Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

[Nevage]

BTW glycolysis is not a major metabolic pathway. Where did you study biochemistry?

Yes it is. As I said it might even predate DNA based cells. Of course I'm sure you think evolution is a conspiracy too......

Basic Medical Biochemistry - pages 358-359

"The body oxidizes more fatty acids each day than any other fuel."

"Fatty acids are the major fuel in humans"

Textbook of Medical Physiology (9th edition) Page 866

"... almost all the energy requirements of the body can be provided by the oxidation of the free fatty acids without using any carbohydrates or proteins for energy."

I don't know where you studied biochemistry but I would ask for a refund.

I never said which fuel was metabolised the most, I said glycolysis is a major metabolic pathway which it is. For example, most anaerobic exercise would require the majority of ATP to be synthesised via glycolysis.

"... almost all the energy requirements of the body can be provided by the oxidation of the free fatty acids without using any carbohydrates or proteins for energy."

Almost all. Even if you had zero carbs, the pathway is still going to be used because your body will synthesis glucose in small amounts.

[Rucifer]

BTW glycolysis is not a major metabolic pathway. Where did you study biochemistry?

Yes it is. As I said it might even predate DNA based cells. Of course I'm sure you think evolution is a conspiracy too......

Basic Medical Biochemistry - pages 358-359

"The body oxidizes more fatty acids each day than any other fuel."

"Fatty acids are the major fuel in humans"

Textbook of Medical Physiology (9th edition) Page 866

"... almost all the energy requirements of the body can be provided by the oxidation of the free fatty acids without using any carbohydrates or proteins for energy."

I don't know where you studied biochemistry but I would ask for a refund.

You really need to look in a biology book. Just because the body is adaptable to living without many carbohydrates does not mean that it is optimal for you to do so. As discussed on this (and many other boards) time and time again, going incredibly low to no carbs is a great way to shed bodyfat. If you think it is natural and optimal to want to shed bodyfat, then it is you sir who is the idiot. It's only even thought of in our current modern era because we have too much food and our natural biology instincts have yet to catch up with this dilemma. It is not most efficient for your body to not get any carbs in, simply because no matter how you slice it, you need some glucose in order to live, and your body has to waste precious energy in converting proteins and fats to do so. Sure, in our modern era its a great way to shed some unwanted pounds, but before modern civilization, this is the LAST THING they would have wanted. I'm telling you...look up Cellular Respiration, you obviously need a refresher.

On a side note, this might be construed as a pro-high carb diet- it is not, simply that you should be eating fruits and veggies.

[Rucifer]

It is natural. We evolved that way. Being attracted to sweet tastes is as old as taste buds. Honestly, try reading some science before you pretend to know everything.

"Sweetness" is like any other taste - the body tries to desire what it needs. If you're blood sugar is low, yea you might want sweeter things, just like craving salt or anything else. Where it goes wrong is when you chronically shove something unnatural into the system.

If it wasn't, we would not exist to be talking about it. Animals who did not try to eat every calorie dense thing they could get a hold of were less likely to reproduce. It's natural selection. It's not like animals millions of years ago could go down to Whole Foods and buy food whenever they felt like it. It was slim pickings. You got your energy or you died and that was that. Try "The Selfish Gene" and "The Greatest Show on Earth", 2 excellent books on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins. Honestly you are in serious need of a proper education. Seriously try doing some reading. You can make up for a lot with a few good books.

Again, no, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Your statement doesn't even make any sense. Fat is more calorie dense than sugar anyway.

It makes sense for sugar to not make you feel full, though, which I think maybe is what you were trying to get at. Since fruit is rare and spoils rapidly, best to eat it when you can, as much as you can.

It is your post that doesn't make any sense. I really don't understand what you are even arguing, as before you said it wasn't natural to desire sweetness, but then advocate here in this post. Are you still arguing that pre-civilization, humans didn't take advantage of all available calories they could? (minus grains and dairy obviously). And guess what- there's an entire field of study contrary to your position (it's called biology). Fat is more calorie dense than sugar, true, so by that logic, humans should only be eating the fattest meats then right? Well...I guess fish and chicken wouldn't qualify then. Oh wait...we have this uncanny ability to adapt to our environments, and realized that in order to survive pre-civilization eras, we had to make use of whatever resources we had. And as humans we noticed these delicious tasting, often brightly colored, things hanging off trees and bushes that we might not have been able to survive on, but they sure were enjoyable to put in our mouths. That is when our diets became optimal, not living entirely off animal flesh.

[Rucifer]

You have no knowledge in this field so stop pretending you do. You are just a stupid idiot who sits behind a computer who is even too scared to use his own name.

For someone who is obviously incredibly paranoid and a big conspiracy theorist, it really goes against your motto to list your name on the internet where big brother can track you down and silence you. You better be watching your back Mr Rouse. Big brother is watching...and will not let you foil our plans for world domination with flu vaccines and high fructose corn syrup and aspartame! Muwahahaha!

[frogbyte]

I don't think craving sugar is natural, and being able to eat a lot of it without getting full is not contrary to that. Surely you agree that there's a difference between craving sweets and being able to eat lots of sweets without making you full? When I wake up in the morning I crave bacon, if anything - certainly not sugar-Os and milk. But nobody advertises bacon on kids TV shows.

(Not that it matters much today, but I was under the impression that the latest scientific consensus (I believe from a Discover article?) was that fruit-eating came way earlier, and later we switched more to meat.)

[Peter Rouse]

It is natural. We evolved that way. Being attracted to sweet tastes is as old as taste buds. Honestly, try reading some science before you pretend to know everything.

"Sweetness" is like any other taste - the body tries to desire what it needs. If you're blood sugar is low, yea you might want sweeter things, just like craving salt or anything else. Where it goes wrong is when you chronically shove something unnatural into the system.

If it wasn't, we would not exist to be talking about it. Animals who did not try to eat every calorie dense thing they could get a hold of were less likely to reproduce. It's natural selection. It's not like animals millions of years ago could go down to Whole Foods and buy food whenever they felt like it. It was slim pickings. You got your energy or you died and that was that. Try "The Selfish Gene" and "The Greatest Show on Earth", 2 excellent books on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins. Honestly you are in serious need of a proper education. Seriously try doing some reading. You can make up for a lot with a few good books.

Again, no, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Your statement doesn't even make any sense. Fat is more calorie dense than sugar anyway.

It makes sense for sugar to not make you feel full, though, which I think maybe is what you were trying to get at. Since fruit is rare and spoils rapidly, best to eat it when you can, as much as you can.

It is your post that doesn't make any sense. I really don't understand what you are even arguing, as before you said it wasn't natural to desire sweetness, but then advocate here in this post. Are you still arguing that pre-civilization, humans didn't take advantage of all available calories they could? (minus grains and dairy obviously). And guess what- there's an entire field of study contrary to your position (it's called biology). Fat is more calorie dense than sugar, true, so by that logic, humans should only be eating the fattest meats then right? Well...I guess fish and chicken wouldn't qualify then. Oh wait...we have this uncanny ability to adapt to our environments, and realized that in order to survive pre-civilization eras, we had to make use of whatever resources we had. And as humans we noticed these delicious tasting, often brightly colored, things hanging off trees and bushes that we might not have been able to survive on, but they sure were enjoyable to put in our mouths. That is when our diets became optimal, not living entirely off animal flesh.

You know nothing of the evolutionary process of humans. For one it talks approximately 100,000 years to alter the human genome by 0.01% (not taking into account epigenetics).

I wonder how the eskimo managed to survive then? Or the Masai, or the many native tribes around the world.

[Rucifer]

"Sweetness" is like any other taste - the body tries to desire what it needs. If you're blood sugar is low, yea you might want sweeter things, just like craving salt or anything else. Where it goes wrong is when you chronically shove something unnatural into the system.
Again, no, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Your statement doesn't even make any sense. Fat is more calorie dense than sugar anyway.

It makes sense for sugar to not make you feel full, though, which I think maybe is what you were trying to get at. Since fruit is rare and spoils rapidly, best to eat it when you can, as much as you can.

It is your post that doesn't make any sense. I really don't understand what you are even arguing, as before you said it wasn't natural to desire sweetness, but then advocate here in this post. Are you still arguing that pre-civilization, humans didn't take advantage of all available calories they could? (minus grains and dairy obviously). And guess what- there's an entire field of study contrary to your position (it's called biology). Fat is more calorie dense than sugar, true, so by that logic, humans should only be eating the fattest meats then right? Well...I guess fish and chicken wouldn't qualify then. Oh wait...we have this uncanny ability to adapt to our environments, and realized that in order to survive pre-civilization eras, we had to make use of whatever resources we had. And as humans we noticed these delicious tasting, often brightly colored, things hanging off trees and bushes that we might not have been able to survive on, but they sure were enjoyable to put in our mouths. That is when our diets became optimal, not living entirely off animal flesh.

You know nothing of the evolutionary process of humans. For one it talks approximately 100,000 years to alter the human genome by 0.01% (not taking into account epigenetics).

I wonder how the eskimo managed to survive then? Or the Masai, or the many native tribes around the world.

Hahahaha. What does your percentage of time to alter human genetics have to do with anything? Chimpanzees have almost exactly the same DNA as humans. Even a .01% can mean a HUGE difference. Oh my god this is simply silly. Take the population of the world that's in environments without vegetation, and then take the population of the world that's in environments with vegetation (and account for the fact humans evolved IN TROPICAL CLIMATES), and enough is said. I do CLEARLY admit that humans can survive on a incredibly low to no carb diet, but am pointing out IT ISN'T OPTIMAL.

[Rucifer]

I don't think craving sugar is natural, and being able to eat a lot of it without getting full is not contrary to that. Surely you agree that there's a difference between craving sweets and being able to eat lots of sweets without making you full? When I wake up in the morning I crave bacon, if anything - certainly not sugar-Os and milk. But nobody advertises bacon on kids TV shows.

(Not that it matters much today, but I was under the impression that the latest scientific consensus (I believe from a Discover article?) was that fruit-eating came way earlier, and later we switched more to meat.)

I don't completely agree, but see your point with this post. I just think this is meaning to say the bulk of your caloric content should come from more satisfying sources and fruits and other sugars should just complement them.

[Peter Rouse]

It is your post that doesn't make any sense. I really don't understand what you are even arguing, as before you said it wasn't natural to desire sweetness, but then advocate here in this post. Are you still arguing that pre-civilization, humans didn't take advantage of all available calories they could? (minus grains and dairy obviously). And guess what- there's an entire field of study contrary to your position (it's called biology). Fat is more calorie dense than sugar, true, so by that logic, humans should only be eating the fattest meats then right? Well...I guess fish and chicken wouldn't qualify then. Oh wait...we have this uncanny ability to adapt to our environments, and realized that in order to survive pre-civilization eras, we had to make use of whatever resources we had. And as humans we noticed these delicious tasting, often brightly colored, things hanging off trees and bushes that we might not have been able to survive on, but they sure were enjoyable to put in our mouths. That is when our diets became optimal, not living entirely off animal flesh.

You know nothing of the evolutionary process of humans. For one it talks approximately 100,000 years to alter the human genome by 0.01% (not taking into account epigenetics).

I wonder how the eskimo managed to survive then? Or the Masai, or the many native tribes around the world.

Hahahaha. What does your percentage of time to alter human genetics have to do with anything? Oh my god this is simply silly. Take the population of the world that's in environments without vegetation, and then take the population of the world that's in environments with vegetation (and account for the fact humans evolved IN TROPICAL CLIMATES), and enough is said. I do CLEARLY admit that humans can survive on a incredibly low to no carb diet, but am pointing out IT ISN'T OPTIMAL.

I didn't realize Africa was considered tropical...

It's not optimal? Let's look at one study of Eskimos over a 42 year period on native diet - in 42 years 1 case of CHD.... 1 single case. Do you have any idea of the rate in the US alone?

This depends on the individuals biochemistry - that had developed over 100,000's of years.

Take a look at the book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" - based on a study of native diets at the beginning of last century.

Fuel wise animal meat was always the prime choice - this is a scientific fact - all you have to do is look at the systems of the human body and they are designed as a meat eater. How primates are vegetarian? So why are humans any different.

Only in times of limited meat did humans look at surviving on other sources - and this was not optimal for human health. How many vegans do you know of that live past 100. Every single one of these people have eaten meat during their lifetimes.

By the way no one was talking about low carb. We were discussing need for sweet taste - tribes that also include some root vegetables into their diets may in fact do better on a slightly higher carb intake due to the adaption of their oxidative systems through the krebs cycle. You also must take into account their autonomic nervous system dominance.

If you want I can break this down far deeper if you like. I have advanced degree in biochemistry and Ph.D in physiology - I have been researching this stuff half my life.

[Rucifer]

You know nothing of the evolutionary process of humans. For one it talks approximately 100,000 years to alter the human genome by 0.01% (not taking into account epigenetics).

I wonder how the eskimo managed to survive then? Or the Masai, or the many native tribes around the world.

Hahahaha. What does your percentage of time to alter human genetics have to do with anything? Oh my god this is simply silly. Take the population of the world that's in environments without vegetation, and then take the population of the world that's in environments with vegetation (and account for the fact humans evolved IN TROPICAL CLIMATES), and enough is said. I do CLEARLY admit that humans can survive on a incredibly low to no carb diet, but am pointing out IT ISN'T OPTIMAL.

I didn't realize Africa was considered tropical...

It's not optimal? Let's look at one study of Eskimos over a 42 year period on native diet - in 42 years 1 case of CHD.... 1 single case. Do you have any idea of the rate in the US alone?

This depends on the individuals biochemistry - that had developed over 100,000's of years.

Take a look at the book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" - based on a study of native diets at the beginning of last century.

Fuel wise animal meat was always the prime choice - this is a scientific fact - all you have to do is look at the systems of the human body and they are designed as a meat eater. How primates are vegetarian? So why are humans any different.

Only in times of limited meat did humans look at surviving on other sources - and this was not optimal for human health. How many vegans do you know of that live past 100. Every single one of these people have eaten meat during their lifetimes.

By the way no one was talking about low carb. We were discussing need for sweet taste - tribes that also include some root vegetables into their diets may in fact do better on a slightly higher carb intake due to the adaption of their oxidative systems through the krebs cycle. You also must take into account their autonomic nervous system dominance.

If you want I can break this down far deeper if you like. I have advanced degree in biochemistry and Ph.D in physiology - I have been researching this stuff half my life.

I do want this broken down further because at this moment, I do not believe that your arguments are Ph D worthy. This certainly makes more sense than some of your previous posts, but here's my criticisms-

Ok, look up what Africa was like when humans evolved from it. It was tropical.

One case study, in which you do not even provide in your post, as complete and absolute truth that it is optimal? Does this study even take into account variables such as that they might not have lived as long to not see the diseases we are afflicted with in modern society, that primarily come with age? Oh and speaking of that...using modern US diet as a reference point is not what I am advocating. I am arguing more a paleo type diet.

Once again, I am not arguing for veganism or vegetarianism, simply a sweet craving is the result of our and our evolved ancestors desire for fruit cosumption, and that it is optimal to eat fruits and veggies.

Oh, and you would argue that these sweet tastes could come from an animal source? If you are arguing against sweet tastes, and the argument of eating nothing sweet, then you are arguing low carb, because many fruits and veggies that we consume now that we don't consider sweet our caveman like ancestors would, simply because they weren't exposed to sugar as much as we are and haven't become as desensitized (spelling) to it as we have. And fruits that you are arguing against are just as, if not more nutrient dense than most root vegetables.

[stuward]

I didn't realize Africa was considered tropical...

[Peter Rouse]

I didn't realize Africa was considered tropical...

"The Ardipithecus ramidus fossils were discovered in Ethiopia's harsh Afar desert at a site called Aramis in the Middle Awash region, just 46 miles (74 kilometers) from where Lucy's species, Australopithecus afarensis, was found in 1974. Radiometric dating of two layers of volcanic ash that tightly sandwiched the fossil deposits revealed that Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago.

Older hominid fossils have been uncovered, including a skull from Chad at least six million years old and some more fragmentary, slightly younger remains from Kenya and nearby in the Middle Awash."

[Peter Rouse]

Africa would not be considered tropical due to the percentage of the land it makes up.

[stuward]

I guess you have a different definition of tropical than most other people have.

By the way, humans originated in the light green area. I don't know what you would call it if not tropical.

[Peter Rouse]

We talking areas where fruit is in rich availability - tropical RIAN FORETS - look where all the oldest fossil remains are found.