Its nothing that complicated. Basicly, it comes down to the way your body uses carbohydrates. I dont need idiots with mice to tell me that drinking massive amounts of corn syrop will make me fat.

We have this thing called the glycemic index. Im sure a lot of people here understand what that is. Basicly, the higher the number, the faster those carbs digest and spike your blood sugar. The lower the number, the slower they digest, and your blood sugar stays much steadier.

This brings us to what happens when your blood sugar spikes. Your body stores fat. Thats why most athletes eat carb/protein and fat/protein meals, rarely mixing the three, because if you dont mix carbs and fat, and eat at regular intervals, then your body will not store any of those calories (in fat), and instead use them for energy.

So, that brings us to blaming corn sugar, and not our own eating habits. Soda for instance, is full of corn sugar. Now for the average person, a glass of soda alone in the afternoon will cause little to no harm. Thats because corn syrup isnt the problem, diet is.

Instead of enjoying that small glass of pepsi alone, an hour or so before dinner, we have it with a huge dinner, possibly multiple glasses. A dinner, that for most North Americans is very rich in protein, carbohydrated and fat.

So those two baked potatoes, which have a fairly high glycemic index themselves, smothered in extremely fatty sour cream, with a big juicy t-bone, and two glasses of soda is a recipe for immediate storage of fat. The vast majority of the calories you took in will be stored as fat, because you raised your blood sugar a point, and the bodies natural reaction at that point is to store fat.

So no, the problem isnt with corn syrop. The problem is with a lack of education on nutritional and eating habits. Corn syrop in moderation will not make you obese. Corn syrop as used in the average americans diet, will.

Yup...this is what I do. Works well.

Nice writeup Apoc...but Avatard is still gonna tout how corn is making America fat. lol

Yet, Avatard will still be wrong...

Hmm, guess I have some changes to make and a lot of studying to do. I'm looking to bulk up without getting fat, but I'm not trying to get huge. I'm a severe lightweight compared to the both of you (and most people in any gym), but hope you can give some good advice to a somewhat scrawny 36 year old. :lol: I'm 5'7, 150 lbs, 20% body fat, if that gives you any ideas of what I should do. Again, I have no goals (or delusions) of being a bodybuilder or powerlifter, I just want to bulk up a bit and trim the fat below 15%. Yes, I know, they will have to be done seperately, but give me some good ideas on some good meals, please. At this point, I'd probably be happy at 160 and 15% BF, but that may change after I get to that point.

Exactly, "as used in the average American diet", which is what we're talking about here. Corn subsidies that put it in everything we eat and drive the cost of those products down, making them much cheaper than healthy foods like a head of lettuce or a bunch of carrots.

Corn syrup is the worst way corn makes it into our food, and corn syrup has the worst effect on our bodies...yet it is in everything that the average American eats. You're talking about nutritional education.....and that's just not going to happen dude. People are idiots, and they don't give a flying fuck aside from that. Very few people will take the time to learn about what they're eating, how it affects their bodies or so on and so forth....they simply (for whatever reason) buy the cheapest and most convenient foods.

And that's what we're "rallying" against. We want variety in food, decently priced vegetables and less junk food. So in the big picture, yes, corn is very bad for you. A corn cob alone will not hurt you or make you fat....but its when you put all these pieces together that it becomes a serious problem for the American society.

seriously for you guys just trying to say that western civ. people are fat because they eat like shit, there is more to the story than your simplified perfect world answer.

Firstly Yes. western civ people do eat like shit in general. However, this is for a variety of reasons that can be a whole other discussion such as the constant bombardment for large portions of junk food in advertising, via INdirect marketing. AKA cartoon characters for any kind of craptastic sugar bomb cereal or gooey school snack (anything gooey is corn syrup, guaranteed). the characters are tested over and over again with child market test groups for the best appealing one. The kids see it and nag mommy and daddy to get them that treat until they comply. Just one facet of this, almost like cigarettes old credo : "get em early".

Secondly, the corn's role in todays food industry, starting from the gov't, all the way down to the farmers. from corn syrup's super market saturation, to corn being force fed to cattle and chicken, to the WIDE variety of corn - produced chemicals that basically fill in any remaining gaps in the supermarket aisle, that HF C syrup left.

if you DON'T know shit about this, do not sit on here typing away your preconceived thoughts on this like "the rest of the world is fat because they eat like shit" without looking at the documentaries some of us have seen, or doing other reading backing this up, such as the article posted. The fact is lots of people do not eat like shit, but unless they are OVERLY educated on the subject, even when they are trying to buy healthier, MORE EXPENSIVE, choices at a supermarket, they are still getting bamboozled.

The two docu's that we mentioned are EYE-OPENING, and may change the way you think. I encourage anybody on here arguing that this is not the case to do some reading, or watching, or any kind of research you can on the matter.

Exactly Mikey, unless you are "overly" educated you're not likely to know. And there's a reason for that, and no you don't have to put on a tin-foil hat to believe it. The companies involved simply don't want you to know, and are very good at keeping our attention on other things.

When I first started learning about nutrition I got the bulk of my info from Apoc and 101lifts over on CF. Everything they told me to do to reach whatever goals I wanted worked. 101 even shipped me a book to help out. So no doubt those guys know what they're talking about as far as how different types of food affect the body. But I'm talking about much, much more than just the way a corn kernel affects you.

Low cost is a HUGE issue.

We have become a Wal-Mart society. Everyone wants everything cheaper but then want to bitch about quality too.

You can't have it all.

In 1901, an "urban" American family dedicated over 46% of their budget to food and beverages.

Today that number is under 12%.

You can eat cheap or you can eat well.

shmikey, ask yourself why is it low cost?

how is it financially feasible for the dollar menu to really exist?

Is it because corn is so cheap to mass produce?

Is it because it is so easy/ cheap to keep and grow cattle and chicken?

I don't have to ask myself because I already know. Just because it is available and in cartoons doesn't mean you have to eat it. It is possible to avoid most if not all of the crap in today's foods. It's not quick and it's not cheap, so most people won't do it. Do you prefer when I don't space my thoughts?

i prefer you to post with the style of spacing that makes you happiest.

you can say no to whinnie the pooh selling you honey bombs, does not mean a brain washed 3 year old is going to not nag mommy and daddy. and in doing so, start a life long addiction to crap.

If mommy and daddy didn't depend on Winnie The Pooh & Nikelodeon to baby-sit their 3 year old, maybe he wouldn't be such a whiney, fat little brat.

Wait, is shmike agreeing or disagreeing with us? :lol:

The whole thing about dollar menus is right. Lazy ass Americans want it all.

Any of you read the ingrediants of crackers or cookies, just for kicks?

Take Wheat Thins for example. At any store, you will have the "real" Wheat Thins, and then the store's duplicate version of it, sitting right next to it.

If you compare the two, the store version will have palm oil in it. It's a cheap oil that drives up the saturated fat. So, with one "serving" of crackers you've already eaten 10% of your RDA of saturated fat. But most people are too stupid to notice, they only focus on low price.

I agree with the premise that much of our food is bad and most people don't know (or care) what is in their boxed meal as long as it is cheap.

I don't agree that there are no other choices out there.

That why I'm such a proponent of deer hunting. Low in fat, high in protein and you're only out the cost of a bullet and a $15 tag provided you process it yourself. Even if you pay to have it processed, it's only $100 for roughly 60lbs of meat. :rockwoot:

What are these "crackers" and "cookies" you speak of? :lol:

Have you ever grocery shopped at Wal-Mart? Whenever my wife and I would go we would always talk shit about the contents of other people's carts. To see a family of 4 with a cart packed with chips, sodas, fruit juices, ice cream and maaaaaybe a carton of eggs was the norm. That is how the average American that makes less than $30k a year shops....and they do so generally without a thought about it. I mean, it is really disgusting to see cart after cart full of absolute shit food.

The thing is, the "cheap" foods aren't really cheap at all. I mean sure, you saved $2 by buying chips instead of apples....but now you've got 3 prescriptions to fill every month and you're eating much more food than a normal healthy person would because the shit you're buying isn't satisfying your body's requirements.

Its like buying a cheap car that needs something fixed every week and ends up costing you 3x as much in the end.

Nobody is saying there aren't other choices out there, we're saying that they're very hard to come by and require a great a mount of effort to obtain. In my case, I had to learn some basic "grocery store" Spanish to be able to shop at local markets.

Right on! It doesn't get much better than that.

epyon zero just posted this link this morning.
http://www.twowheelfix.com/showthread.php?t=13980

underscoring my point about "getting them young"

Nobody is forcing anyone to eat that much corn product. Its being bought hand over fist by personal choice. The problem isnt with corn, the problem is with not caring. Its mass produced BECAUSE theres such a demand for it.

Im yet to find a grocery store that doesnt give me other options. If the average person is too dumb to educate themselves, then good. Maybe they'll die off quickly and they will become extinct. (I know, I know, no chance. But I can dream)

not really apoc.

you chose to purchase beef, you are buying corn. you chose to purchase chicken, you are buying corn. lots of things you would think have nothing to do with corn, are corn. it is not someone setting out to say , hey i want to go to the grocery and buy some corn-made products.

It is all behind the scenes. and for good reason.

Nobody is literally forcing them to eat the stuff at gun point under threat of violence, yes, that is correct. However, the market is completely saturated with these types of products.

Look, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but you have to work under the assumption that the average American is an uncaring idiot and go from there. You can't trust these people to adequately provide for themselves and their families and our population is becoming more and more unhealthy destroying our medical system in the process.

So, maybe instead of letting our government subsidize corn and devoting such a huge percentage of our actual land mass to growing corn we can do something else like providing incentives to farmers who want to grow broccoli or allow their livestock/poultry/pigs to graze freely, or so on and so forth.

There is a better way of producing food in the U.S.

Apoc is right, aquapython is wrong.

Beef is beef.

Chicken is chicken.

What those animals were fed is a different argument.

When the product in question (corn) is making the animals you're eating (beef) sick and unhealthy to the point of near death before you eat them, then I argue what those animals were fed is actually a very significant part of the same argument, and not a different argument as you are saying.

I posted about the side effects of a corn diet pages ago. I don't think there is any debate on that part of the discussion.

Telling someone that their t-bone is "corn" is just a little misleading.

The point of this discussion is to clear confusion not add to it.

shmike is wrong because i have decreed in it multi-line spacing argument.

I should clarify, though. When i say you are eating corn, by eating beef, it is a function of the food chain. have you ever heard the phrase "you are what you eat" ? this phrase is not so far from the truth.

Kaneman mentioned before that "old school" corn was better he was right. There used to be a WIDE variety of corn species up until around the 1930's. Most of this corn was an amazing produce. Very high in essential vitamins , minerals , nutrients, etc. This is why ancient native american cultures praised and even prayed to / about corn or "Maize" (sp?). However, as farming became industrial, and the country looked for ways to feed itself, and avoid starving epidemics like what happened in the great depression and the dust bowl, America started to turn to corn. The corn strain that was eventually singled out the favored seed, was a corn that was pretty much nutritionally garbage, unbeknown to farmers and the like. It's saving grace was that it was able to grow VERY close to itself. Meaning tightly packed corn stalks, meaning MORE food per Square Acre.
This Strain became the dominant strain of corn, and basically lead to the extinction of all of the other types of corn that used to be around.

So now fast forward to today, you have all of these cattle in pens eating nothing but bullshit corn. Compare a piece of Beef now from one of these cows to a piece of Beef from a natural, grass eating, range roaming cow. I don't remember off hand the exact numbers but paraphrasing, the "modern" beef has 70% less protein and 250% more fat.

now, factor in other things from these processed animals, such as the hormones and chemicals used to make the cows larger and "healthier". The chemicals such as phosphorous and nitrogen that they literally inject the earth with so that the corn grows larger, and closer together (4 times more corn can be grown on the same land now as compared to 50 years ago). The disgusting living conditions leading to massive amounts of pathogens in the food. Have you noticed the increasing amounts of meat recalls, and poisonings over the last decade?
The whole system is fucked.

In case you didnt know, what they were fed does not change the micro and macro nutritional value of the meat. Your not going to find HFCS in your meat because the cow your eating had some corn in its diet. I dont understand what your arguement is? The meat might be a little fatter if it was overfed, but thats why you buy leaner cuts.

Is it that im supporting the production of corn by buying meat that is corn fed? In that sense, I dont care. Just like I dont care if the pork I eat had a small baby for its last meal. As long as its still yummy, it really doesnt effect me.

I know i'll get 'oh, the cows are fed drugs to keep them healthy.' But I dont care about that either. None of that directly affects me, no matter what people are force feeding down your throat. The steroids they are given, are just increased amounts of normal hormones within their body, nothing that isnt already found in them. This gives us bigger, stronger, better beef. It doesnt make the meat any worse for you, in any way.

I still say that the problem of obesity lies directly on the person who is obese. If your three hundred pounds over fucking weight, and have no ambition to educate yourself, and lose weight, then quite frankly, fuck ya, I hope the massive heart attack comes sooner than later.

The only way that less corn will be produced and other, is if you guys as a society, stop buying so much of it in product, not in corn fed product.

And now Apoc is wrong. :lol:

actually it quite significantly effects the nutritional value of the meat, as i posted just before you.

again, do some research on this stuff before you post up what you THINK is true or untrue.

Hahahahaha, no, there is not 70% less protein in meat, and 250% more fat today than before. Thats the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. The genetic makeup of meat doesnt change because of corn. The amount of protein in an ounce of lean beef is still the same as it was 40 years ago, and 400 years ago.

You guys are living on a shit ton of myths with no basis behind them. Hearsay and foolishness.

Whole Foods is a convenient source of grass-fed beef. I know they have organic / free range chicken but I don't know what it's fed. Trader Joe's has good stuff too.

Grass-fed beef tastes totally different. I can't see how caged animals would have the same muscle development that free-range animals do.

APOC - or anyone else.

prove it. you have a link or a study to show that this data is incorrect, from a source that is not directly supported by a food company. post it. i would love to read it.

No, im not. A lean cut of meat from corn fed beef has the same nutrtional value as beef thats fed the greenest grass. The fattest cuts will undoubtledly have more fat, but you shouldnt be buying those anyway.

Its not about what the beef is fed, its about the cuts you buy, the amount you eat, etc etc.

Blaming the food industry for fat people, is like blaming the weather man because its raining. Corn fed, chemical grown beef is not killing Americans. Overeating is.

The proof? 100 grams of lean beef has 36 grams of protein. Thats universal, thats every cow ever raised, because that is the chemical composition of beef. That is the way the amino acids link together in their DNA. Chicken has 30 grams per 100. Thats every chicken breast, ever, throughout the world, in that range (+-1 gram). It doesnt matter where you buy your cuts, this is a constant.

There's more to meat than just protein content. :lol:

Nobody is saying there isnt, he said that that cuts of meat have 75% less protein then they did before, and its just not true. The vast majority of the other 64 grams is water.

are you getting that from something like calorie King ? it seems to me that you are getting this information on a study of available beef, and concluding on your own that this universal, and historically accurate. again, post your sources.

are you going to tell me that the average chicken breast is not 4 times larger than they were in the 1930's, or that captive Turkeys are so fucking fat they would die and not procreate if it was not STRICTLY for artificial insemination?

Im getting that from th numerous books I read and researched on the subject when I was bodybuilding. I have never seen, or even fucking know what a calorie king is. I got my info from the work of the best nutritionists in the world. Gerard Dente, Chris Janusz (that might be spelled wrong), bruce sweeney, and many others.


Buy 'Macrobolic Nutrition', its the simplest for people who dont know their shit to learn from.

NO, I AM NOT TELLING YOU THE AVERAGE CHICKEN BREAST ISNT LARGER.

Im telling you that for 100 fucking grams of chicken breast, there is 30 grams of protein. Is it really that hard to understand?

i believe you about the current stats. what i don't see is evidence supporting your theory that it has always been that way.

you dont understand, it doesnt vary, its DNA makeup. A cow from a line of grain fed animals in a mountain somewhere, will have the same numerical breakdown that one in a barn forcefed corn has, cut for cut. The percentages will be the same. Unless we change their DNA, a lean cut of beef has always had, and will always have, 36 grams of protein per 100 grams of lean beef. Its a constant. Its the way their muscles form.

Now if you want to compare overall fat percentages, at live weight, then yes, you will find that the BF% of todays beef is much higher. But that doesnt change the composition of its muscle itself.

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on you, since you made the original claim?

Protein levels dropping 70%........Dude........That would be instant death for any animal. Imagine taking all your muscle tissue, and cutting it by 70%.

Ya, common sense would tell you that. But they prefer to blame the governement then themselves.

ok - i will not address the instant death argument, you are too much dude.

however,
i can and have provided information on here, or sources for it.

there are tons of articles on this stuff, here is good one for starters.
http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm

i am looking for the fat / protein thing is writing, but as i said, i paraphrased it from memory. it was from the documentary i posted "King Corn".

There is nothign there citing that beef has less protein when fed corn then when fed grass, nothing at all.

It talks about fats, and like I said above, yes, at live weight, a cow has much m. higher body fat percentage than a grass fed one will. Nobody is arguing that fact.

But, when you skin that beef, the vast majority of it it trimmed off, or attached to cuts you shouldnt be eating much of anyway. The ribs and back being the biggest culprit. When you look at these cuts, you see that there is inch thick veins of fat throughtout them. Grassfed beef will show quite a bit less of this fat, we agree on that. But our arguement is about lean meat. And lean meat will always have 36 grams of protein per 100 grams, and very negligible amounts of fat. You get much more of this lean meat off a bigger cow, making it more profitable and much faster to raise.

There is no too much about it. If a species lost 70% of its protein over 80 years, it would not survive, its that simple.

well the lean meat part is your argument. i just said beef originally. i am not arguing that different cuts of beef are leaner than others, i think it is common sense.

but you did say that however, if you look at the page i posted, or this except from http://www.askahealer.com/grain-fed-beef.htm

there are obviously vast differences in the chemical make up of these animals muscle tissues.

i will try and find some written documentation on fats / proteins, but in the time, i again challenge you guys to come up with ONE iota of contrary data.

sorry it appears i was off by 3.33%

fats and more data:

And that's another thing. If its true that grass-fed meat is demonstratably better, I'm willing to bet it's mostly because grass-fed cows are allowed to roam free, thus burning fat, getting some sun and fresh air, and preventing their muscles from atrophy. It isn't because grass is sooooooooooooo much healthier than corn.

Uh yeah because they can also use grass as a cheap sweetener... :lol

still think all beef is created equal, and the consumer just has to not choose sweet snacks?

read up. I am still waiting for some contrary info.

Again, you guys are brining HFCS into this.........its a totally separate argument. Does HFCS suck, yes, we get that..........But a cow's body doesn't manufacture HFCS from the corn it eats. HFCS is man-made.

THERE IS NO FUCKING HFCS IN BEEF.

Right but it causes the cows to be fatter, making the beef have a higher fat content.

True......but the beef they sell at a store has the fat trimmed off, according to the level of quality you're willing to pay for. You want shit beef, you get shit beef. You want lower-fat beef, you have to pay extra. That's the way it's always been. You guys are acting like you could buy lower-fat beef years ago than you can today. :bs:

Not me.

I said you can still buy it today but it certainly isn't as common as before.

Did you read any of the info posted about how cows don't process corn well and how it affects their bodies?

To me those side effects are much more serious than fat content.

In certain cuts, the fat is too "marbled" to trim away. Sure in ground beef you can choose the amount of fat you want but in roasts and ribs, you're just getting more fat. Same amount of beef but you are paying more because the overall weight is higher.

thank you!
you can not just "trim away" fat for leaner cuts!

Alright fair enough, if you are talking about grassfed's superior Omega 3 and CLA and such....... that's a legitmate point.

That and grass fed cows not dieing from diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio.

And the protein part :




as taken from this research work:
http://www.thebloomagency.com/stagin...assFedBeef.pdf

see the graph in the PDF

Aqua, we agree on the profile of fats in grass fed vs corn fed beef, noone is arguing about that.

But the article your showing is looking at overall percentages of the whole beef. If you scroll up and read, I specificly said that ribs/back/certain other cuts DEFINATELY have more fat content than grass fed would, but that the leaner cuts are virtually the same. I think were disagreeing on different things.

I also said that corn fed have a much higher bodyfat percentage than grass fed. Its inevitable. We know that.

But lean cuts still have the same protein as non lean cuts.

What that article is saying, is that there is less of a percentage of protein than there was before. This is true, because the body fat is much higher. So yes, if you look at overall mass of the animal, it carries far less protein overall than grass fed. Its twisting numbers to make a point, but its also not the most effective way to look at the numbers.

But, lean cut for lean cut, they are virtually the same, aside from a couple of extra grams of fat, which goes back to my original port about HCFS and glycemic index. There is nothing wrong with that fat, if your eating correctly and seperating carbs and fat in your meals.

It goes back to one thing, personal choices. Its not the beef your eating that makes you fat. Its the whole structure of what constitutes a meal in North America. HCFS is not making america fat, greed is.

How do you know that deer wasn't tappin into the corn fields?:lol

Dude..there is nothing wrong with corn for the 100th time. And if the livestock are eating corn and you are getting beef from it, then so what? Is the beef full of corn? :lol I mean seriously this isn't hard.

Most people understand that junk food makes them fat, but they really do not care all that much. Really they don't and this is the underlying issue.

I've read what everyone has wrote and have come to a few conclusions: In regards to what Aqua and Apoc are arguing regarding protein content, Apoc is correct in saying that the actual protein is almost the same (minus the fat content) and that there will be more protein in a grass free range animal vs. a caged corn fed one. True..BUT...you have to understand as well that the amino profile in free range grass fed cattle are higher than corn fed. So...there are more complete proteins in grass fed cattle, then corn fed. How much? I don't know without researching it. This does not mean there is more protein, just the profile is different. It is like a gallon of 87 octance vs. a gallon of 89 octane fuel. Same amount, different profile.

The other topic that corn is making us fat depends on how you catergoize people. If you view people as individuals, then no. If you view people as sheep, then yes. I tend to look at people as individuals (even though they are really sheep) and once educated, will learn. If they do not wish to learn, then fuck em. No sympthany from me.

The deer I hunt are on private land that is surrounded by state land that has no corn fields. They eat the Alfalfa that is planted for them.

We got a little lost in the details.

Apoc we seem to agree on most things as you said. If the article is talking about % of protein to body mass, that makes sense. But that also may only be one study.

My main point was that HFCS is part of a much larger problem with corn, and further, the food industry. I posted the one sentence about fats and proteins and you guys decided to jump on it. That's ok , i feel i backed the statement up with decent supporting evidence, as was asked.
But i just want to point out that even in the articles i posted, and others and myself commented on, there are MANY problems with feedlot beef, beyond the corn, such as the pathogens, and the antibiotics that make it possible, etc etc....

We feed the deer on our land just a little corn.
It's great for making them stand in one place while we feed them bullets. :lol:

(and no, they aren't the least bit tame... they just like their corn enough to take risks coming out into the open. :wink:)

Ya, you were looking at the profile of the whole beef, and I was talking about the profile of the meat itself, which is why I was talking about Amino Acids and DNA profiles. Had I understood what you were talking about, I would have stopped arguing long ago. But its hard to determine who's right when your arguing about totally different things :lol:

its the goddam internets!

I blame Obama!

And to a lesser extent, Al Gore!

Obama and Gore, both eat corn in feedlots!

I was joking.

Corn's danger to our health extends beyond the fattening nature of HFCS.

Grass fed livestock has Omega 3 oils. Corn fed does not. Just this change alone in what we feed our livestock has marked the single biggest health "experiment" [read: gamble] ever undertaken with the public as the fucking guinea pig. Even farmed fish now is being fed this shit, and now (not surprisingly) has almost no fucking useful oils in it anymore either.

Welcome to the big corn experiment.

Take a fucking supplement, or you may die.

10 fish oil tabs a day....

Does that keep your coat nice and shiny?

10?

Damn..........How many mg each?

Dude, corn fed livestock isnt the reason for obesity, people eating pure shit for food, and not exercising is. If you cant eat healthy, and take 45-60 minutes out of your busy day to exercise, then really, theres noone to blame but you.

I played 18 holes of golf this morning, ended up meeting 3 others on the tee and played with them. One of them went back to the clubhouse at the turn to eat, and skipped the back 9, after almost crawling up the hill to the clubhouse. 2 hours of liesurely walking and hitting golf balls, and he couldnt finish his round. Obesity is an epidemic, and its from a lazy, lethargic, uneducated society. Not from corn.

oh man, we gotta start this again?

Actually, if it wasnt for that happening during my round this morning, I wouldn't even have come in this thread. But when you cant finish a round of golf, but have no problem finishing two burgers and fries, smothered in ketchup at the clubhouse, then the problem is with you, not with what your meat is fed. And dude had a Clikgear electric pushcart!

No, overeating is, rather fucking obviously.

The fact remains, however, that (as I have suspected, and said for years) HFCS DOES metabolize different than table sugar, and is more fattening.

Also, the near complete removal of Omega 3 from our diets (as a result of changing the diet of livestock to corn) may have little to do with obesity, but it has EVERYTHING to do with health.

If we're going to talk about the shortage of Omega 3 in our diet, meat is only half the problem. The other half of the problem is how nearly all flour-based products (bread, cereal, bagels, chips, cookies, crackers, etc.) are made with cheap oil like palm or soybean oil that has no Omega 3. And you're not going to fix that problem unless you pay extra for stuff that is labeled Omega 3. If the consumer is willing to do so, things will change. There's no conspiracy to keep it from us. They could have used flax or olive oil if the consumer demanded it. The problem is, most people don't, because they are stupid and only care about taste.

I take Omega 3 supplements but I hate the aftertaste of it. I burp that stuff up all day long and it reminds me of castor oil. I know it's good for me though. I need to find a better brand.

Try Krill oil (I take Mega-Red). No fish burps.

Get one with an enteric coating. This is what I use, from nutritionexpress

Guess what? Sugar is absolutely horrible for your health too, as horrible as corn syrop.

As has been said, if you feel your not getting enough Omegas, get some fish oil, or eat more fish. Corn has nothing to do with your health, and lean cuts of corn fed beef arent bad for you. Beef has never been a main source of Omega fats. Your overstating a small problem, that can be completely overcome by better food choices.

Funny, that's not what the article regarding the research that is the subject of this thread said.

Reading is fundamental:

Even at nearly TWICE the concentration, table sugar wasn't as fattening. This should tell you that HFCS is MUCH MORE FATTENING.

tard, lots of stuff that apoc is reiterating was proved wrong in the various sources i posted. He , nor homeslice nor any of the other nay-sayers have yet to post conflicting data from a single source.

You dont get it, do you? Corn Syrop is very, very bad for you.

SO IS FUCKING TABLE SUGAR.

I dont know what you think you have proved me wrong on. It all comes down to nutrition and food choices. You shouldn't eat either. A tablespoon of corn sugar is only a little worse for you than a tablespoon of table sugar. The problem is, people are eating it by the CUP FULL. There is a half a cup of HFCS is a 355ml can of pepsi. So guess what? Dont drink pepsi. Dont put 5 sugar in your fucking coffee. Dont eat cake like its a rice cake.

Just because something is worse for you, ounce by ounce, than something else, doesnt mean you should eat bucketloads of the one thats not as bad.

Grapeseed oil is better for you than butter too, doesnt mean you should drink a cup of it.

You dont see that what were arguing, is that corn is not to blame. People shoving fistfulls of unhealthy foods down their dumb, greedy fucking mouths is.

This....exactly this.

Sorry, table sugar is not NEARLY as bad, according to this latest research, not even at twice the dose was it as fattening as HFCS.

Reading. It's still fundamental.

...and you can get as worked up as you want, but you can't change the findings of this study. Love corn so much? Do your own study. Prove everyone wrong.

1000

Yes I glisten in the sun. lol

Fish oil is good for a boatload of things...heart, circulatory, nerve...etc. etc.

Enteric coating is crap. Just buy the ones w/o the coating and swallow them. Pussy.

I think this is the jist of what you trying to say...

"High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

Of course the underlying problem is still not corn, but HFCS eaten in too large of quantities with little to no exercise.

Really? What clued you in? The fact that I quoted that shit already?

http://poopnugget.com/files/rolleyes.gif

It was meant for Apoc..not you. I should have quoted him instead of you. My bad.

There seems to be a fundamental difference in the way Fructose and Glucose are metabolized, and this is apparently made far worse by the ratio of these two sugars in HFCS.

It's all there in the article, if you REALLY read it.

Actually, I'm more interested in the fundamental difference between the food choices that fat people make versus the food choices that fit people make.

Don't want to get fat? Eat whole foods...in sensible portion sizes every 2 hours...and exercise. PAY ATTENTION...ensure that the calories you burn off each day exceed or equal the calories you consume.

No scientific study or internet pissing contests required. It really IS that simple. *shrug*