Wendy's changed their fries.

concealer404

newrival wrote: »

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.

I don't drink 3 cans of soda back to back in the first place anyways. That's disgusting.

But i do drink 3 cans of soda throughout a day.

I switched to Mt. Dew Throwback when it was available and drank that in place of "normal" mt. dew for 2 months. I didn't increase or decrease intake, and i lost a touch over 6lbs.

Now, i agree that it's not a great experiment, because i may have worked on the car more, or less, or ate less, had more stress, blah blah blah, but it's just an interesting observation.

nooshinjohn

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.

I go through a two liter bottle of Coke a day, and in my line of work, I am constantly eating out. I have McD's two or three times a week and Subway/Arby's/KFC otherdays, so my diet is reletively fixed at work and at home I generally do't cook a lot as my wife is not home for the next 6 months and has not been here since June due to her rotations.

One thing with regards to Coke... when they flipped to HFCS in the early 1980's, they had to completely scrap the original formula because the two sweeteners were so different. perhaps my expereinces have more to do with the reformulation and the changes made for HFCS. The Mexican Cokes I get taste markedly different from each other, and the Mexican cokes are the same formual we had in the States before HFCS can on the scene.

greyford1979

Face wrote: »

Their burgers are awful though.

Ate their once with my brother, we didn't really see what all the hoopla was about. And it cost us damn near $30 for the 2 of us:eek:

bobman1235

newrival wrote: »

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.

First, the diabetes thing was a joke. Based on your other posts, this may be the first time you've heard a joke, but they're not meant to be taken seriously.

Look, this is all way more than I wanted to get into it. I was merely questioning the validity of his claim that switching types of soda would lead to weight loss, adn that it would be impossible to monitor your diet closely enough to make that claim. His last post just admitted that he eats fast food nearly every day, so that pretty much proves my point, in my eyes. Claiming to care about health, and eating at McDonald's and KFC 3+ times a week are completely disparate ideas.

There is one, and only one way to lose weight - eat fewer calories than you expend. HFCS and sugar have the exact same caloric value. Sorry if people think I'm picking on him or calling him a liar, but he's perpetuating something under the guise of personal experience that basically cannot be true.

nooshinjohn

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

And a link to the full article.


http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/

Demiurge

newrival wrote: »

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.

There's a world of difference between simply not being able afford food and not being able to afford quality food.

We have the wealthiest poor in the world, but that does not equate to a high quality of life. You're being way too vague/unclear about what you meant by the comment, so everyone is taking it to mean financial wealth.

It is absolutely true that someone making $20K a year cannot make the same food choices as someone making $100K a year. High quality foods require more money to purchase, which is why stores such as Whole Foods are often called 'Whole Paycheck'. You won't likely find someone pulling in $20K a year perusing the isles of a high end grocery store and preparing nutritious meals. No, you'll find that person stocking up on boxes of Hamburger Helper, low quality meats, Ramen Noodles and gallon jugs of sugar water they think is fruit juice. That stuff isn't very nutritious. They're the same ones who spend much of their money buying their meals from fast food joints.

Couple that with the general ignorance of people who are on the lower end of the financial ladder and you see the problem.

Can you manage to be on a diet like that without being overweight? Absolutely. Just as you can to get overweight eating like a king.

Money creates options. It takes much more discipline to keep yourself in good health when you're a member of the wealthy poor as opposed to the middle and upper class.

newrival

concealer404 wrote: »

I don't drink 3 cans of soda back to back in the first place anyways. That's disgusting.

But i do drink 3 cans of soda throughout a day.

I switched to Mt. Dew Throwback when it was available and drank that in place of "normal" mt. dew for 2 months. I didn't increase or decrease intake, and i lost a touch over 6lbs.

Now, i agree that it's not a great experiment, because i may have worked on the car more, or less, or ate less, had more stress, blah blah blah, but it's just an interesting observation.

I think it's a great observation. I think a lot of people would be a lot better off if they noticed how their bodies react to their diets, like you did.

Did you notice a decrease in food consumption, or perhaps less sweets when you switched to the cane sugar version? As I was saying HFCS (and artificial sweetners, by the way) does not trigger an insulin response. Typically hunger subsides or is suspended by this process. People that consume cane sugars, or sucrose, tend to eat less.

Jstas

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

newrival

Demiurge wrote: »

Money creates options. It takes much more discipline to keep yourself in good health when you're a member of the wealthy poor as opposed to the middle and upper class.

If you'll notice, I said something very similar in an earlier post. I said that the poor and middle class adhere more to the trend. The very wealthy are deffinitely the outliers. There is at point at which obesity trends down with wealth or quality of life but it is relatively high. Additionally, this is a relatively new thing (last 50 years or so)

It's interesting to note that education seemed to have little effect on the numbers when taken into consideration.

danger boy

i've had the new fries a few times now.. they are ok. nothing great.. Wendy's should have gone with something no other chain has.. garlic fries!! now you're talking something different and good. or else spicy fries... but what they did was just leave the skin on the fries.

they prob got a good deal $ on the fries the other chains didn't want. LOL

danger boy

maybe jalapeno fries, or chipotle fries, or bacon fries, or street fries (whatever that is). or sour cream and onion fries. or maui onion fries, or cheddar fries

Jstas

danger boy wrote: »

i've had the new fries a few times now.. they are ok. nothing great.. Wendy's should have gone with something no other chain has.. garlic fries!! now you're talking something different and good. or else spicy fries... but what they did was just leave the skin on the fries.

they prob got a good deal $ on the fries the other chains didn't want. LOL

That and sea salt is cheaper. All they do is suck up a bunch of salt water then pump it out in to a drying pool. Wait for the water to evaporate and scoop up the remaining salt with a front end loader. It gets processed the same way mined salt does after that. Alot less costly then drilling holes in the ground and blowing up veins of salt crystals.

http://www.maineseasalt.com/about-maine-sea-salt-co.html

Jstas

danger boy wrote: »

maybe jalapeno fries, or chipotle fries, or bacon fries, or street fries (whatever that is). or sour cream and onion fries. or maui onion fries, or cheddar fries

Well, some places I swear make floor fries. You know, when they drop them on the floor and then serve them anyway? Well, usually after they rub the dirt off of each one on their shirt.

nooshinjohn

Anyone ever had pie fries?

heiney9

I like Culvers fries and I do like the new Wendy's fries over the old Wendy's fries. McDonalds lost top status when they dumped the transfat. McD's fries are merely average now.

5 Guys fries are at the top too.

H9

bobman1235

Jstas wrote: »

That and sea salt is cheaper. All they do is suck up a bunch of salt water then pump it out in to a drying pool. Wait for the water to evaporate and scoop up the remaining salt with a front end loader. It gets processed the same way mined salt does after that. Alot less costly then drilling holes in the ground and blowing up veins of salt crystals.

http://www.maineseasalt.com/about-maine-sea-salt-co.html

Wow, the power of marketing, because "sea salt" is kind of sold as "fancier" salt (or at least I perceive it that way).

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

Wow, the power of marketing, because "sea salt" is kind of sold as "fancier" salt (or at least I perceive it that way).

Now you know! And knowing is half the battle!


G. I. JOE!!!!!!!!

cnh

That's what I was led to believe as well, i.e., that sea salt had items that you couldn't find in mined salt, like Iodine, for example? That's what we were told as kids. And that was a while back?

cnh

Demiurge

newrival wrote: »

If you'll notice, I said something very similar in an earlier post. I said that the poor and middle class adhere more to the trend. The very wealthy are deffinitely the outliers. There is at point at which obesity trends down with wealth or quality of life but it is relatively high. Additionally, this is a relatively new thing (last 50 years or so)

It's interesting to note that education seemed to have little effect on the numbers when taken into consideration.

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or what, but it really seems like you're obfuscating now. Your point is entirely unclear to me and I'm really not so dense to not be able get it.

Earlier you seemed to be saying that the higher your quality of life the more likely you are to be overweight. In this country (which is what I assume everyone is talking about), that is absolutely untrue. Using sound reasoning and casual observation, I know that most of the people in my income level are a hell of a lot healthier than those in the lower income levels in the U.S. and I'm nothing but Middle Class.

As stated in my last post, not being able to afford food at all is completely different than being able to afford lots of low quality food or lots of high quality food.

Yes, we all know that poor people in Ethiopia with a lower quality of life are not as obese as the poor in the U.S. who have a higher quality of life.

cnh

I would have to agree there. Empty calories with little nutritional value come from highly processed foods that are full of low quality starches, sugars and fats and, in addition, are CHEAP and FILLING! Those items are what you find in places likely to be frequented by poorer shoppers so food suppliers already operate with this knowledge.

And it is a shame.

cnh

Jstas

cnh wrote: »

That's what I was led to believe as well, i.e., that sea salt had items that you couldn't find in mined salt, like Iodine, for example? That's what we were told as kids. And that was a while back?

cnh

Salt doesn't have iodine in it. It's added as an iodide.

Iodine is a critical part of the human diet because it helps regulate glandular processes and iodine deficiency is a leading cause of mental retardation and apparently it's a completely preventable cause. Makes you wonder what happened here 'cause it seems like alot of people here need to be licking salt on a constant basis!

Sea salt does have some flavoring benefits. But it's not because the salt is different. It's because there are many more trace minerals in sea salt than there are in mined salt. There is also more organic content found in sea salts. Most of the non-salt stuff gets removed in the processing but trace amounts remain embedded in the crystals and the affect flavorings.

newrival

Demiurge wrote: »

I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse or what, but it really seems like you're obfuscating now. Your point is entirely unclear to me and I'm really not so dense to not be able get it.

No, I think I'm losing it, actually. lol. I don't know whether i "rewrote it out" or if I was only intending to write it in the first place. Either way, I was sure that I had, but obviously did not. Well not that it it matters now because I'v obviously mislead my point from the beginning it seems, but The trend is not completely linear. As you pointed out, wealth eventually overcomes this.

Demiurge

newrival wrote: »

No, I think I'm losing it, actually. lol. I don't know whether i "rewrote it out" or if I was only intending to write it in the first place. Either way, I was sure that I had, but obviously did not. Well not that it it matters now because I'v obviously mislead my point from the beginning it seems, but The trend is not completely linear. As you pointed out, wealth eventually overcomes this.

We might actually be on the same page after all. :biggrin:

I think that not being able to eat because of the complete inability to purchase/grow/barter for food weights everything to the advantage of the theory that says the higher your quality of life, the more likely you are to be overweight. In fact, that makes perfect sense in that context.

From the context most of us are speaking from in this thread, Poor > Middle Class > Upper Class in the U.S. alone, the same certainly does not hold true. We simply don't have a sizable group of people who are truly starving or cannot afford an abundance of food.

newrival

ps, anyone ever eaten at a chick filet? We only just got them here in the chicagoland area.

zombie boy 2000

Where are all the fat chicks? This thread absolutely REEKS of fat chicks, but all I see are a bunch of what I assumed were dudes arguing over the socio-economic concerns of the fast food industry.

Come on. Point me toward the fat chicks.

newrival

Demiurge wrote: »

We might actually be on the same page after all. :biggrin:

I think that not being able to eat because of the complete inability to purchase/grow/barter for food weights everything to the advantage of the theory that says the higher your quality of life, the more likely you are to be overweight. In fact, that makes perfect sense in that context.

From the context most of us are speaking from in this thread, Poor > Middle Class > Upper Class in the U.S. alone, the same certainly does not hold true. We simply don't have a sizable group of people who are truly starving or cannot afford an abundance of food.

Bingo!

What you said is historically verifiable. Thanks for calling me out! :biggrin:

Oh man, I can't believe I did that. Well, I kind of can, after having 3 cups of green tea and my brain going a million directions at once.

cnh

For discussions concerning nutrition and health in the Ancient world, see the works of Jared Diamond. They are in basic agreement with Demi above....mostly.

cnh

newrival

zombie boy 2000 wrote: »

Where are all the fat chicks? This thread absolutely REEKS of fat chicks, but all I see are a bunch of what I assumed were dudes arguing over the socio-economic concerns of the fast food industry.

Come on. Point me toward the fat chicks.

They'll be along shortly. Right after the next debate on Bentham vs. Kant: a discussion of metaphysics.

bruss

newrival wrote: »

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

5 Guys is totally worth a try IMO. I love their burgers and they are currently #1 on zagats

newrival

cnh wrote: »

For discussions concerning nutrition and health in the Ancient world, see the works of Jared Diamond. They are in basic agreement with Demi above....mostly.

cnh

I don't know that I've read him, but I know I've got some interesting books on these topics. Early in college I got heavily wrapped up in Malthus and read anything I could get my hands on regarding this an related topics.