Wendy's changed their fries.

concealer404

bobman1235 wrote: »

OK, to an extent that's true. But there's no way - and I will take this assertion to the grave - that he has simply swapped sugary soda for HFCS soda and seen appreciable changes. The differences between those two things are real, but almost negligible, and certainly not enough of a change in ones diet to cause weight gain or loss all by itself, which is his asinine assertion. It's pure confirmation bias at best, and an outright lie at worst. Your entire diet could be soda-based, and a switch from HFCS to cane sugar isn't going to be enough to cause you to suddenly go from gaining weight to losing weight.

True, but the end result, i'd be pretty confident in saying that you'd likely weigh LESS and be healthier on the "cane sugar" diet than you would be on the "HFCS diet."

Jstas

newrival wrote: »

It's not backwards, you just misunderstand. Youre talking about poverty levels and relative wealth in short term studies, not quality of life.

You need to go look up the definition of "quality of life".

http://www.asge.org/Pressroomindex.aspx?id=560#q

Perception of ability to meet daily needs, physical activities, well-being.

If you're unemployed and can't afford your normal diet then that most certainly affects your perception of your ability to meet a daily need like food. If you normally have $400 a month to spend on food and now only have $100 a month to feed a family of 4, that affects your decision making in the types of food you buy.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You are presenting your thoughts in a misleading manner based on a loose definition of "quality of life".

And I'm not talking about short term studies either. The CDC has decades worth of trending studies showing obesity, heart health, diabetes and all other kinds of diet related data. It shows distinctive patterns that directly correlate to downturns and upturns in the economy. You can go look it up yourself. It's easy. http://www.cdc.gov

mrbiron

if you have a 5-Guys franchise near you....best fries ever.

Good call......

Demiurge

newrival wrote: »

Read any studies on westernizing and rapid-growth countries. Obesity RISES with quality of life. I see why you might think it is counter-intuitive, but you are over-simplifying the socio-economic issues.

It doesn't take a genius to look at the inner city, where most so-called poor live, and notice all of the grossly overweight people compared to places where people are more affluent and can afford better quality food, which is much healthier overall. Obviously if you eat too much quality food you will gain weight just as you would eating crap.

You're just wrong and 'studies' can be bent to reflect whatever someone wants the numbers to reflect. Global Warming had a lot of studies too, and we all know how much bull **** that turned out to be.

concealer404

newrival wrote: »

These are the reasons that I mention the corellation between increase in quality of life. Soda, sugary snaks, hamburgers, etc, have all become very affordable for people (raising the quality of life) and as such people can consume more of the cheaper product. The issue is still consumption and a function of it's availability (and affordability) and not the fact that it's from a plant or an animal.

I believe the counterargument would be that being able to easily afford consume this crap doesn't raise your quality of life.

It's a chicken and egg scenario.

Let's be honest, unless you're REALLY dedicated, it's expensive to eat healthy, and far cheaper to eat the crap that society tends to lean towards.

Jstas

newrival wrote: »

Read any studies on westernizing and rapid-growth countries. Obesity RISES with quality of life. I see why you might think it is counter-intuitive, but you are over-simplifying the socio-economic issues.

OMG. Could be any more condescending?

nooshinjohn

bobman1235 wrote: »

OK, to an extent that's true. But there's no way - and I will take this assertion to the grave - that he has simply swapped sugary soda for HFCS soda and seen appreciable changes. The differences between those two things are real, but almost negligible, and certainly not enough of a change in ones diet to cause weight gain or loss all by itself, which is his asinine assertion. It's pure confirmation bias at best, and an outright lie at worst. Your entire diet could be soda-based, and a switch from HFCS to cane sugar isn't going to be enough to cause you to suddenly go from gaining weight to losing weight.

You failed to ask HOW MUCH weight was lost. It was not much, just a couple pounds over a three week period, and this was the ONLY change made in my diet. There are numerous studies that back my assertions that cane sugar is superior to any man-made substitute. In your post you admit there are differences in the two(not the least of which is that HFCS by itself tastes like the **** end of God knows what), so why is it so hard to believe that it could have an adverse effect in some people with regards to weight.

To further assert that I am somehow lying about my personal findings is arrogant at best and just plain insulting.

newrival

concealer404 wrote: »

True, but the end result, i'd be pretty confident in saying that you'd likely weigh LESS and be healthier on the "cane sugar" diet than you would be on the "HFCS diet."

Yes, but it's not because HFCS itself is worse for you, or because it's processed. it's because its biochemical interaction is different. You have to be more aware. I guarantee you won't drink three cans of soda if theyre made with sucrose. You're body will let you know you're having way too much. But it's fructose which our bodies do not have the same response to.

nooshinjohn

newrival wrote: »

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true. I dont know what your background is, but mine consists of a bit of biochemistry. I have heard people say things like this, but I think that it comes from a dilution of some pseudo-truths and broad generalizations.

I have no backround in the sciences personally, but my wife has a Doctorate (3.83gpa)in Pharmacy and Pharmacology from Purdue University, and a Bachelor's Degree (3.79gpa)in Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics from UCLA.

Forgive me if I get my information from her rather than you.

fbm211

Roy rodgers had the best fries in my opinion.

When hardees bought out Roy Rodgers they switched to them.

newrival

Jstas wrote: »

You need to go look up the definition of "quality of life".

http://www.asge.org/Pressroomindex.aspx?id=560#q



If you're unemployed and can't afford your normal diet then that most certainly affects your perception of your ability to meet a daily need like food. If you normally have $400 a month to spend on food and now only have $100 a month to feed a family of 4, that affects your decision making in the types of food you buy.

I didn't misunderstand anything. You are presenting your thoughts in a misleading manner based on a loose definition of "quality of life".

And I'm not talking about short term studies either. The CDC has decades worth of trending studies showing obesity, heart health, diabetes and all other kinds of diet related data. It shows distinctive patterns that directly correlate to downturns and upturns in the economy. You can go look it up yourself. It's easy. http://www.cdc.gov

Again, that's short term. year to year. one year you have a job the next year you don't. 5 years of good economy, five years of bad. I get what you're saying, but it's still short term fluctuations.

I'm very familiar with the studies in the CDC but you're trying to make causality out of correlation. In the short term, fluctuations (4, 5, 6, even 10 years) of a persons wealth or immediate quality of life do show SOME inverse relation; however, in the long term, obesity rises with quality of life. generally speaking. There are dozens of other factors, but generally speaking this is the case. If you'd like I can post all the research you want to back this up when I get home tonight.

And I'm quite aware of what quality of life means. And like I said, you are over simplifying it with your examples.

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

I have no backround in the sciences personally, but my wife has a Doctorate (3.83gpa)in Pharmacy and Pharmacology from Purdue University, and a Bachelor's Degree (3.79gpa)in Microbiology, Immunology and Molecular Genetics from UCLA.

Forgive me if I get my information from her rather than you.

And she told you that animal fats are harder to process than plant fats?

bobman1235

nooshinjohn wrote: »

There are numerous studies that back my assertions that cane sugar is superior to any man-made substitute.

Superior doesn't actually mean anything. They both cause a spike in your blood sugar, and they both are highly caloric with little nutritional value. Dietitians - people who actually deal with health, not people who publish studies that just contradict other studies and change every year - will almost invariably tell you they have the same general effect on your body. For all the studies you find about HFCS being "worse", you will find twice as many that say they're both sugar and both make you fat. Because that's the truth.

To further assert that I am somehow lying about my personal findings is arrogant at best and just plain insulting.

Almost as insulting as expecting everyone to believe that you're conducting scientifically sound experiments on weight loss using only your own body? That through 3+ meals a day, you are strict enough with your diet over two month's time to only change a single variable, not just once with the type of SODA you drink, but MORE than once, using butter and margarine? It's ludicrous.

If your'e not lying, you're delusional. Pick whichever you find less insulting.

maximillian

Wow. From a simple "Wendy's new fries changed" beginnings to insults comparing one's intelligence in food science and social health issues. Amazing how quickly some threads deteriorate.

nooshinjohn

newrival wrote: »

And she told you that animal fats are harder to process than plant fats?

Understand one thing here.... how CONCENTRATED, meaning how many ears of corn does it take to fill the deep fryers at Wendy's, and what must be done TO that oil to make it useful for it's intended purpose? Animal fat occurs naturally as the meat is rendered(cooked)... That fat has been consumed by humans for as long as we have been walking upright, and maybe even longer.

Our bodies have adapted to it over millenia, whereas the more modern equivalents have been with us for a very short period of time. I tend to ask myself this one question with regards to food. If I sat down at God's table, would I find butter on it or margarine, sugar or HFCS, Meat or Veggieburgers...

Every natural thing on this planet, eaten in moderation, is GOOD for you, and too much of any one thing is not. Eating smart and natural is the recipe for better health.

newrival

Demiurge wrote: »

It doesn't take a genius to look at the inner city, where most so-called poor live, and notice all of the grossly overweight people compared to places where people are more affluent and can afford better quality food, which is much healthier overall. Obviously if you eat too much quality food you will gain weight just as you would eating crap.

You're just wrong and 'studies' can be bent to reflect whatever someone wants the numbers to reflect. Global Warming had a lot of studies too, and we all know how much bull **** that turned out to be.

I'm glad you brought this up. It illustrates my point perfectly. Let's look at the stereotypical impoverished area. We can all think of a specific one. Now tell me, do you think that 100 years ago poor people were obese? No way. was it because they didn't have HFCS? or trans fats? not in the least. It's because their quality of life was no where near what it is for the poor today. Do to higher efficiency, streamlines processes, and external subsidies people have more with less relative wealth. hence a higher quality of life. Not perceived, but real.

You're correct studies can be and often are "bent" for the purposes of saying see the relation? a goes up and then b goes up. that must mean that a causes b! but thats certainly not the case. INitially all I said was that the I felt the more telling correlation is obesity to quality of life.

Face

French fries into flame war, you gotta love it.

I only have fries every couple of months, from what I remember, the new fries taste much better IMO.

cnh

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Mark this day Ladies and Gentlemen!! Jstas and I agree on something!:biggrin:

God could this be trending, because a number of us seem to be 'with' you guys!

Though I don't recommend that some of our higher level BMI guys indulge in these kinds of foods?

How about FLAME Broiled Potatoes? Playing to FACE's post above. Do you think BK could 'market' that?

cnh

Face

kevhed72 wrote: »

If you have a 5-Guys franchise near you....best fries ever.

Their burgers are awful though.

nooshinjohn

bobman1235 wrote: »

Almost as insulting as expecting everyone to believe that you're conducting scientifically sound experiments on weight loss using only your own body? .

Show me where I said anything about using scientific principles? I was quite clear that this was my own personal experience.

bobman1235 wrote: »

That through 3+ meals a day, you are strict enough with your diet over two month's time to only change a single variable, not just once with the type of SODA you drink, but MORE than once, using butter and margarine? It's ludicrous.

If your'e not lying, you're delusional. Pick whichever you find less insulting.

I said over three week's time and not two months. Rather than call me a liar about my own observations, I suggest some reading comprehension classes. If you cannot even read correctly what I have said, how is anyone supposed to give your position any credibility?:rolleyes:

Have YOU personally tried what I have stated? If not, you have no credibility with your opinion in my book, in much the same manner as those who have never tried better cables in their systems because then don't make any difference either. Try it for yourself Bob, then get back to me.

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Understand one thing here.... how CONCENTRATED, meaning how many ears of corn does it take to fill the deep fryers at Wendy's, and what must be done TO that oil to make it useful for it's intended purpose? Animal fat occurs naturally as the meat is rendered(cooked)... That fat has been consumed by humans for as long as we have been walking upright, and maybe even longer.

Plant sterols require very little processing (relatively) corn is actually a pretty fatty plant. There are great benefits to plant fats. I'm sure you have heard of Omega-3 fatty acids. These are in plants, as well as other essential fatty acids.

The problem comes in when oils need to be hydrogenated. Hydrogenation can create the bad trans fats.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Our bodies have adapted to it over millenia, whereas the more modern equivalents have been with us for a very short period of time. I tend to ask myself this one question with regards to food. If I sat down at God's table, would I find butter on it or margarine, sugar or HFCS, Meat or Veggieburgers...

Every natural thing on this planet, eaten in moderation, is GOOD for you, and too much of any one thing is not. Eating smart and natural is the recipe for better health.

I agree. Although I'll take it a step further Everything on this planet is good for you in moderation. (Assuming we're talking bout food) There is a value to everything we eat, but like you said, moderation is the key. Although I'd never recommend anyone eat a fast food hamburger, it does have nutritional value, and is better than nothing to a person that is malnourished.

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Show me where I said anything about using scientific principles? I was quite clear that this was my own personal experience.



I said over three week's time and not two months. Rather than call me a liar about my own observations, I suggest some reading comprehension classes. If you cannot even read correctly what I have said, how is anyone supposed to give your position any credibility?:rolleyes:

Have YOU personally tried what I have stated? If not, you have no credibility with your opinion in my book, in much the same manner as those who have never tried better cables in their systems because then don't make any difference either. Try it for yourself Bob, then get back to me.

Yeah I'm not sure where he's coming from either, on those points. I thought you were pretty clear that those were just your observed results of your actions.

newrival

Face wrote: »

Their burgers are awful though.

are they? they just put one up near me and I thought about tryng it. Can you compare them to anything?

bobman1235

You switched to sugar soda for 3 weeks and saw weight loss. For that to be meaningful, the same amount of time before that you would have ALSO had to have had an identical diet with HFCS soda. 6 weeks. I rounded up to two months, sorry.


I'm not trying to insult you, and while I did say "at worst you're a liar," i don't think you're lying, I just think you're wrong, and are seeing a causal relationship where one does not exist.


You may find many studies that say sugar is marginally better than HFCS, but you will never find one that doesn't say that they both make you fat. They both do. There's just no way that you drink enough soda for that small difference to equate to weight loss without any other outside changes. You'd have to drink a dozen liters of soda a day, and if you do, you probably had a leg amputated thanks to diabetes so that accounts for the weight loss.

Willow

What do you expect from food that's either waiting for you when you get there or ready in 5 mins.

nooshinjohn

newrival wrote: »

Plant sterols require very little processing (relatively) corn is actually a pretty fatty plant. There are great benefits to plant fats. I'm sure you have heard of Omega-3 fatty acids. These are in plants, as well as other essential fatty acids.

Yes, I know of omega-3's and such. Plant sterols (fats) in their natural, unprocessed states are far better for the body than when used as a cooking medium. Hydroginated Oils are worse IMHO than animal fats for cooking.

newrival

I heard in & out has good fries. Although, if I had to have fries, I would choose Wendy's although based on the reviews of the new ones I don't know that I'd like em.

newrival

bobman1235 wrote: »

You switched to sugar soda for 3 weeks and saw weight loss. For that to be meaningful, the same amount of time before that you would have ALSO had to have had an identical diet with HFCS soda. 6 weeks. I rounded up to two months, sorry.


I'm not trying to insult you, and while I did say "at worst you're a liar," i don't think you're lying, I just think you're wrong, and are seeing a causal relationship where one does not exist.


You may find many studies that say sugar is marginally better than HFCS, but you will never find one that doesn't say that they both make you fat. They both do. There's just no way that you drink enough soda for that small difference to equate to weight loss without any other outside changes. You'd have to drink a dozen liters of soda a day, and if you do, you probably had a leg amputated thanks to diabetes so that accounts for the weight loss.

Bob, I'm sorry, but he never said he held an experiment of any significance. He said he switched soda he lost weight. You're getting hung up on things like duration and symmetry in his study when he never said it was. Anyways there are far too many variables that couldve effected it. But the point is it was just an observation that he was sharing.

And the diabetes thing is way unnecessary. That would've made even the most sound argument look dumb.

newrival

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Hydroginated Oils are worse IMHO than animal fats for cooking.

Absolutely agree 100%

I think it's one of the worst things a person can cook with (generally speaking)

EndersShadow

You know what, I love HFCS, and I love animal fat (especially the kind known as "Bacon")

If I had to choose which to lose, I dont know if I could make that choice lol.....