|
On November 14 2009 16:58 Syntax Lost wrote:
Which is another way of saying that you have no evidence and we should give as much credence to your statements as the claim that there's an floating, invisible, incorporeal, heatless fire-breathing dragon in my garage. I find this funny because earlier in this thread you claimed that you took a microeconomics course on healthcare, and in spite of this, you still can't cite a reference to save your life.
Isn't this from the Demon-Haunted World? 
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2009 01:56 L wrote: Yes it is.
All the data I have seen (fao) (usda) show about 42 kg per capita per year vs 30kg / capita per year on High Fructose corn syrup. That's nearly like 60% all sweetener consumption vs 45% - 33% more ubiquitous. Those numbers also show Americans consuming more sweets overall 70 kg vs 65 kg.
That said high fructose corn syrup corn syrup doesn't tell the whole story. Inverted can sugar is the same thing - without the corn starch spores.
|
That's because Statistics Canada doesn't measure HFCS. They just calculate how much the soft drink industry uses and puts that as their total. Any year the price of liquid sugar comes down, the resulting 'reported' HFCS amount just gets totaled.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Ahhh, Statistics methodology? Yeah, there were some statistics that claimed only 18 kg of HFCS consumption in the US. I just check back over at FAOstats, and it shows 38 kg per capital per annum consumption of "Sweetener, Other" - virtually all of that is HFCS in the US for 2003. Honey, maple, dextrose, and the other ones that fall into same categories are small in market share.
Supposely, it's trending down in the recent two years so I'll check back on where I got 42 kg. Canada is supposedly 15 kg of "Sweetener, Other" but that's probably understated due to inverted-sugar being nearly equivalent. Or it could be just reporting from soft drinks and sports drinks.
Aside from soft drinks, they're energy drinks, sports drinks, pan cakes, cereals, ice cream, and a host of other foods that use it. HFCS probably isn't that much worse for a person than plain table sugar, but it correlates well with total sweetener consumption. FAO stats again has 70 kg vs 65 kg worth of sweetener consumption (will have to check on the statistical methodology) which are far higher than in Europe where France, Belgium, and UK have 55 kg, 40 kg, and 41 kg respectively.
In the end, it is an observation from aggregate (and probably flawed) statistics. It's not predictive without an understanding of the distribution of consumption and all the other individual to individual variations.
|
HFCS probably isn't that much worse for a person than plain table sugar Sucrose metabolism is highly regulated, whereas fructose metabolism is not.
Sucrose is a glucose/fructose dimer, whereas HFCS is essentially 100% fructose.
Note the series of regulating steps in sucrose metabolism which are all absent from fructose metabolism.
HFCS hasn't been causally linked to obesity trends yet because the research is relatively new, but the evidence thusfar suggests that the recent explosion in obesity stems from the adoption of HFCS in foods; the switch to HFCS happened during the 80s, and the obesity 'epidemic' if you'll call it that has a roughly similar start point.
http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html
There are other factors which are involved, but I wouldn't discount this one as minimal.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Hmm we're getting into chemistry and biology here...
Corn Syrup as produced by depolymerisation of corn starch is nearly pure glucose. Fructose is created from that glucose by enzyme isomerisation in industrial fermentation vast. In the end the High-Fructose Corn Syrup is a blend of the fructose and glucose. HFCS generally comes in 45% fructose, 55% fructose, and 90% fructose. The 90% is would be bad for you for the reasons you stated, but the 45% and 55% kinds (in soda and other processed foods) aren't that much different from sugar which has equal parts fructose and glucose or 50% fructose.
The difference between HFCS and table sugar would be that HFCS has mono-saccharides that can be directly absorbed in the intestines that sugar has di-saccharides that requires sucrase for hydrolysis cleaving. Like all passive enzymes that lowers the activation energy, sucrase works in both directions. So unless glucose and fructose were abosrbed out of the intestines, a chemical equilibrium would be reached and the sucrase would effectively cease to function.
Eating sugar as opposed to HFCS would mean be that the fructose uptake would be partially limited by glucose uptake (glucose-sodium intestinal transport pathways) and would incidentally trigger glucose regulatory mechanisms (insulin + leptin).
Although I haven't seen a definitive controlled scientific study, I would venture to guess that table sugar would have a more gradual uptake and would trigger dietary suppression signals faster. Inverted sugar is the same thing (mono-saccharides - less the corn starch impurities) so not much difference there.
|
|
|
Sorry for my ignorance, but does this mean it is finally "approved" or does it have to pass through more voting through some other house for it to be able to actually come into play?
|
It just passed to be debated not passed as waiting to be signed. The GOP, Health Lobby, and Fox News have more time to scare americans.
|
oh good!
dont get scared ppl!
i bet something ridiculous will happen and its gonna come up as 51-49 does not pass
|
On November 22 2009 10:34 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Sorry for my ignorance, but does this mean it is finally "approved" or does it have to pass through more voting through some other house for it to be able to actually come into play?
It has only moved to debate, plenty of republicans would pass it just to feign partisanship (or perhaps actually mean it - "We want reform, but not with this particular legislation"). It was only put up for a vote to move to debate as a quick and dirty way for republicans to strangle it.
As much as I want it to pass, there is no way it is going to. If all goes well, it would pass some time in January.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Yawn... the fun is just about to start... maybe it will never end.
|
Fucking fan-tastic.
God I hate Harry Reid and I'm ashamed he's one of my state senators. Now that I can vote, I damn well am going to when it's senate election time. These people who think free healthcare disgust me. Doesn't work in any country that has it.
|
On November 22 2009 11:44 VorcePA wrote:Fucking fan-tastic. God I hate Harry Reid and I'm ashamed he's one of my state senators. Now that I can vote, I damn well am going to when it's senate election time. These people who think free healthcare disgust me. Doesn't work in any country that has it.
what countries don't?
besides america.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
free healthcare???? Is there even a discussion about free healthcare??? Not very many countries have free healthcare.
|
On November 22 2009 14:02 TanGeng wrote:
free healthcare???? Is there even a discussion about free healthcare??? Not very many countries have free healthcare.
well nothing is "free"
but my question stands, what countries besides america have no government insurance plan?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
no government sponsored plans? Switzerland has no government insurance plans. There is an individual mandate and tight regulations on basic coverage, but Switzerland doesn't have 300 million people nor the kind of political lobbies in the US.
|
Plus, US does have government insurance plans. They're called Medicare and Medicaid. They're also a disaster.
|
This vote was only to start debate on the Health Care Bill, not the all-important vote to end debate (60 votes also). As long as Lieberman is still steadfastly claiming to filibuster a bill with the public option, I don't see where the bill can go. Lieberman said, and did, vote to start debate but also claimed he will not vote to end it. Without his vote or a Republican pick up, the Bill will stall in the Senate by one vote. The game now is all about finding that ONE vote.
|
On November 22 2009 14:31 gchan wrote:
Plus, US does have government insurance plans. They're called Medicare and Medicaid. They're also a disaster.
for whom?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time%201-2/carboh13.gif)
