Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease (2016)(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease (2016)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/12/sugar-industry-paid-research-heart-disease-jama-report
65 comments
There’s a good doc on Netflix called “Sugar Coated,” that compares the industry to big tobacco.
sure, sugar is BAD. but this is the meat industry's last diversion before they get scrutinised.
And what would that role be?
> Influential research that downplayed the role of sugar in heart disease in the 1960s was paid for by the sugar industry, according to a report released on Monday.
With backing from a sugar lobby, scientists promoted dietary fat as the cause of coronary heart disease instead of sugar, according to a historical document review published in JAMA Internal Medicine.
Is this article implying that trans fats have been cleared of the charges against them [0]?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Coronary_artery_dise...
I think naturally-saturated fats have mostly been vindicated of the charges leveled against them in the 1950's and 1960's, but the medical guild hasn't updated their message.
Is this article implying that trans fats have been cleared of the charges against them [0]?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Coronary_artery_dise...
I think naturally-saturated fats have mostly been vindicated of the charges leveled against them in the 1950's and 1960's, but the medical guild hasn't updated their message.
No trans fat are extremely dangerous and should never be eaten in any large quantity. FDA trans fat ban: Proposal makes clear no amount is safe:
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-fda-trans-fats-2...
Saturated fats are a bit more complicated. There's a little bit of Sat fats in everything, even vegetables and fruits ~0.5-2%. A certain amount is okay, up to about 5-6% of your diet can be sat fats. but you don't want to go more than that, or you risk increasing your LDL. Some people can handle more, some can't, this will vary from person to person. But, if you get back from a blood test and it says your LDL is too high, you'll need to cut back on Sats.
Saturated fats are a bit more complicated. There's a little bit of Sat fats in everything, even vegetables and fruits ~0.5-2%. A certain amount is okay, up to about 5-6% of your diet can be sat fats. but you don't want to go more than that, or you risk increasing your LDL. Some people can handle more, some can't, this will vary from person to person. But, if you get back from a blood test and it says your LDL is too high, you'll need to cut back on Sats.
Anyone remember Susan Powder in the 90s screaming about how fat was making you fat? Go checkout the documentary Fed Up, it discusses the massive shift to low-fat-high-sugar foods being the norm in our grocery stores.
And we wonder why we have such massive preventable disease problems in the US. (and we are exporting obesity and diabetes around the world now)
Next time you are at the store, check your labels. Almost everything has sugar in it. There are a dozen names for white sugar now, so check them out.
And we wonder why we have such massive preventable disease problems in the US. (and we are exporting obesity and diabetes around the world now)
Next time you are at the store, check your labels. Almost everything has sugar in it. There are a dozen names for white sugar now, so check them out.
A related anecdote: when I was a child I visited Italy with my family, and I was astonished at how differently pasta sauce tasted in Italy.
I found out much later that the reason was due to the insane amounts of sugar that are in store bought pasta sauces in the US. The sugar is meant to compensate for the low quality, unripened tomatoes that go into cheap pasta sauce brands. To this day, I refuse to use canned pasta sauce. I’d rather make my own.
I found out much later that the reason was due to the insane amounts of sugar that are in store bought pasta sauces in the US. The sugar is meant to compensate for the low quality, unripened tomatoes that go into cheap pasta sauce brands. To this day, I refuse to use canned pasta sauce. I’d rather make my own.
Comparing Italian food to US food will quickly spiral out of control in anecdote-ville. A good friend of mine gets deathly ill from pasta in the US, but can eat as much as she wants in Italy... (glyphosates is what I suspect here)
Also, in Italy, I hear they can just get vine ripened veges almost whenever they want, a bit unfair on the flavor comparison. :(
Also, in Italy, I hear they can just get vine ripened veges almost whenever they want, a bit unfair on the flavor comparison. :(
> glyphosates is what I suspect here
That is unlikely. https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp
That is unlikely. https://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/roundupwheat.asp
I no longer trust snopes as I used to.
I got my info from a guy who's job is working in the seed industry confirms they do actually douse the field in glysophates (is round up the only brand? not sure)
Also, if you look into Passover flour, Rabbis will insist on this procedure for their flour to ensure their is no moisture in the wheat before harvest.
Do some more digging instead of just snopes, I suspect they are no longer completely unbiased.
Edit: I am going to ask my friend for any evidence he can provide, or where I can find it, in regards to this issue.
I got my info from a guy who's job is working in the seed industry confirms they do actually douse the field in glysophates (is round up the only brand? not sure)
Also, if you look into Passover flour, Rabbis will insist on this procedure for their flour to ensure their is no moisture in the wheat before harvest.
Do some more digging instead of just snopes, I suspect they are no longer completely unbiased.
Edit: I am going to ask my friend for any evidence he can provide, or where I can find it, in regards to this issue.
> Do some more digging instead of just snopes
How about personal experience? I grow wheat. It doesn't get the roundup treatment. That would be a big waste of money. That's not to say that nobody does it, but it's not standard practice. Wheat tends to dry down sufficiently on its own (and there is no such thing as glyphosate-tolerant wheat, so you would never want to apply it through the growing season).
My colored beans on the other hand... They definitely need the desiccation. Out of interest, does your friend get sick from beans (not soy)?
How about personal experience? I grow wheat. It doesn't get the roundup treatment. That would be a big waste of money. That's not to say that nobody does it, but it's not standard practice. Wheat tends to dry down sufficiently on its own (and there is no such thing as glyphosate-tolerant wheat, so you would never want to apply it through the growing season).
My colored beans on the other hand... They definitely need the desiccation. Out of interest, does your friend get sick from beans (not soy)?
Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the season, and just before harvest. Snopes seems to poo-poo this idea. So killing the wheat isn't the issue, it's already dead.
No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products... Again, I will be seeing my friend (works in GMO crop industry) in about 2 weeks, and I will discuss this with him in person, since that is who I got this information from.
Edit: I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. And if you want to play funny numbers, if you do the math, a _large_ percentage of farmers may not use glyphosates, but since there are very few large corporate farms, then that is where Snopes gets it's "small percentage of farmers" comes from. But ignores the fact that a large percentage of the wheat comes from them. Just a logic thought on statical manipulation.
No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products... Again, I will be seeing my friend (works in GMO crop industry) in about 2 weeks, and I will discuss this with him in person, since that is who I got this information from.
Edit: I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does. And if you want to play funny numbers, if you do the math, a _large_ percentage of farmers may not use glyphosates, but since there are very few large corporate farms, then that is where Snopes gets it's "small percentage of farmers" comes from. But ignores the fact that a large percentage of the wheat comes from them. Just a logic thought on statical manipulation.
> Everything I've heard and read is that it's used only at the end of the season, and just before harvest.
Naturally. You'd kill your crop off entirely if you did it any sooner. At the end of the season you don't care about killing the crop. In fact, it is desirable.
> No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products...
And often other products are preferred. However, especially in the case of beans I grow, it's common to have secondary growth. In this case, you really do want to kill the plant off completely to ensure it stops producing to allow harvest to begin. It turns out that roundup is really good at killing plants!
> I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does.
Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? It is not free, and the cost of apply it certainly isn't either. Application is quite expensive. Just from an economic perspective alone, the idea that large farms would randomly douse their field in roundup makes no sense. It is already a struggle to make money from wheat in this current market.
I can imagine in some climates that wheat suffers from not dying off fast enough, similar to the beans I mentioned before, and glyphosate is used in those circumstances. However, I see nothing to suggest this scenario is common.
Even if, for argument's sake, we say that it is common: Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?
Naturally. You'd kill your crop off entirely if you did it any sooner. At the end of the season you don't care about killing the crop. In fact, it is desirable.
> No idea why glysophates would be used as a desiccant over other dedicated products...
And often other products are preferred. However, especially in the case of beans I grow, it's common to have secondary growth. In this case, you really do want to kill the plant off completely to ensure it stops producing to allow harvest to begin. It turns out that roundup is really good at killing plants!
> I suspect that large companies have little motivation to ensure food is clean and healthy in the same manner as a small farm does.
Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate? It is not free, and the cost of apply it certainly isn't either. Application is quite expensive. Just from an economic perspective alone, the idea that large farms would randomly douse their field in roundup makes no sense. It is already a struggle to make money from wheat in this current market.
I can imagine in some climates that wheat suffers from not dying off fast enough, similar to the beans I mentioned before, and glyphosate is used in those circumstances. However, I see nothing to suggest this scenario is common.
Even if, for argument's sake, we say that it is common: Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?
>Margins are tight no matter how large your farm is. I have no idea why a farm of any size of would haphazardly use glyphosate?
The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. One core concept is time to harvest. There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. If your crop isn't ready on time, the loss in time and cost to come back south could be huge cost. Where if you douse a field with glyphosates, you can guarantee a very specific time for harvest. Both a dead crop, and a dry one. Which makes it so you don't have to use dryers, something common around our parts, that cost a lot of money to run.
So I can see a lot of reasons that it would make sense to intentionally soak a field in the stuff every year weather it killed weeds or not. And this is just off the top of my head.
>Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?
I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Doctors didn't think unseeable microbes could kill people until the 1800s. And more recently doctors didn't believe it possible that people would have sever reactions to latex, yet we know that is true now. So I am not going to assume anything good about a chemical designed to kill things, and it would be the first thing I'd remove from my diet if I was getting sick like her from eating. (vomitting and in bed with fever for days, ick)
The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm. One core concept is time to harvest. There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest. If your crop isn't ready on time, the loss in time and cost to come back south could be huge cost. Where if you douse a field with glyphosates, you can guarantee a very specific time for harvest. Both a dead crop, and a dry one. Which makes it so you don't have to use dryers, something common around our parts, that cost a lot of money to run.
So I can see a lot of reasons that it would make sense to intentionally soak a field in the stuff every year weather it killed weeds or not. And this is just off the top of my head.
>Why does your friend only react to glyphosate in wheat but not other food products?
I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess. Doctors didn't think unseeable microbes could kill people until the 1800s. And more recently doctors didn't believe it possible that people would have sever reactions to latex, yet we know that is true now. So I am not going to assume anything good about a chemical designed to kill things, and it would be the first thing I'd remove from my diet if I was getting sick like her from eating. (vomitting and in bed with fever for days, ick)
> The way corporate farms work is different (I'd assume based on other experiences) than a private farm.
I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that any path to productivity is quickly adopted by everyone. Especially when it comes to something you can cashflow like chemicals (fixed assets can be harder to justify for smaller farms).
> There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest.
The large corporate farms have their own equipment. These harvest crews you speak that travel across the country are more apt to service the small farmer who cannot justify their own combines. If anything, based on your suggestion, that would promote more glyphosate use in small farms than the large farms who have control over their equipment.
But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I'm further east and around here even the small farmers own their own combines due to a small window to get the crops off. You don't dare take the chance on someone else's schedule like you can in more forgiving climates.
> I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess.
Fair enough, but you originally said that I should do some more digging. I'm trying to see the link here, but I'm struggling to see where to go from here. Would you say the problem limited to durham wheat, or all types of wheat?
I don't see it. Again, the tight margins means that any path to productivity is quickly adopted by everyone. Especially when it comes to something you can cashflow like chemicals (fixed assets can be harder to justify for smaller farms).
> There are massive combine harvest schedules that start in the south and work their way north to harvest.
The large corporate farms have their own equipment. These harvest crews you speak that travel across the country are more apt to service the small farmer who cannot justify their own combines. If anything, based on your suggestion, that would promote more glyphosate use in small farms than the large farms who have control over their equipment.
But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat. I'm further east and around here even the small farmers own their own combines due to a small window to get the crops off. You don't dare take the chance on someone else's schedule like you can in more forgiving climates.
> I am not suggesting that is the reason in the first place, it's just a guess.
Fair enough, but you originally said that I should do some more digging. I'm trying to see the link here, but I'm struggling to see where to go from here. Would you say the problem limited to durham wheat, or all types of wheat?
>...tight margins means that any path to productivity
But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. (an educated guess on my part) Especially if you factor in bulk growth of crops, centralized (and likely lobbied) subsidies. And the long term desire to push out all privately owned farms.
An easy comparison here is a mom and pop local hardware store vs a coporate chain store. Or a local grocery store vs the Walmart grocery store. The margins can be less for the coporate, and they will still make more money, and have lower prices. And often times will lose money to grind out the competition.
You seem to think there is an equal playing field, and discussing it that way. From my experience and reading, all things large and corporate have a need for growth inherent in their systems. And the easiest lands to expand into are small farms. Unless you are an organic farmer? (high profit, low yield)
>The large corporate farms have their own equipment.
Are you sure about that? All of them? And even if they have their own equipment, don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift? Seems like a non-argument.
>But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat.
I am educated guessing and reporting was I was told. I still want to talk to my friend (GMO worker) as to why he would tell me this. I am now a little more motivated to just give him a call, but he's a busy guy. :P
_Research_
In the mean time I did some research online, it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield. () So that would explain any extra cost issues you may think is a deterrent to this practice.
Google search for glyphosates cause hormesis in wheat. It looks like the amount of glyphosates being used is much less than you'd think to get this affect. Which again, would affect the costs. (ie, they'd be a lot lower yet again, because the amounts used are lower than for weed control) Also this effect (hormesis caused by small doses of weedkiller on plants) has not been researched much for health reasons, but may be a well known effect in the corporate farming industry, but not the private farms.
This was interesting to look into. By the time I learn more, I am sure this post will age too far.
--
One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic)
https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/glyphosat...
edit: for clarification.
But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate. (an educated guess on my part) Especially if you factor in bulk growth of crops, centralized (and likely lobbied) subsidies. And the long term desire to push out all privately owned farms.
An easy comparison here is a mom and pop local hardware store vs a coporate chain store. Or a local grocery store vs the Walmart grocery store. The margins can be less for the coporate, and they will still make more money, and have lower prices. And often times will lose money to grind out the competition.
You seem to think there is an equal playing field, and discussing it that way. From my experience and reading, all things large and corporate have a need for growth inherent in their systems. And the easiest lands to expand into are small farms. Unless you are an organic farmer? (high profit, low yield)
>The large corporate farms have their own equipment.
Are you sure about that? All of them? And even if they have their own equipment, don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift? Seems like a non-argument.
>But realistically, that harvest run is quite predictable and reliable to begin with. That seems like the least likely place for needing glyphosate on wheat.
I am educated guessing and reporting was I was told. I still want to talk to my friend (GMO worker) as to why he would tell me this. I am now a little more motivated to just give him a call, but he's a busy guy. :P
_Research_
In the mean time I did some research online, it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield. () So that would explain any extra cost issues you may think is a deterrent to this practice.
Google search for glyphosates cause hormesis in wheat. It looks like the amount of glyphosates being used is much less than you'd think to get this affect. Which again, would affect the costs. (ie, they'd be a lot lower yet again, because the amounts used are lower than for weed control) Also this effect (hormesis caused by small doses of weedkiller on plants) has not been researched much for health reasons, but may be a well known effect in the corporate farming industry, but not the private farms.
This was interesting to look into. By the time I learn more, I am sure this post will age too far.
--
One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic)
https://www.bobsredmill.com/blog/featured-articles/glyphosat...
edit: for clarification.
> But tight margins for a single family owned farm could vary dramatically to that of a corporate farm, I would estimate.
You're right, large businesses have economic advantages, but I think you may have misunderstood me. The large farms have tight margins. The small farms have no margins. I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason.
> don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift?
Are you sure you're not still thinking of the harvest crews that provide custom harvesting services to other farmers? They absolutely start in the south and work north. These businesses generally do not manage the farms themselves, however. They serve other farmers, typically smaller ones who do not have the acreage to justify the capital expenditure for harvest equipment (the cost of new combine alone is rapidly approaching the $1,000,000 mark).
Assuming we're still talking about the US (like you said, pasta does not cause the same symptoms in other countries) I have found no single grain farm that is large enough to span that large of a distance. Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed?
> it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield.
Increase yield at the end of harvest? I mean, I guess. Glyphosate has mass and adding it to the storage bin will increase the stored weight by some amount. You'd make a lot more money selling the glyphosate in its pure form though. It's value by a given mass far exceeds that of wheat. I don't think this is what you really meant.
If you meant soon after planting, I found one study that suggested that a low dose in the 3rd leaf stage could stimulate growth to increase yield. The study was also dated 2016. This is the first I heard of it, and I expect most farmers are in the same boat. The study said that previously this was thought to not be possible. Of those who have tried it, we're talking, what, realistically one crop? Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an issue?
I'll add that I'd need to see a ~5% yield bump just to cover the cost of application, never mind making additional money. Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile, and I'm not convinced that even with the findings of this study that it would be worth it. There are plenty of things you can do to increase yield, but it's still a cost/benefit thing. The goal of farm business is maximizing profit, not maximizing yield.
Also, you didn't answer if your friend's problem was limited to durham wheat or not. You originally suggested that might be the case, but haven't elaborated since. It's fine to look at roundup as a potential reason, but why not discuss all of the potential variables?
> One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic)
Which is quite telling. When you deliver a load of wheat, the destination will take a small sample for further analysis. If that small sample contains glyphosate, they will know about it. The problem is that when you have grain mixed from many sources, that small sample may not be the area of the load that does contain traces of glyphosate. As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through.
The fact that we're only talking small amounts slipping through and not entire loads "doused" in it, goes to show that the practice is not common, which is what I said from the start.
You're right, large businesses have economic advantages, but I think you may have misunderstood me. The large farms have tight margins. The small farms have no margins. I'm not sure why a large operation would throw their profits away to applying glyphosate for, in this context, absolutely no reason.
> don't they still have to start in the south and work their way north as the harvest seasons shift?
Are you sure you're not still thinking of the harvest crews that provide custom harvesting services to other farmers? They absolutely start in the south and work north. These businesses generally do not manage the farms themselves, however. They serve other farmers, typically smaller ones who do not have the acreage to justify the capital expenditure for harvest equipment (the cost of new combine alone is rapidly approaching the $1,000,000 mark).
Assuming we're still talking about the US (like you said, pasta does not cause the same symptoms in other countries) I have found no single grain farm that is large enough to span that large of a distance. Do you have a particular business in mind that I may have missed?
> it looks like glyphosates applied at the end of the harvest increase yield.
Increase yield at the end of harvest? I mean, I guess. Glyphosate has mass and adding it to the storage bin will increase the stored weight by some amount. You'd make a lot more money selling the glyphosate in its pure form though. It's value by a given mass far exceeds that of wheat. I don't think this is what you really meant.
If you meant soon after planting, I found one study that suggested that a low dose in the 3rd leaf stage could stimulate growth to increase yield. The study was also dated 2016. This is the first I heard of it, and I expect most farmers are in the same boat. The study said that previously this was thought to not be possible. Of those who have tried it, we're talking, what, realistically one crop? Did your friend's problem just start recently when it was previously not an issue?
I'll add that I'd need to see a ~5% yield bump just to cover the cost of application, never mind making additional money. Higher yields alone does not necessarily make it worthwhile, and I'm not convinced that even with the findings of this study that it would be worth it. There are plenty of things you can do to increase yield, but it's still a cost/benefit thing. The goal of farm business is maximizing profit, not maximizing yield.
Also, you didn't answer if your friend's problem was limited to durham wheat or not. You originally suggested that might be the case, but haven't elaborated since. It's fine to look at roundup as a potential reason, but why not discuss all of the potential variables?
> One last link, even Bob's Red Mill says he can't be sure if there glyphosates in the wheat he sells. (non-organic)
Which is quite telling. When you deliver a load of wheat, the destination will take a small sample for further analysis. If that small sample contains glyphosate, they will know about it. The problem is that when you have grain mixed from many sources, that small sample may not be the area of the load that does contain traces of glyphosate. As such, it is quite possible for some to slip through.
The fact that we're only talking small amounts slipping through and not entire loads "doused" in it, goes to show that the practice is not common, which is what I said from the start.
Round up ready wheat existed in the lab but was never commercialized by Monsanto due to lack of interest. Monsanto actually shut down its efforts to GM wheat due to this. Unlike corn and soy, most wheat is actually eaten by humans.
Note that last I head interests had changed (at least for GM wheat not sure on RR Wheat specifically) but as far as I know there is no commercially available RR wheat.
Note that last I head interests had changed (at least for GM wheat not sure on RR Wheat specifically) but as far as I know there is no commercially available RR wheat.
Someone was explaining to me that wheat in the US is often genetically modified to be more dense (and therefore more profitable) by just copy pasting the genes that make gluten a bunch of times. So that wheat in the US has way more gluten in it.
I have a friend who works for a GMO company, he said (just this past week) there is no GMO wheat. Anywhere. Yet.
fyi.
Surprised the crap out of me.
Edit: Soy beans and corn are the big GMO crops right now. I am sure there are lots of veges and fruit, but he works in the grain industry, so I have no confirmation on this.
fyi.
Surprised the crap out of me.
Edit: Soy beans and corn are the big GMO crops right now. I am sure there are lots of veges and fruit, but he works in the grain industry, so I have no confirmation on this.
Sort of. Dwarf wheat has some changes from older wheat varieties.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963738/
That article is titled with "wheat breeding", I am fairly certain that breeding is not GMO. Some source that says otherwise?
That's the "sort of".
How do you define "GMO"?
See https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding
for example. "Breeding" new plant varieties by creating mutations in existing ones has a long history.
for example. "Breeding" new plant varieties by creating mutations in existing ones has a long history.
I wonder if low quality tomatoes have less natural sugar than properly ripened ones, and as such contain less natural sugar?
It is insane how much sugar is in some tomato sauces (40% on the last one I checked) but maybe it’s not quite as executive as the label makes it appear.
Tomatoes sold in grocery stores have a mutation that reduces the photosynthesis of the fruit in order for them to ripen more evenly red. It's supposedly responsible for 10-15% less sugar on it's own. Picking them early means even less time for the plant to contribute to the fruit.
There's also the problem of depleted soil. I bought some organic heirloom tomatoes from Mexico (out of season here) that were as bland and spongy as any McDonald's tomato.
61 Names for Sugar
--------------------
Agave nectar
Barbados sugar
Barley malt
Barley malt syrup
Beet sugar
Brown sugar
Buttered syrup
Cane juice
Cane juice crystals
Cane sugar
Caramel
Carob syrup
Castor sugar
Coconut palm sugar
Coconut sugar
Confectioner's sugar
Corn sweetener
Corn syrup
Corn syrup solids
Date sugar
Dehydrated cane juice
Demerara sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Free-flowing brown sugars
Fructose
Fruit juice
Fruit juice concentrate
Glucose
Glucose solids
Golden sugar
Golden syrup
Grape sugar
HFCS (High-Fructose Corn Syrup)
Honey
Icing sugar
Invert sugar
Malt syrup
Maltodextrin
Maltol
Maltose
Mannose
Maple syrup
Molasses
Muscovado
Palm sugar
Panocha
Powdered sugar
Raw sugar
Refiner's syrup
Rice syrup
Saccharose
Sorghum Syrup
Sucrose
Sugar (granulated)
Sweet Sorghum
Syrup
Treacle
Turbinado sugar
Yellow sugar
------------------
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/hidden-in-plain-sight/
--------------------
Agave nectar
Barbados sugar
Barley malt
Barley malt syrup
Beet sugar
Brown sugar
Buttered syrup
Cane juice
Cane juice crystals
Cane sugar
Caramel
Carob syrup
Castor sugar
Coconut palm sugar
Coconut sugar
Confectioner's sugar
Corn sweetener
Corn syrup
Corn syrup solids
Date sugar
Dehydrated cane juice
Demerara sugar
Dextrin
Dextrose
Evaporated cane juice
Free-flowing brown sugars
Fructose
Fruit juice
Fruit juice concentrate
Glucose
Glucose solids
Golden sugar
Golden syrup
Grape sugar
HFCS (High-Fructose Corn Syrup)
Honey
Icing sugar
Invert sugar
Malt syrup
Maltodextrin
Maltol
Maltose
Mannose
Maple syrup
Molasses
Muscovado
Palm sugar
Panocha
Powdered sugar
Raw sugar
Refiner's syrup
Rice syrup
Saccharose
Sorghum Syrup
Sucrose
Sugar (granulated)
Sweet Sorghum
Syrup
Treacle
Turbinado sugar
Yellow sugar
------------------
http://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/hidden-in-plain-sight/
“Sugar”, like “drugs”, is too general a term to use in a discussion on health. Glucose and fructose, both forms of sugar, are metabolized differently and have different health effects.
People spend far too much time discussing the specifics, like glucose vs. fructose. Then they eat 8500 kcal/day but eat the "right" sugar and they're supposedly healthy. It's easier to care about fancy things rather than the basics.
Physics dominates everything, first and foremost. Thermodynamics governs diet through energy conservation laws that run the universe. That's rule #0. Everything else is maybe 20%. Human biology does not trump the laws of nature.
Physics dominates everything, first and foremost. Thermodynamics governs diet through energy conservation laws that run the universe. That's rule #0. Everything else is maybe 20%. Human biology does not trump the laws of nature.
Our body functions predominantly on ATP, not on glucose or fructose or fat or protein. ATP gets generated from those other macromolecules in pretty complicated biochemistry. You're definitely right that thermodynamics governs everything, but it governs it at the ATP level and not at the macronutrient level. Those additional layers of abstraction distort the whole calories in-calories out math.
Eating the "right" thing is more important than eating the "right" number. Consider eating 800 calories of protein versus 800 calories of alcohol (also technically a macronutrient). You're going to metabolize each differently, and you'll probably feel better eating the former than the latter. This is obviously an extreme example, but the point is that things that you eat affect your body in ways beyond that magic calorie number.
Eating the "right" thing is more important than eating the "right" number. Consider eating 800 calories of protein versus 800 calories of alcohol (also technically a macronutrient). You're going to metabolize each differently, and you'll probably feel better eating the former than the latter. This is obviously an extreme example, but the point is that things that you eat affect your body in ways beyond that magic calorie number.
I can assure you, I feel a lot better after 800kcal worth of alcohol (about 3 beers) than after 800g of protein (a small chicken).
Physics dominates, but it’s often too simple a model to be useful in diet planning. When you run things through the filter of the an incomprehensible machine like the Human brain and metabolic and hormonal pathways the system gets much more complicated and useful.
The non-caloric fibre content of food is vital to gut flora, whose importance we’re still discovering.
Different foods affect hunger differently. High fat foods are more satiating that sugar.
The body isn’t a bucket, it’s a donut which has the capacity to absorb some food through internal walls while the food slips through very slowly. If you drink a bottle of oil, you won’t get fat. You’ll just have very runny and uncomfortable stool for a while.
The non-caloric fibre content of food is vital to gut flora, whose importance we’re still discovering.
Different foods affect hunger differently. High fat foods are more satiating that sugar.
The body isn’t a bucket, it’s a donut which has the capacity to absorb some food through internal walls while the food slips through very slowly. If you drink a bottle of oil, you won’t get fat. You’ll just have very runny and uncomfortable stool for a while.
"Sugar" usually means sucrose which contains both glucose and fructose. They do have very different effects and fructose is much worse. But in the majority of products you find both together. Glucose (aka dextrose) is much less sweet and used in things like energy drinks. Fructose on its own is more sweet than sucrose and used in "naturally light" products (same sweetness, few calories, no artificial sweeteners). But in an average intake you're going to find glucose and fructose in roughly equal amounts, I think.
In the US at least, if an ingredient label says "sugar," it means sucrose. The sucrose molecule is broken up almost instantly in the digestive tract, and enters the bloodstream as a 50/50 mixture of glucose and fructose.
Sure but the effects aren't all that different.
They actually are quite different. Glucose is directly usable by every cell in your body, whereas fructose has to be processed by the liver. There are no adverse health effects from taking pure glucose.
Here is a good video explaining it in more detail: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
Here is a good video explaining it in more detail: https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
> There are no adverse health effects from taking pure glucose.
Most people shouldn't be taking glucose. People should get their energy from food so that they get the nutrients and fibre with it. For most people taking glucose means either you'll get too much energy (and get fat) or not enough nutrients from real food.
On top of that it causes a strong insulin response which will decrease insulin sensitivity.
Most people shouldn't be taking glucose. People should get their energy from food so that they get the nutrients and fibre with it. For most people taking glucose means either you'll get too much energy (and get fat) or not enough nutrients from real food.
On top of that it causes a strong insulin response which will decrease insulin sensitivity.
Very different; glucose is metabolized by all cells in the body; fructose only by the liver.
Fructose isn't good for you (or sucrose 50% fructose, high fructose corn syrup 42%-65% fructose etc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
But its sweeter than glucose; and has side-effects like switching of appetite suppression and prolonged exposure does similar damage to the liver as alcohol. Glucose doesn't do that.
Fructose isn't good for you (or sucrose 50% fructose, high fructose corn syrup 42%-65% fructose etc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
But its sweeter than glucose; and has side-effects like switching of appetite suppression and prolonged exposure does similar damage to the liver as alcohol. Glucose doesn't do that.
The corruption is so bad that the sugar industry may have had a hand in writing the import/export laws for Canada. High-fat foods like Soylent are illegal to import there.
Soylent the “food” isn’t illegal. Soylent the “meal replacement” is.
One of their competitors, KetoChow gets around this by tongue-in-cheek requiring that their Canadian customer add a cup of maple syrup before consuming.
One of their competitors, KetoChow gets around this by tongue-in-cheek requiring that their Canadian customer add a cup of maple syrup before consuming.
Correct, I am referring to Soylent as-is, with its current marketing copy.
The company should not have to suggest unhealthy preparations to get around unjust import laws.
The company should not have to suggest unhealthy preparations to get around unjust import laws.
Same report discussed in this post 2 months ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15759562
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15759562
Science in most cases represents a local maximum... the frontier of our understanding. But having a limited understanding is different from willfully presenting false information.
The latter is unethical and should have consequences, especially when the result is loss of life. Consequences not limited to: admitting that the information is false, loss of license, jail, etc.
The latter is unethical and should have consequences, especially when the result is loss of life. Consequences not limited to: admitting that the information is false, loss of license, jail, etc.
When I first visited the US about 30 years ago, I was often surprised about how different things like burgers or pizza tasted from here in Europe. It was like eating candy all the time. These days even over here there's sugar in almost everything you can buy.
Side note, not related directly: I was also surprised how in some of those 'health' image supermarkets, the fruits like strawberries looked so perfect, but just had no flavor and tasted just watery. Back here fruits often didn't look so 'television commercial quality', but exploded with flavors. Again, these days even here you have to go out of your way to find e.g. a decent tomato or grow your own.
Side note, not related directly: I was also surprised how in some of those 'health' image supermarkets, the fruits like strawberries looked so perfect, but just had no flavor and tasted just watery. Back here fruits often didn't look so 'television commercial quality', but exploded with flavors. Again, these days even here you have to go out of your way to find e.g. a decent tomato or grow your own.
It's very interesting to take apart some typical American fast food like McDonalds or Subway and taste it bit by bit, cleansing your pallet as you go. The bread is literally as sweet as an iced bun or something. Most of the individual components are tasteless with only things like sauces and pickles providing flavour.
I've noticed the same thing in supermarket sandwiches and things in the UK. The one place I haven't noticed it is France. You can buy a sandwich from a railway station or something there and it will actually taste good.
I've noticed the same thing in supermarket sandwiches and things in the UK. The one place I haven't noticed it is France. You can buy a sandwich from a railway station or something there and it will actually taste good.
[deleted]
I’ve noticed a pattern of Europeans getting food items that are the made of the cheapest of the cheap ingredients, almost to the point of being mislabeled and using them as a benchmark for what “American food” is like.
For example, 99 cent gas station white bread loaf taste like cake to Americans too. A 1.50$ loaf at a grocery store tastes much more normal for a nominal difference.
A “snack cake” also tastes like sugar mixed with liquified sugar to Americans. It might be called “cake” but Americans treat it like candy for all intents and purposes.
For example, 99 cent gas station white bread loaf taste like cake to Americans too. A 1.50$ loaf at a grocery store tastes much more normal for a nominal difference.
A “snack cake” also tastes like sugar mixed with liquified sugar to Americans. It might be called “cake” but Americans treat it like candy for all intents and purposes.
Ingredient list for the top selling brand of bread in the US:
Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, Honey, Sugar, Wheat Gluten, Whole Wheat Flour, Rye Flour, Wheat Bran, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Yeast, Soy Flour, Salt, Soybean Oil, Dough Conditioners (Contains One or More of the Following: Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Calcium Stearoyl Lactylate, Monoglycerides, Mono- and Diglycerides, Distilled Monoglycerides, Calcium Peroxide, Calcium Iodate, DATEM, Ethoxylated Mono- and Diglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid), Cultured Wheat Flour, Vinegar, Calcium Sulfate, Yeast Food (Ammonium Sulfate), Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin, Calcium Carbonate.
Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, Honey, Sugar, Wheat Gluten, Whole Wheat Flour, Rye Flour, Wheat Bran, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Yeast, Soy Flour, Salt, Soybean Oil, Dough Conditioners (Contains One or More of the Following: Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Calcium Stearoyl Lactylate, Monoglycerides, Mono- and Diglycerides, Distilled Monoglycerides, Calcium Peroxide, Calcium Iodate, DATEM, Ethoxylated Mono- and Diglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid), Cultured Wheat Flour, Vinegar, Calcium Sulfate, Yeast Food (Ammonium Sulfate), Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin, Calcium Carbonate.
Best selling means they have the most volume under one name. It doesn’t mean most bread the average American eats is like that.
If you go to the average grocery store around here there is at least half of an entire aisle stocked with at least 20 brands of fresh bread from smaller scale bakers and even the store itself. And that’s excluding the additional shelf or two they usually have for national brand extra cheap breads like the type you describe.
Im guessing if you name the brand it’s going to be something I’m likely to find at a dollar store or a gas station as opposed to something that’s be in the section for fresh bread.
Fun fact: Walmart stores that don’t have a grocery section still carry bread, but mostly the type you describe.
Walmart’s with a grocery sell bread baked fresh daily in-store, and have dozens of types of bread from whole wheat to artisanal breads that you wouldn’t believe came from a Walmart.
If you go to the average grocery store around here there is at least half of an entire aisle stocked with at least 20 brands of fresh bread from smaller scale bakers and even the store itself. And that’s excluding the additional shelf or two they usually have for national brand extra cheap breads like the type you describe.
Im guessing if you name the brand it’s going to be something I’m likely to find at a dollar store or a gas station as opposed to something that’s be in the section for fresh bread.
Fun fact: Walmart stores that don’t have a grocery section still carry bread, but mostly the type you describe.
Walmart’s with a grocery sell bread baked fresh daily in-store, and have dozens of types of bread from whole wheat to artisanal breads that you wouldn’t believe came from a Walmart.
I feel just posting the ingredients list is a bit misinforming as it would appear to be mostly sugar. For those who may be unaware - ingredients lists are supposed to be in order of most->least used ingredients. So 2 of the top 4 ingredients for this bread are sugar (honey and sugar) and the other 2 are the ingredients for bread...
Based on a Google search I think the brand of bread you selected was Nature's Own Honey Wheat Bread [0]. Which, per slice, is 2 grams of sugar. A good comparison might be Warbutons [1] - based on another quick Google search - as it seems to be the top selling brand of bread in the UK. I'm not sure how ingredient lists are required to be ordered in the U.K but the sugar content is nearly half - 1.2 grams of sugar per slice for the first result I got of their product.
But for a more fair comparison let's select Warbuton's Golden Wheat [2] since I feel that's the closest equivalent to Nature's Own Honey Wheat that Warbuton's has, seeing as these items are both wheat bread with honey. Warbuton's Golden Wheat contains 2 grams of sugar per slice. Equivalent to that of Nature's Own.
I assumed you were trying to single out the U.S for having sugary bread, but if I've misinterpreted the meaning of your post feel free to correct me.
TL;DR
Namebrand-popular U.K bread isn't any better than Namebrand-popular U.S bread when it comes to sugar content.
[0] https://www.instacart.com/whole-foods/products/16658256-natu...
[1] https://www.warburtons.co.uk/products/bread/white/800g-mediu...
[2] https://www.warburtons.co.uk/products/bread/wholemeal-brown/...
Based on a Google search I think the brand of bread you selected was Nature's Own Honey Wheat Bread [0]. Which, per slice, is 2 grams of sugar. A good comparison might be Warbutons [1] - based on another quick Google search - as it seems to be the top selling brand of bread in the UK. I'm not sure how ingredient lists are required to be ordered in the U.K but the sugar content is nearly half - 1.2 grams of sugar per slice for the first result I got of their product.
But for a more fair comparison let's select Warbuton's Golden Wheat [2] since I feel that's the closest equivalent to Nature's Own Honey Wheat that Warbuton's has, seeing as these items are both wheat bread with honey. Warbuton's Golden Wheat contains 2 grams of sugar per slice. Equivalent to that of Nature's Own.
I assumed you were trying to single out the U.S for having sugary bread, but if I've misinterpreted the meaning of your post feel free to correct me.
TL;DR
Namebrand-popular U.K bread isn't any better than Namebrand-popular U.S bread when it comes to sugar content.
[0] https://www.instacart.com/whole-foods/products/16658256-natu...
[1] https://www.warburtons.co.uk/products/bread/white/800g-mediu...
[2] https://www.warburtons.co.uk/products/bread/wholemeal-brown/...
Salt and sugar (or corn syrup) confuse the tongue and keep it "addicted".
I have removed both (added) salt & sugar from my cooking for a year now and I am finally at a stage where I can actually taste all the ingredients in the food.
Someone else was making a comment about freshness of tomatoes. There isn't any :) Now add to that 0.5 spoons of salt and 1 spoon of sugar and you taste nothing at all. This way "they" can make you consume the most bland ingredients and you won't even notice it.
I have removed both (added) salt & sugar from my cooking for a year now and I am finally at a stage where I can actually taste all the ingredients in the food.
Someone else was making a comment about freshness of tomatoes. There isn't any :) Now add to that 0.5 spoons of salt and 1 spoon of sugar and you taste nothing at all. This way "they" can make you consume the most bland ingredients and you won't even notice it.
I did this as well for a bit. You get to the point when carrots, tomatoes and potatoes taste incredibly sweet and broccoli, if not murdered, tastes marvellous. I ended up growing a load of things.
Then there was a relapse :(
Then there was a relapse :(
Add salt and fat; we started taking those out when we started adding sugar.
It is well worth growing your own tomatoes. The taste explosion of a freshly picked tomato is just incredible!
that's if you do it right. I'm a bad tomato grower and my tomatoes don't taste any better than the store bought ones.
but occassionally, a grower at the farmer's market will do it right and you CAN really taste the difference. Man, did those tomatoes really taste like something else.
but occassionally, a grower at the farmer's market will do it right and you CAN really taste the difference. Man, did those tomatoes really taste like something else.
> a decent tomato
This is unfortunately an issue worldwide. Fresh tomatoes are a giant pain in the ass to grow. Flavor varies significantly. Getting decent ones here in the Pacific Northwest is basically a crapshoot at best.
This is unfortunately an issue worldwide. Fresh tomatoes are a giant pain in the ass to grow. Flavor varies significantly. Getting decent ones here in the Pacific Northwest is basically a crapshoot at best.
"The problem with today's tomato crops is that the fruit is too large. Growers are focusing on size, but as the international team of researchers has discovered, the bigger the tomato, the less sugar it has and the less intensive its aroma."
http://www.dw.com/en/what-makes-tomatoes-tasty/a-37292102
http://www.dw.com/en/what-makes-tomatoes-tasty/a-37292102
I grew up in the village where we used to grow our own tomatoes and it's simply not true that bigger ones taste differently. An average tomato (6-10cm in diameter), usually tastes just the same as a much smaller one growing on the same plant. Actually I didn't notice any difference in taste based on size. For a cucumbers that was definitely the case, once it passed certain size, cucumber use to become much less tastier, but tomatoes all tasted the same, delicious. And as with current tomatoes in the store, in rare instances you can be lucky and find a batch of great tomatoes that taste quite good, and they are all of decent size.
So what I'm saying is that at least my practical experience never even gave me a hint that bigger tomatoes would taste worse than smaller ones. And I was very surprised the first time I heard this hypothesis.
So what I'm saying is that at least my practical experience never even gave me a hint that bigger tomatoes would taste worse than smaller ones. And I was very surprised the first time I heard this hypothesis.
You cannot ship that large tomato you grew in the village, it would be mush by the time it got anywhere. Modden tomatoes are the the equivalent of a cardboard box, and for the same reason.
I had a similar experience with cakes. I have a sweet tooth but I have a hard time eating American cakes, they are just too sweet! But maybe it's a case of confirmation bias... I'd be curious to know the actual sugar concentration.
We've seen it over and over again in so many industries (not the least of which is tobacco) that its almost expected and in fact, if you merely attempt to look for these kinds of player actions in any industry, you will absolutely find them.