|
Strudel Man posted:Nah, it's pretty straightforward. D&D's just heavy on the blinkers for anything pertaining to heterodox opinions. Considering he is defending the logic of the position in the post he claims its a joke, I um doubt it.
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 00:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:There have actually been modifications in some states to their SNAP benefits where if you buy fresh ingredients, etc, you end up getting like $1.5 for every $1 that would normally be spent on cheap, HFCS type crap. HFCS doesn't translate to crap. It's literally just sugar from corn, no better or worse than any other kind of sugar. The conflation of "fresh" or "natural" with "healthy" and "nutritious" has been one of the most infuriating turns in public health of the past decade. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Fructose is handled differently by your body compared to sucrose and glucose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:HFCS doesn't translate to crap. It's literally just sugar from corn, no better or worse than any other kind of sugar. The conflation of "fresh" or "natural" with "healthy" and "nutritious" has been one of the most infuriating turns in public health of the past decade. That's not entirely true. There are several kinds of sugar that are actually different from each other. HFCS processed starch from corn into sugar that's heavy on fructose. There's also sucrose and glucose. Fructose is generally a pretty small percentage of sugars as it occurs in nature. It, in and of itself, is basically "just sugar" as you are saying and, in normal amounts, doesn't really do much to you. If you do, however, eat gently caress loads of it it causes all sorts of problems. The problem isn't the HFCS but rather how much of it Americans tend to consume. HFCS is also really, really cheap so often you get poor people who can't afford much else buying piles and piles of garbage that's really just a crap load of calories with little on the way of nutrients. Americans also loving love soda which is very heavy on HFCS. There are also some differences in flavor, satiety, and how your body processes sugars. They're not huge but they're enough. Even so, the biggest issue is that we consume so goddamned much of it. HFCS is a popular additive to food because it's dirt rear end cheap and very, very sweet. It's pretty easy to convince humans to eat sweet things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That's not entirely true. There are several kinds of sugar that are actually different from each other. HFCS processed starch from corn into sugar that's heavy on fructose. There's also sucrose and glucose. Fructose is generally a pretty small percentage of sugars as it occurs in nature. It, in and of itself, is basically "just sugar" as you are saying and, in normal amounts, doesn't really do much to you. If you do, however, eat gently caress loads of it it causes all sorts of problems. The problem isn't the HFCS but rather how much of it Americans tend to consume. HFCS is also really, really cheap so often you get poor people who can't afford much else buying piles and piles of garbage that's really just a crap load of calories with little on the way of nutrients. Americans also loving love soda which is very heavy on HFCS. As importantly, ToxicSlurpee posted:There are also some differences in flavor, satiety, and how your body processes sugars. They're not huge but they're enough. When you see sources making these claims, you should be aware they are almost certainly bullshit. The studies claiming them, if you locate source networks, are all coming out of either 1. Cane sugar funding sources, or 2. A group of authors loosely orbiting around Lustig, Hyman and Bittman, who are utter hacks trying to push a "processed foods/Big Food is the devil, sugar is an addictive toxin" line. Annoyingly, that second group includes the NYT and (of course), HuffPo, which gives it a false air of authority. In practice these studies tend to be massively flawed, and almost always in animal models. A lot of the ones people like to bring up (the currently popular one is a mouse study out of Stanford which is technically in a separate "me-too" category) get torn to shreds in the actual scientific community immediately, but stay in the public memory for a lot longer. This isn't to say that corn refiners are good (they employ Rick "Tobacco isn't addictive or carcinogenic" Berman to run their own PR front groups), but that in this case the science so far says HFCS isn't different from other sugars from a health perspective. People should consume fewer calories. That's the proper focus. To the extent that SNAP is focusing on processing levels as a proxy for health impact, it's a really bad call. The Dark One posted:Fructose is handled differently by your body compared to sucrose and glucose. edit: A family member wrote the paper on dietary sugar intake a few years back and I've had to hear about/read about all the details of this mess ever since- does it show? 
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:HFCS has nearly identical fructose levels when compared with other commercially used sugars- it's part of why it can be used so widely. The name's misleading- it actually refers to the synthesis process To be precise, it's called that because standard corn syrup contains almost no fructose at all, and the processing of HFCS converts some of the glucose to fructose. It's high fructose in comparison to normal corn syrup. But yes, table sugar, HFCS, honey, and even the sugar content in fruits are all pretty close to 50/50 fructose/glucose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
I was speaking more to the fact that cheap calorie dense foods are HFCS heavy and whatnot. Versus more balanced foods such as veggies, fruits, and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:I was speaking more to the fact that cheap calorie dense foods are HFCS heavy and whatnot. Versus more balanced foods such as veggies, fruits, and whatnot. Again though that's not a problem with HFCS, it's a problem with people eating way too many calories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
The Dark One posted:Fructose is handled differently by your body compared to sucrose and glucose. Glucose, yes, but sucrose is broken down in the gut to fructose and glucose. The only difference that matters is the proportion, usually like 55/45 for HFCS vs 50/50 for sucrose. Discendo Vox posted:
It was "corn sugar."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Right, my bad- I was in a righteous fury when I was  ing there. Corrected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
HFCS can cause my blood sugar to spike and give me problems. Other sugars do not. I mean, I avoid sweets and sugary foods in general because diabetes runs in my family something fierce and I'm showing signs of early sugar issues but for some people the difference is actually pretty huge. HFCS gives me some pretty awful issues that other sugars don't so I avoid it. I also really, really don't like how sickeningly sweet American food tends to be thanks to this attitude of "let's cram as much corn as possible into literally everything."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:HFCS can cause my blood sugar to spike and give me problems. Other sugars do not. I mean, I avoid sweets and sugary foods in general because diabetes runs in my family something fierce and I'm showing signs of early sugar issues but for some people the difference is actually pretty huge. HFCS gives me some pretty awful issues that other sugars don't so I avoid it. This is likely untrue and the result of confirmation bias. You should seek medical advice and keep a food journal. It is this sort of pseudoscience that leads to the proliferation of fake "medical" conditions such as MSG and gluten sensitivity, and it greatly hampers real research into underlying medical issues that go improperly diagnosed. I will never understand why otherwise rational people build such fantastical fictions and ascribe magical powers to food.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Food scientists are basically evil scientists. Their job is to basically trick your mind into thinking that going face first into that box of Cheez Its is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
I'm guessing that when people start paying attention to HFCS or gluten or whatever, they end up making smarter food choices that are unrelated to those ingredients. Like if you're worried about HFCS, you might cut sodas or other unhealthy snacks, possibly replacing them with healthier versions that happen to use cane sugar instead. Of course, this is exactly why science is so useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Phone posted:Food scientists are basically evil scientists. Their job is to basically trick your mind into thinking that going face first into that box of Cheez Its is a good idea. The science of making food taste good is basically the science of addiction and how to make people as addicted as possible. At least these days we frown on people who put actual drugs in their products 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Neruz posted:The science of making food taste good is basically the science of addiction and how to make people as addicted as possible. At least these days we frown on people who put actual drugs in their products No. Addiction is mechanically and structurally different from the forces food scientists work with, with the possible exception of people working with caffeine(NIDA's still debating it internally). "Food companies try to make their customers into addicts" is the poo poo Lustig peddles, and I've personally watched him get the silent treatment from an auditorium of hundreds of food scientists at a conference (it was beautiful). The large-scale food industry knows it has far, far more to lose from pursuing addiction than they could ever gain. The only hazards of this sort come from (surprise surprise) the dietary supplement industry, which likes to position itself as the underdog fighting back against "big food".
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
Phone posted:Food scientists are basically evil scientists. Their job is to basically trick your mind into thinking that going face first into that box of Cheez Its is a good idea. Neruz posted:The science of making food taste good is basically the science of addiction and how to make people as addicted as possible. At least these days we frown on people who put actual drugs in their products You guys are idiots and don't know the first thing about food science. Vox, for any of his other failures, is right on the money about this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. Addiction is mechanically and structurally different from the forces food scientists work with, with the possible exception of people working with caffeine(NIDA's still debating it internally). "Food companies try to make their customers into addicts" is the poo poo Lustig peddles, and I've personally watched him get the silent treatment from an auditorium of hundreds of food scientists at a conference (it was beautiful). The large-scale food industry knows it has far, far more to lose from pursuing addiction than they could ever gain. The only hazards of this sort come from (surprise surprise) the dietary supplement industry, which likes to position itself as the underdog fighting back against "big food". You're conflating intent with result, and using a straw man. Yeah, there's a crazy wing of the anti-sugar movement that might believe food scientists are evil. Not everyone who thinks Americans should vastly reduce their sugar intake believes there's some kind of conspiracy with evil shadowy figures hoping people get diabetes. The conclusion that food producers do not have the best interests of the customers at heart comes from looking at the products on the shelf and their effects on society. It is impossible not to come to the conclusion that the foods are built to cause users to consume much more than they ought and that the process by which that happens has made the food unhealthy. It doesn't matter whether or not food scientists individually are evil or they hate Lustig. The system and the way the companies do business literally rewards them for concocting foods that have had a negative impact on many Americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 08:05
|
|
|
Food science, including commercial food science, does not involve producing addiction. The idea that it does so is popularized by the likes of Lustig. It's not a strawman because that's an actual position taken by a group, being represented in this thread. I don't have to think Con Agra et al. are ethical actors to know that they don't seek to induce addiction. I know they don't seek to induce addiction because I know what addiction is, and I know what food science is. They are not the same thing. Sugar is not addictive. The idea that sugar, or fat, or salt, is addictive, is literally the invention of Hyman and Lustig, and a group of credulous or self-promoting pop nutrition authors. Let's take a step back here. What have I said that makes you think this: ErIog posted:Everyone who thinks Americans should vastly reduce their sugar intake believes there's some kind of conspiracy with evil shadowy figures hoping people get diabetes. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Food science, including commercial food science, does not involve producing addiction. At its core I would agree that food science is not like fundamentally evil like Phone was joking about, but I think it's silly to ignore that food science is often part of the process of getting people to make bad dietary decisions. Discendo Vox posted:The idea that it does so is popularized by the likes of Lustig. It's not a strawman because that's an actual position taken by a group, being represented in this thread. Do you deny that sugar is harmful in ways that are different from protein and non-trans-fats? Discendo Vox posted:I don't have to think Con Agra et al. are ethical actors to know that they don't seek to induce addiction. I know they don't seek to induce addiction because I know what addiction is, and I know what food science is. They are not the same thing. I don't give a poo poo what you claim to know about addiction or food science or whatever other appeals to authority you're going to make. Once again you're hiding behind the weasel words, "seek to." I already conceded that the food scientists themselves do not actively seek to make things more addictive, but that it's a byproduct of the work they do born out by the obesity and diabetes data in the US. I'm not talking about what anyone is "seeking to" do. I'm talking about what the effects have been on American society. I understand this is your #notallfoodscientists moment, and that there's some food scientists out there making stuff like better MRE's and Plumpy Nut. However, that's probably not the majority of food scientists employed in the US. So yeah, there was some hyperbole in their claims, but it's not far from reality when you consider how food science has been used over the past 60 years along with how that has impacted citizens and the food supply. Discendo Vox posted:Sugar is not addictive. The idea that sugar, or fat, or salt, is addictive, is literally the invention of Hyman and Lustig, and a group of credulous or self-promoting pop nutrition authors. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/ This study abstract talks about sugar and fat, but scroll a bit to find where they talk about how they can get rats to binge on sugar the same way that humans do. We can quibble about the exact definition of addiction, but I'm going to say that sugar fits my definition of "continued use in the face of negative consequences that creates a feedback loop by which a person escalates their usage." Sugar, according to studies with rats and real demographic data from humans shows us that it's pretty addictive. It's probably not as addictive as some other things, but it is a hell of a drug. The fact that a relative fall in blood sugar can create the feeling of hunger without regard to the absolute blood sugar level is pretty clearly a problem, and one that's unique to sugar. Sugar also has a vastly different satiety response than fat or protein. A person can take in 1,000's of calories of soda while also managing to feel hungry for most of the day due to the blood sugar rollercoaster and the fact that the lack of any other real macronutrients in soda means it barely triggers satiety. Isn't that convenient? We can make a product that tastes really great because of all the sugar, slap "fat free" on the box, and then watch as the public seeks to devour more and more of it because they never feel full. Whether or not companies "sought to" create this situation is fundamentally irrelevant. It is clear that is the current situation. It has been clear for more than a handful of years, and yet we see no end in sight to the kind of marketing and new concoctions that promote a fundamentally unhealthy relationship with food. So yeah, people with degrees and poo poo who are food scientists might not be 100% to blame. However it's stupid to say they aren't at least being used by a bad system for purposes that are not at all rooted in a care for one's customers. ErIog fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
They're doing it on purpose. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 13:21
|
|
|
ErIog posted:At its core I would agree that food science is not like fundamentally evil like Phone was joking about, but I think it's silly to ignore that food science is often part of the process of getting people to make bad dietary decisions. It's like some people forget obesity and fatness exist in huge amounts of people all over the world. Maybe since they're fat they just don't see it, kinda the same way parents of fat children think their 10 year old's weight is healthy at 200 pounds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:You guys are idiots and don't know the first thing about food science. Vox, for any of his other failures, is right on the money about this. I didn't say anything about addiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
I think some of you guys are confusing "addiction" with "tastes really good." How are they supposed to design food, to taste austere and Daoist? This is late stage capitalism bwoy, food is going to taste good and some people are genetically predisposed not to handle it. A little knowledge has gone a long way, and people with higher incomes are eating better. People with lower incomes are not, so the problem is not "addictive food science." It's a socioeconomic issue as usual.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Food science, including commercial food science, does not involve producing addiction. Yes, actually, it does in the case of commercial food science. There are people whose entire job is to convince you to eat more so they can sell more. There are snack foods specifically created to have the most pleasing sensation in your mouth that they can while providing no nutrients and no sense of satiation. It's why you can sit down and eat an entire bag of potato chips and still feel hungry. Your body's response to food is actually quite complex and feeling full is more than "how much stuff there is in my stomach." Soft drink companies are probably among the worst for this, in their way. One of them decided that their end goal is to have people drinking more soda than anything else, including water. I'm not saying that they're inherently evil, nasty companies that are deliberately giving everybody diabetes or that soda is horrible and should be banned. I'm saying that Americans consume too much sugar, too many calories, and should cut back but the food industry would much prefer that we don't because that eats their profits.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Yes, actually, it does in the case of commercial food science. There are people whose entire job is to convince you to eat more so they can sell more. There are snack foods specifically created to have the most pleasing sensation in your mouth that they can while providing no nutrients and no sense of satiation. It's why you can sit down and eat an entire bag of potato chips and still feel hungry. Your body's response to food is actually quite complex and feeling full is more than "how much stuff there is in my stomach." Well of course a company wants people to consume their products. Is this actually some sort of mind-blowing realization for some people?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Not in and of itself, no. But there are quite a few people who don't realize the lengths that most companies will go to in order to achieve even small advancements towards that end.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
You guys are citing the exact articles and sources on addiction that I was just saying aren't credible on this subject. Maed posted:They're doing it on purpose. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all There are a set of authors at the New York Times, and at HoffPo, who are professionally invested in taking this position- scientifically, though, it's poo poo. It also has aligned them (directly, as in they frequently quote and cite to them) Lustig, Hyman, etc. ErIog posted:Do you deny that sugar is harmful in ways that are different from protein and non-trans-fats? ErIog posted:I don't give a poo poo what you claim to know about addiction or food science or whatever other appeals to authority you're going to make. Once again you're hiding behind the weasel words, "seek to." I already conceded that the food scientists themselves do not actively seek to make things more addictive, but that it's a byproduct of the work they do born out by the obesity and diabetes data in the US. I'm not talking about what anyone is "seeking to" do. I'm talking about what the effects have been on American society. ErIog posted:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2714381/ I am gonna quibble because the primary subject of my research is currently how the concept of addiction gets used/abused in the scientific literature. You may think that this study lends support to your position, but it does the opposite. It's also an example of the godawful me-too research that's been such a problem in these areas. Notice how the researchers have to hedge around the word "addiction" at every step of the paper- i.e. "addiction-like". The paper was being published for a symposium called "'Food Addiction': Fact or Fiction"- the strong consensus was coming out of that symposium was "it's fiction". The lit review section the authors say demonstrates that food addiction is a thing is tiny and massively undersourced. The authors are all psychologists, and they screw up a number of their citations. Finally, non-clinical (i.e. human subject) studies are of really negligible strength when making decisions on addiction status. Long story short- sugar, fat and salt have harmful effects on the body. However, the obesity and general dietary problems, at least in the US, have less to do with sugar, and more to do with straight up calorie rates and macronutrient portioning issues. If you're interested and have access, this is a bit before my father's paper, but it's the most credible and cited article on this subject in the literature at this point. The role sugar's effects on satiety plays in this is overstated, though extant (the FDA is hitting this with the incredibly ill-conceived "added sugar" category on the proposed changes to nutrition labeling. They're also probably going to get rid of separate calories from fat labels, and reduce legal visibility of front-of-package "fat free" language). ErIog posted:So yeah, people with degrees and poo poo who are food scientists might not be 100% to blame. However it's stupid to say they aren't at least being used by a bad system for purposes that are not at all rooted in a care for one's customers. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 18:36 on Sep 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
if all you want to make is pedantic arguments about specific word meaning you should be upfront about it. otherwise, normal human beings assume you are in opposition to the argument rather than the word choice
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 15:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You guys are citing the exact articles and sources on addiction that I was just saying aren't credible on this subject. Welp, pack it up. Discendo Vox doesn't think tons of studies are credible. Guess that's solved, then!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I think some of you guys are confusing "addiction" with "tastes really good." ToxicSlurpee posted:There are snack foods specifically created to have the most pleasing sensation in your mouth
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
Yeah I thought that "food companies tailor their products to get you to keep eating without realizing how much" was common knowledge. It may not technically be "addicting" but it's skirting the line and outside of a court of law I don't think many people care.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:if all you want to make is pedantic arguments about specific word meaning you should be upfront about it. Well, my first sentence on the subject was "Addiction is mechanically and structurally different from the forces food scientists work with, with the possible exception of people working with caffeine(NIDA's still debating it internally)." I think that's pretty clear(for me, anyways), and consistent with what I've argued since. ErIog posted:Welp, pack it up. Discendo Vox doesn't think tons of studies are credible. Guess that's solved, then! A lot of studies aren't credible in a lot of the sciences- in practice, when you get into any field, it's not enough to say "a bunch of studies say this"- because Sturgeon's Law applies as much in academia as anywhere else. You need to be especially careful when a focal point of the research claim involves some concept that 1. Is still being developed in its home literature, 2. Is being used outside its source literature(especially between "hard" and social sciences), 3. Involves any kind of mind/body distinction, 4. Is "sexy", i.e. popular with the lay press or is currently seeing a lot of cross-citation, or 5. Is the subject of political interest. Addiction hits all of these. For some other examples, brain imaging hits all of them in varying degrees as well, although less so than about ten years ago. Race is still encountering problems, mostly due to variable definitions between anthropology and genetics departments producing really unpleasant theory conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I thought that "food companies tailor their products to get you to keep eating without realizing how much" was common knowledge. It may not technically be "addicting" but it's skirting the line and outside of a court of law I don't think many people care. Food addiction is, in fact, a thing that exists, but you can get addicted to literally anything so that's kind of a moot point. The point I was making is that food companies are often deliberately looking for ways to get people to overeat. That's the main thing here I'm criticizing. I'm not saying that snack foods, junk, and deep fried garbage are inherently bad. I probably eat more french fries and corn chips than I should. I'm just saying that food companies go to great lengths to get people to overeat without noticing or thinking too much about it. Look at the foods that are advertised most heavily; it's generally corn-based, cheap snacks. The corn that goes into that is all calories and no nutrients. Americans eat way, way too much of it, which is the issue I take with it. I'm guilty of sitting down and eating an entire bag of chips myself from time to time. The issue is that a lot of people do that pretty much every day or drink soda by the gallon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Food addiction is, in fact, a thing that exists, but you can get addicted to literally anything so that's kind of a moot point. Yeah I agree with you. I love corn/potato chips so I have to make sure I grab a reasonable single serving amount and put them in a bowl otherwise I will eat like half the bag without realizing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
*two guys in a gyro truck scheming* "Yes Amadou, crisp up that falafel very well. We need to create a more pleasing sensation in the mouth! LIKE DRUG DEALERS"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:*two guys in a gyro truck scheming* Sedanchair just made me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:*two guys in a gyro truck scheming* "We've got a guy, says he can make the stuff 99.1% pure"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:"We've got a guy, says he can make the stuff 99.1% pure"
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 14:29 |
|
|
Food science and the food industry would be a great subject for its own thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 17:27
|
|
