Diets high in sugar hurts your intelligence.

[Phurfur 70]

What errors do you think the scientists made in the study?

 

You better cut down on your sugar, where did I say they made errors? Personally, I am cutting back on the sugar I feed my rats.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

My take: Wait a few months and there will be a study saying high sugar diets make you smart.

 

 

None of these things stand the test of time.

 

Most scientific studies stand the test of times, but the few that dont are the ones that stand out.

[Phurfur 70]

Most scientific studies stand the test of times, but the few that dont are the ones that stand out.

 

 

Let's start with the world is flat.

[Gepetto 1,003]

So many flaws in the study and so many jumps to conclusions.

[IGotWorms 3,412]

Cliffnotes? I couldn't follow the article

[KSB2424 3,087]

What errors do you think the scientists made in the study?

I pointed out two things but nobody ever responds to my posts for some reason. I guess I don't leave partisan one liners or song quotes. Maybe I should start? But I'll try again.

 

 

The study was published in the May 15 issue of the Journal of Physiology. The research was done on rats, but the researchers believe their brain chemistry is similar enough to humans to extend the findings.

 

The researchers zeroed in on high-fructose corn syrup, an inexpensive liquid six times sweeter than cane sugar, that is commonly added to processed foods, including soft drinks, condiments, applesauce and baby food.

 

A. Any scientific study ONLY done on rats and not a follow up extensive study on actual humans is not enogh data to draw conclusive decisions. It may open up an hypothesis, or lead us down a road to more studies, but the bolded word above should stand out. Believe isn't science. May be similar enough? Really? I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, rather more studies need to be done in regards to draw a true conclusion.

 

B. The article and your OP says SUGAR, but the other bolded sentence says HFCS. Those are not the same thing, which makes it a weird article and point you bring up by 'taxing sugars' based on this article.

[Phurfur 70]

And people can smoke in a public park.

 

 

Wrong Bucko! Many communities have banned smoking in public parks or any public outside area.

 

The Federal Government will be outlawing or taxing something you love soon, all you have to do is wait.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

I pointed out two things but nobody ever responds to my posts for some reason. I guess I don't leave partisan one liners or song quotes. Maybe I should start? But I'll try again.

 

 

 

 

A. Any scientific study ONLY done on rats and not a follow up extensive study on actual humans is not enogh data to draw conclusive decisions. It may open up an hypothesis, or lead us down a road to more studies, but the bolded word above should stand out. Believe isn't science. May be similar enough? Really? I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, rather more studies need to be done in regards to draw a true conclusion.

 

B. The article and your OP says SUGAR, but the other bolded sentence says HFCS. Those are not the same thing, which makes it a weird article and point you bring up by 'taxing sugars' based on this article.

 

 

A. It would be unethical to do this study on humans.

 

 

B. There are many sugars and hfcs is a sugar that is 70% glucose and 30% fructose. Table sugar is sucrose. Even sacharin(sp) is a sugar, even though it is in sugar free drinks.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

If you cracked open Whitewonder's blockhead sugar cubes would tumble out like dice on a craps table.

[Phurfur 70]

Most scientific studies stand the test of times, but the few that dont are the ones that stand out.

 

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

• Life Magazine, January 1970

 

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

 

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

 

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

 

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

 

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”

• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

 

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”

• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

 

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”

• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

 

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”

• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

 

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

 

• New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

 

"Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.

 

"[by] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[by 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

 

Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

 

"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

Phurfur the list of scientific studies that have been proven true is 100 times longer. Many scientific advances are made every day.

[Phurfur 70]

Phurfur the list of scientific studies that have been proven true is 100 times longer. Many scientific advances are made every day.

 

You said "Most scientific studies stand the test of times" quit backpedaling!

 

In science there are more failures than successes. That is the way it works.

[FeelingMN 273]

Wrong Bucko! Many communities have banned smoking in public parks or any public outside area.

 

The Federal Government will be outlawing or taxing something you love soon, all you have to do is wait.

 

Doing a quick search it appears you are right. New York has already banned smoking in parks and beaches, and it looks like other communities want to go down that road too. I guess I'd agree with such a ban depending on the venue. Central Park is huge, but has a ton of traffic. It's safe to say that if you light up there then you're going to affect several people. Here in Minny, there are public parks less frequented and so I don't have a problem with someone lighting up when no one is within close proximity.

 

Dunno....I guess I have a problem with one-size-fits-all laws where context isn't taken into account. Depending on the context (few people around) then smoking is fine. If there are a lot of people around, then maybe you shouldn't light up. This places the responsibility squarely on citizens rather than bureaucrats.

 

But having said that, there will be idiots who think they have the right to do as they please regardless. And before you roll your eyes, consider this KSB analogy: driving drunk. People who demand they smoke wherever, whenever they please in spite of scientific evidence that suggests that doing so may expose non-smokers to harmful carcinogens are kinda like righteous would be drunk drivers. It is legal to get drunk. It is legal to drive. Yet it is illegal to drink and drive? Where are the folks standing up for their rights to do so? There is no scientific evidence to prove, without doubt that drunk driving will harm anyone. In fact, if you think about it, many more people drive drunk and arrive at their destination safely than don't. There is no certainty that drunk driving leads to an accident, just as there is no certainty that being exposed to secondhand smoke will harm you. Yet, I don't think anyone wants to make this argument. The consequences of drunk driving can be immediate; smoking? could take years to manifest. And maybe that's why there isn't the same reaction.

 

The impetus of these bans is that secondhand smoke potentially harms folks. I think that we could go overboard in implementing these laws. As much as I detest cigarette smoke, I respect the right for folks to enjoy a butt. And I'm willing to put up with some secondhand smoke here and there. That's fine....a compromise is needed from both sides to reach some sort of harmony.

 

 

As for KSB's questions. Nobody is saying sugar, or HFCS definitely make you stupid. It's a study. It's not gospel. Take what you want from it. Yes, there needs to be a follow up....and there probably will be. But you're not going to get a human based experiment with this because of ethical contstraints. You are gonna get a social survey that says kids/adults who consume high amounts of sugar/HFCS tend to be overweight and prone to diabetes, which affects the brain's ability to metabolise glucose if not handled properly...but it's harder to control for other varibles with that type of study. You'll never get a 1:1 relationship. Science doesn't operate in the black and white universe of political trolldom. Just place whatever emphasis you chose on the findings and lead your life accordingly.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

You said "Most scientific studies stand the test of times" quit backpedaling!

 

In science there are more failures than successes. That is the way it works.

 

I am not backpeddling. Most scientific studies stand the test of time. You didn't quote a single study, you quoted a bunch of theories.

[KSB2424 3,087]

Over the years as I've matured I have been trying to eat healthier. What I've come to realize is 'healthier' is a rather relative term that is defined differently form person to person. For instance: Some might say eathing Diet this, or non fat that is eating healthy. But is it really? Is fake sugars substitues like Splenda really healthy?

 

It seems every year there is a study that says this, then the next year a study that says that. I think that is why its A. hard to keep up with and B. hard to believe the 'headline'.

 

So what I've decided is that 'Natural' is best. Real butter, real sugar, real fat, real food. The key is just not to eat a bunch of it. Our family doesn't buy those hydronated oil mixure spreads, we use plain ole butter. We just use it sparingly. There is no Splenda in our house, we buy plain old sugar. Just use it sparingly. I don't drink Diet drinks with aspartane and all that man made crap. Give me the real stuff.

 

It's why I hate HFCS and don't mind sugar. For instance I don't drink much soda but when I do I drink the Sierra Mist 'Natural'. It's the best thing to come along in the soft drink niche.

 

In August 2010 PepsiCo replaced the original Sierra Mist namesake product with Sierra Mist Natural,which is sweetened with sucrose (instead of high-fructose corn syrup) and contains four other ingredients: carbonated water, citric acid, natural flavor and potassium citrate.

 

That is 5 simple ingredients. Next time you hold a Coke or a Sprite or a Mountain Dew look on the back at the ingredients. It's a full paragraph of 20 ingredients of which half you can't even pronounce. Each of them has HFCS.

 

Hopefully more and more companies go the Sierra Mist route as I think we as a collective whole would be much more healthy. But that means we can't tax/tarrif sugar while subsidizing HFCS.

[Thornton Melon 549]

Stupid question: Fructose is fruit sugar, correct? So, is eating a lot of fruit bad for you?

[IGotWorms 3,412]

You said "Most scientific studies stand the test of times" quit backpedaling!

 

In science there are more failures than successes. That is the way it works.

 

Fockin science. Who needs it?

[kutulu 1,561]

Fockin science. Who needs it?

Time and money for girls covered with honey You lie and aspire to be as cunning Reelin' and rockin' and rollin' B sized D cup Order the quarter deluxe, why don'tcha wake up My mind is kinda flowing likeanoilprojector Had to get up and get the Jimmy protector Went bezerk and worked, and exploded she woke up in the morning and her face was coated Buddy you study the man on the mic D, do whatcha like Drunk as a skunk am I from celebration To peep that freak unique penetration Well I figured out who makes the crack it's The suckas with the badges and the blue jackets Proffesor of science cuz I keep droppin' it I smell weak cuz y'all keep poppin' it People always ask me what's the phenomenon Yo what's up? Yo what's goin' on No one really knows what I'm talkin' about And yeah that's right my name's Yauch... [DJ scratching] Ponce De Leon, constantly on The fountain of youth, not Robotron Peace is a word I've heard before So move and move and move up on the dance floor Cuz I'm gonna die, gonna die one day Cuz I'm goin' and goin' and goin' this way Not like a roach or a peace of toast I'm goin' out first class, ain't goin' out coach Rock my Adidas,neverrockFilas [i do not sniff thecoke, I only smoke the sinsemilla] Well with my nose I knows and with my scope I scopes What I liveI writeand that'sstrictlyrope I got science for any occasion Postulating theorems formulating equasions Cheech wizard in a snow blizzard Eat a chicken gizzard with a girl named Lizzy [Dropping science likeGalileo dropped theorange]

[BudBro 123]

Over the years as I've matured I have been trying to eat healthier. What I've come to realize is 'healthier' is a rather relative term that is defined differently form person to person. For instance: Some might say eathing Diet this, or non fat that is eating healthy. But is it really? Is fake sugars substitues like Splenda really healthy?

 

It seems every year there is a study that says this, then the next year a study that says that. I think that is why its A. hard to keep up with and B. hard to believe the 'headline'.

 

So what I've decided is that 'Natural' is best. Real butter, real sugar, real fat, real food. The key is just not to eat a bunch of it. Our family doesn't buy those hydronated oil mixure spreads, we use plain ole butter. We just use it sparingly. There is no Splenda in our house, we buy plain old sugar. Just use it sparingly. I don't drink Diet drinks with aspartane and all that man made crap. Give me the real stuff.

 

It's why I hate HFCS and don't mind sugar. For instance I don't drink much soda but when I do I drink the Sierra Mist 'Natural'. It's the best thing to come along in the soft drink niche.

 

 

 

That is 5 simple ingredients. Next time you hold a Coke or a Sprite or a Mountain Dew look on the back at the ingredients. It's a full paragraph of 20 ingredients of which half you can't even pronounce. Each of them has HFCS.

 

Hopefully more and more companies go the Sierra Mist route as I think we as a collective whole would be much more healthy. But that means we can't tax/tarrif sugar while subsidizing HFCS.

 

i think they've got us coming or going

Sucrose is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose, whereas high-fructose corn syrup can be either 55% fructose, 45% glucose, or 42% fructose, 58% glucose.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

i think they've got us coming or going

 

Sucrose is made of 50% fructose and 50% glucose, whereas high-fructose corn syrup can be either 55% fructose, 45% glucose, or 42% fructose, 58% glucose.

 

Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose in the same way that cyanide is 50% carbon and 50% nitrogen.

 

http://www.chemicalformula.org/sucrose

[TheNewGirl 1,057]

Does your body really know the difference between real sugar and HFCS? I mean, it's all sugar and creates an insulin and sometimes inflammatory response, correct?

 

Even diets that urge you to eat "clean" and all of that limit the intake of natural sugars like honey and agave because they all produce that insulin response.

 

I can see how the response in rats works. HBO had a documentary about Alzheimers about a year or so ago...and there were studies done that while people didn't show signs of diabetes or other metabolic syndrome problems, but excess sugar and insulin responses were linked to Alzheimers and the break down of the mylenin (sp) around nerve cells in the brain, and these affects weren't reverseable.

[BudBro 123]

 

Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose in the same way that cyanide is 50% carbon and 50% nitrogen.

 

http://www.chemicalformula.org/sucrose

i don't know mt. so sucrose is not 50% sucrose and 50% glucose? i'm not a chemist. i googled the difference between sucrose and hfcs.

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

i don't know mt. so sucrose is not 50% sucrose and 50% glucose? i'm not a chemist. i googled the difference between sucrose and hfcs.

 

HFCS is what you would get if you mixed glucose and fructose together.

 

Where as sucrose would be the chemical reaction between glucose and fructose

 

Does your body really know the difference between real sugar and HFCS? I mean, it's all sugar and creates an insulin and sometimes inflammatory response, correct?

 

Even diets that urge you to eat "clean" and all of that limit the intake of natural sugars like honey and agave because they all produce that insulin response.

 

I can see how the response in rats works. HBO had a documentary about Alzheimers about a year or so ago...and there were studies done that while people didn't show signs of diabetes or other metabolic syndrome problems, but excess sugar and insulin responses were linked to Alzheimers and the break down of the mylenin (sp) around nerve cells in the brain, and these affects weren't reverseable.

 

The body might be able to tell the difference, although I am not sure.

 

What i do know is the body is able to tell a difference between omega 3 fats, omega 6 fats, and omega 9 fats, even though they have the exact same chemical composition. The only difference is where the double bond between 2 carbon atoms is located. A tiny difference in structure can make a big difference in our body.

[jerryskids 5,350]

Does your body really know the difference between real sugar and HFCS? I mean, it's all sugar and creates an insulin and sometimes inflammatory response, correct?

 

Even diets that urge you to eat "clean" and all of that limit the intake of natural sugars like honey and agave because they all produce that insulin response.

 

I can see how the response in rats works. HBO had a documentary about Alzheimers about a year or so ago...and there were studies done that while people didn't show signs of diabetes or other metabolic syndrome problems, but excess sugar and insulin responses were linked to Alzheimers and the break down of the mylenin (sp) around nerve cells in the brain, and these affects weren't reverseable.

 

Fructose is processed by the liver and restores liver glycogen. Glucose, muscles. I found this page, has a pretty good explanation of the difference and also talks about the impacts on exercise and replenishing sugar:

 

My link