’ll say that social structures are a lot more rigid than they are elsewhere. There’s a lot of competition on appearance margin when it comes to social status so, for right or wrong, there’s a lot more stigma that is associated with being fat. But, there isn’t too much stigma that is associated with smoking or even drinking.
It has far less to do with moral high ground than it has to do with appearences.
But, if you people do think that availability of food is the cause, then let’s look at the fact.
First how do height and weight correlate for European countries and the states. As far as I know, height is a good measure of nutrition, so why is it that the dutch are taller than Americans but also less fat?
Second, the question is across countries how much of the variation in weight is explained by some measure of wealth (let’s say GDP).
As far as I can see it’s a cultural thing, we just think of food in different ways for one, and Americans tend toward extremes more so than other nationalities in my experience.
I’m not so sure, I come from and live in Europe and have studied in the States. From my experience I’d just say that European culture places a far higher premium on the quality of food. Deep fat frying something doesn’t let you pass it off as food over here…
xahrx-
If Lustig is incorrect and fructose is not a prime factor in rising obesity, then what are the health ramifications of increased consumption of it? What I mean is, Lustig goes to great lengths in one of his videos to show how it is metabolized, and demonstrates that our consumption of fructose has skyrocketed in the last half of the 20th century, and that, at the same time, our consumption of dietary fat has gone down and Americans continue to gain more weight.
Perhaps he overstates his case by calling it poision, but he is certainly correct that it’s everywhere in processed foods, either in sucrose or HFCS. Since I first saw his video on sugar I drastically reduced my fructose intake and have lost (and kept off) 20 pounds while continuing to eat fat and carbs. I feel better, so it makes sense to me.
At the very least, don’t you think that his work can be used to demonstrate that fat is not the posionous killer we’ve been led to believe? Whether its admitted or not, the widepsread replacement of fat with sugar in our diets was triggered by government studies and scare campaigns. He goes into detail about what was wrong with studies linking fat with heart disease.
So on the point about sugar and satiation, is it not his point that sugar is less satiating than dietary fat? If sugar wasn’t satiating at all we’d eat it all day long, wouldn’t we? His point seems to be that a diet devoid of fat and loaded with sugar will, all else being equal, disrupt the hunger signals. And fat-free has been - and still is - sold as healthy, and you can’t get fat free anything without 2-3 times as much sugar.
I don’t know that I’m willing to dismiss his work entirely; perhaps some of his over-the-top rhetoric, like calling fructose poison. I’ve seen interviews where he talks about allowing his kids to have sugar, just in limited and moderated quantities. But as I’ve read more on the internet, I seen people linking him with anti- HFCS and such; maybe that’s his own fault.
As an example of people twisting Lustig’s point around, take a look at this, which makes it look like Lustig is part of the anti-HFCS campaign, when, in fact, he holds the position that sugar and HFCS are practically the same and have the same metabolic effects. Stuff like this causes a lot of confusion. We need to remember that the corn and sugar industries, both recipients of federal largess and protection, are bitter competitors and whining back and forth over this.
The idea that fructose is the devil is a rather silly idea. Does anyone here know why it’s called fructose? Think hard… I’ll give you a hint. Some foods that contain fructose include, but are not limited to: apples, bananas, oranges, papayas, pears, raspberries (BEST FOOD EVER), grapes…
The fact of the matter is that nobody has ever gotten fat from fruits. If you cut your fructose consumption and started feeling better, it probably had to do with the fact that you lowered your overall intake of carbs. You might’ve been eating too many carbs, causing problems with blood glucose levels and insulin sensitivity. If you cut your fructose consumption, kept everything else in your diet exactly the same, and started to lose weight, then you lost weight because you cut the amount of calories you consumed, not because you specifically cut fructose consumption. Had you cut glucose consumption to the exact same degree, you would have seen similar results. Had you cut fat consumption you would have seen similar results. Had you cut protein consumption, you would have seen similar results.
When it comes to hunger signals, dietary fat is slightly more satiating than carbs in the long run. Protein is more satiating than both, and has a higher thermic effect (causes your metabolism to increase). However, dietary fiber is also very satiating, so if your carbs predominantly come from fruits, vegetables, oatmeal, etc. it’s fair to say that your carbs are more satiating than your fats.
kaju, what you say about fiber and satiation, fructose and fruits, etc…are all made by Lustig. This was, in part, my point. His unfortunate rhetoric (fructose is poision) has caused many people to ignore or twist his points around.