Amazon.com Widgets

« God Will Lose | Main | Indecision 2010 - Primary Victory for Women »

Links With Your Coffee - Thursday

Coffee Cup

We suspect that fructose overload may be contributing to rising obesity rates. The primary source of fructose these days is high fructose corn syrup, a refined sweetener that is widely used in processed foods and beverages. Getting people to cut back on high fructose corn syrup might be an effective way to cut obesity rates. But if everyone simply replaces high fructose corn syrup with another sweetener that contains fructose, such as cane sugar, we won’t have accomplished much. That’s why I think it’s important to make sure that people don’t confuse the alleged culprit (fructose) with the most common source (high fructose corn syrup).

In this case, it’s especially easy to confuse the two because both contain the word “fructose.” But don’t be fooled: High fructose corn syrup contains roughly the same amount of fructose as cane sugar and honey. And fruit juice concentrates and agave are even higher in fructose

A proof of concept treatment using RNA interference protects monkeys against the deadly virus, even after exposure

The stewards of the land are in deep shit.

“We are supposed to be stewards of the land,” said Matthew Stoltzfus, a 34-year-old dairy farmer and father of seven whose family, like many other Amish, shuns cars in favor of horse and buggy and lives without electricity. “It is our Christian duty.”

But farmers like Mr. Stoltzfus are facing growing scrutiny for agricultural practices that the federal government sees as environmentally destructive. Their cows generate heaps of manure that easily washes into streams and flows onward into the Chesapeake Bay.

. . .When toxins, bacteria and viruses enter the body, they're eventually met by antibodies uniquely designed to recognize and remove intruders. At least, they should be. In some instances, antibodies are produced slowly or not at all, leaving foreign invaders free to circulate in the blood unchecked, spreading infection and leaving host cells open to attack.

But scientists may have come up with a solution: plastic antibodies—artificial versions of the lymphocyte-produced proteins—that work just like the real thing. . .


 

Comments

Hey, there's a polluter. No, can't approach them; they contributed to so-and-so's campaign. Hey, there's another one. No, can't regulate those guys; they contributed to what's-his-butt's campaign. How about these guys? No, no, Senator what's-his-face is their former VP. Aha! The Amish! They don't have any political clout. Let's blame them! Capitol idea! Bully!

I'm assuming this is just another anti-corporate rant on your part, and I don't disagree that politics plays a role, but if you're suggesting they ignore Amish pollution on the principle that two wrongs make a right your more than a little full of it. I want all polluters confronted big and small alike. Oh and it sounds like from the article that the amount of pollution from the Amish is substantial. An important lesson here is that organic farming is not without its problems. All farming is unnatural in the sense that it's an assault on the land and has its costs.

It's not an anti-corporate rant so much as it's an anti-corporate feudalism rant. It doesn't bother me that corporations exist, but rather that they more or less own the government.

People have been farming around the Chesapeake Bay since the early 1700s, and for most of that time, the farming methods were pretty much the same as what the plain sect farmers now employ. The dead zone in the Chesapeake Bay didn't appear until the 1970s. It therefore stands to reason that something other than non-motorized farming methods employed by the plain sects is responsible for most of the pollution, although I don't deny the plain sect farms play a role.

The Perdue Poultry farm, for example, appears to play a much larger role.

Coal mines and railroads along the Susquehanna River also appear to be major culprits. "Coal exploration in the western and northern branch of the Susquehanna was the start of polluting the “Mighty Susquehanna”. At the peak of the anthracite coal mining in 1917 over 100 million tons of coal was mined. The runoff from these mines poisoned the river.

"In the late 1960s, the Penn Central Railroad also contributed to poisoning the river at its Enola yard located near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The rail yard allowed oil, cleaning solutions, fuel, and other chemicals to run directly into the river. Fish and wildlife began floating in the water and washing up on the shores."

But unlike the Amish and Mennonites, coal, railroad and agribusiness interests provide lots of campaign cash. As I've said in the past, slay the biggest dragon first.

Oh I get it, until you catch the bank robber you give the guy robbing the 7/11 a pass. That makes all the sense in the world. Duh!

I don't see how you could draw that conclusion from what I wrote unless, once again, you are using the most uncharitable interpretation you could muster. What's the matter, Norm? Did I steal your girlfriend or something?

I don't see how you could draw that conclusion from what I wrote unless, once again, you are using the most uncharitable interpretation you could muster.

I drew that conclusion because you chose to use the word first, if that's not what you meant please explain. I suppose I could have been more charitable and assumed you meant concentrate on and didn't mean to exclude the Amish until the others had been dealt with. Your tone seems to make the point that you think the Amish are being picked on is that not true? Feel free to correct the record rather than just accusing me of being uncharitable with no explanation as to what you think I got wrong, and why.

I also wrote "... although I don't deny the plain sect farms play a role."

To me, that should've made it clear that I'm acknowledging that the Amish manure pits are contributing to the problem. However, as I think I also made clear, it seems obvious that the authorities are skipping past bigger polluters in order to zero in on the group with the least pollitical clout. Had the coal, railroad and agribusiness industries not polluted Chesapeake tributaries, there would be no dead zone in the bay. That is not to say that there would be absolutely no problem with the bay, only that the problem would be much less severe. Under such a scenario, it would be valid to approach the plain sect farmers, since they would be the primary culprits of Chesapeake pollution. But under the current scenario, it seems obvious that the Amish and Mennonites fall pretty far down the list.

I'll respond at the bottom this thread is getting to thin.

In regards to cane sugar vs. HFCS, what I've heard from people losing weight is that they can only eat so much of a food containing sugar. their bodies seem to say "enough!" sooner with sugar than with HFCS. It's anecdotal, to be sure, but perhaps the role of dieting with lower calories and exercise, there's some evolutionary gene that kicks in and say "nuh-uh" to sugar sooner than high fructose corn syrup. Or maybe their bodies have a memory for sugar more than HFCS. Whatever, these are only people who have successfully shed fat, and no it wasn't a study so i have no control group.

As for point/counter-point, Princeton's rat study, also chronicled in Science Daily (which also references the Corn Refiners Assoc. rebuttal at the close of the article).

Lastly, the Nutrition Diva amplifies the rebuttal, with more of her common sense thrown in.

I apologize if this double-posts, but I did give things some time to show, and nada.

In regards to cane sugar vs. HFCS, what I've heard from people losing weight is that they can only eat so much of a food containing sugar. their bodies seem to say "enough!" sooner with sugar than with HFCS. It's anecdotal, to be sure, but perhaps the role of dieting with lower calories and exercise, there's some evolutionary gene that kicks in and say "nuh-uh" to sugar sooner than high fructose corn syrup. Or maybe their bodies have a memory for sugar more than HFCS. Whatever, these are only people who have successfully shed fat, and no it wasn't a study so i have no control group.

As for point/counter-point, Princeton's rat study, also chronicled in Science Daily (which also references the Corn Refiners Assoc. rebuttal at the close of the article).

Lastly, the Nutrition Diva amplifies the rebuttal, with more of her common sense thrown in.

never mind; I just saw that my comment's been held for approval. If you approve, it'll get in.

So it's been raining and I can't do yard work, so I'm on the interwebs a lil extra. ciao--

...they can only eat so much of a food containing sugar. their bodies seem to say "enough!" sooner with sugar than with HFCS.

I'm sorry g-s, but I'm highly skeptical of this claim. As the Wikipedia page for sucrose correctly points out: "In mammals, sucrose is readily digested in the stomach into its component sugars, by acidic hydrolysis. This step is performed by a glycoside hydrolase, which catalyzes the hydrolysis of sucrose to the monosaccharides glucose and fructose." In other words, when sucrose gets into your stomach, it delivers about as much fructose as is typical of HFCS (40 - 60%). "Your body", however it is affected by your genes, can't tell the difference between sucrose and the same caloric dose of HFCS unless it happens in your mouth, because shortly thereafter it IS just a 50:50 blend of glucose and fructose.

Glucose and and fructose are metabolized differently to some extent (fructose mostly in the liver, where is is converted in a single step from fructose-6-phosphate to to glucose6-phosphate - after that the metabolic pathway for fructose merges into that for glucose; glucose is metabolized everywhere in the body. In fact, your brain must use glucose - there is not net metabolism of fats for energy there.

Thanks Tim.

I'm sorry g-s,

No need to apologize. I'm merely relating what others have mentioned to me. Because I knew I'd be adding all those links to other arguments, I didn't get detailed enough, it seems. basically, I think it's anecdotes like the ones I hear that fuel claims that HFCS is more evil than sugar. I was merely speculating as to why my friends went this way. The articles and rebuttals address the subject from different angles. Of the 4, I feel the CRA link is the weakest and Nutrition Diva links are more on-target.

Thanks for the biological info. It's good to have it from someone more versed in the subject.

"Your body", however it is affected by your genes, can't tell the difference between sucrose and the same caloric dose of HFCS unless it happens in your mouth, because shortly thereafter it IS just a 50:50 blend of glucose and fructose.

So maybe my friends harbor some kind of taste preference for or against cane sugar vs. sugar. I can tell you that if I spend money on chocolate, it damn well better use cane sugar, cause I no like HFCS in that treat. (my sugar intake outside of fruits - alot - and alcohol - not much - is small).

I think the danger with HFCS is that it's so cheap to make that adding it to food products costs next to nothing. Instead of making products that taste good on their own, they just add a little more HFCS to cover up the crappy taste of their crappy food. While cane sugar is just as bad for us, it costs more for the food manufacturers, so they are less likely to over use it.

This is all just speculation, of course.

Cheaper than sugar and HFCS too acts as a good little preservative, so processed foods tend to contain this product.

You may be right about that, though sugar is pretty cheap too. I often find myself wondering, 'Why the hell did they make this taste sweet?'. Example: Miracle Whip and other similar "spreads". Who the hell wants something that substitutes for mayonnaise that is sweet? (After writing that I looked it up, and sure enough, "high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are the fourth and fifth ingredients, respectively, of Miracle Whip." Yuck!

it seems obvious that the authorities are skipping past bigger polluters in order to zero in on the group with the least pollitical clout.

I don't think that's obvious at all. That's not to say that the bigger clout plays no role it certainly does.

But of the dozens of counties that contribute to the deadly runoff of nitrogen and phosphorus, Lancaster ranks at the top. According to E.P.A. data from 2007, the most recent available, the county generates more than 61 million pounds of manure a year. That is 20 million pounds more than the next highest county on the list of bay polluters, and more than six times that of most other counties.

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/amish-farmers-face-fines-for-manure-polluting-the-chesapeake-bay/19509563

The challenge for McGuigan is to persuade the Amish and Old Order Mennonites, famously nervous about the government and outsiders, to change their farming practices with the help of federal grants. The so-called plain-sect farmers are key to helping keep the bay clean because, the Times points out, they own more than half of the 5,000-plus farms in Lancaster County.

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/254860

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency revealed a 176-page strategy outlining an "unprecedented" and "historic" effort on how it would accomplish the feat in six bay watershed states, including Pennsylvania. The agency promised "rigorous new regulation and enforcement" to get the job done.

So to summarize Lancaster County has 20 million more pounds than the next highest county, and the Amish own more than half of the 5000 farms there, and the focus on the Amish is just part of a larger effort to deal with the problem. It doesn't look like specific targeting of one group to me but the Amish connection made a good story and that's why it got all the press, but those facts wouldn't fit well with your narrative, would they.

Getting exercised about fructose distracts from the fundamental point that both fructose and glucose have the same number of calories. The American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association have said that high fructose corn syrup and sugar are indistinguishable to the human body.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives