Sugar exposure correlated to diabetes risk (was UCTV: Is sugar a toxin that's fueling the global obesity epidemic?) in Leftovers, Bacon, and Drinking! Forum

RSS
Email

0 Points

Sugar exposure correlated to diabetes risk (was UCTV: Is sugar a toxin that's fueling the global obesity epidemic?)

Author	Comment
Montee for President		#21	[url]	[-]
Posts: 335 May 12, 2012 4:15 PM	Remove this ad SavannahBadger wrote: Montee for President wrote: Considering that the feeding of livestock has been studied and nearly perfected to the finest detail You mean feeding animals things that they otherwise wouldn't eat to fatten them up significantly faster than normal while pumping animals full of growth hormones and antibiotics? If so, agreed. While your statements aren't untrue, they're also quite biased. For example, the only reason that wild bovids wouldn't normally be eating corn is that they couldn't find it. If you want to make some fast friends, bring a bucket full of ground corn to a bunch of pastured cows. They love it. Putting steers in a feedlot is not unlike sending kids to college and giving them the biggest meal plan available. They binge on beer and pizza, which may not be good for them, but it makes them happy. Antibiotics are fed to prevent disease. They do not reach your food supply; as any farmer who has accidentally messed up a dosage and received a sternly worded letter from the government can tell you. In fact, the standards for milk quality just went up, and meat is on the way. Growth hormones haven't been shown to cause any harm that I'm aware of, but it's a moot point as they are being phased out by most producers anyway. The consumer has spoken.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
scoobs69		#22	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5997 May 12, 2012 4:17 PM	ThisCharmingFan wrote: Most folks have no idea what a portion really is and thus consume far more than they need. Especially those that have a sedentary job and sedentary lifestyle. Yet, these are the same folks that will head off to the Olive Garden for Chicken Fett Alfredo, salad, breadsticks, and soda...basically an entire day's worth of calories in one meal. There is no fucking reason anybody needs a 44oz Big Gulp of soda. Frankly, most of this country is afraid to call a spade a spade, that folks are gluttonous and piggish. It is far easier to blame something other than yourself for your problem. Certainly there are some with real problems, but the vast majority of fat people aren't fat because they are: big boned, slow metabolism, thyroid, etc. This! don't jab, poke, pierce, stab, or joust with your sausage. you'll lose juice, and ultimately flavor. scoobs - 11/11/02
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
SavannahBadger		#23	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9267 May 12, 2012 4:36 PM I've got a new girl now	ThisCharmingFan wrote: There is no fucking reason anybody needs a 44oz Big Gulp of soda. I'll agree 100% with this, even if it were a diet drink. ThisCharmingFan wrote: Frankly, most of this country is afraid to call a spade a spade, that folks are gluttonous and piggish. Some are, for sure, but how do you explain the epidemic of obese 6-month old kids? Do you tell them they need to suck it up and exercise more? This addresses that exact topic, in "Generation XL": wiggle wiggle womp, wiggle wiggle wump, wiggle wiggle ooh wah whooo "I'd prefer it that my school's mascot not be portrayed as someone that shirks work responsibilities but instead is checking out smut on the internet. On the other hand, I feel closer than ever to Bucky." - Red Wagon, 2011-09-30
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ThisCharmingFan		#24	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13555 May 12, 2012 4:46 PM The disputatious one	SavannahBadger wrote: ThisCharmingFan wrote: There is no fucking reason anybody needs a 44oz Big Gulp of soda. I'll agree 100% with this, even if it were a diet drink. ThisCharmingFan wrote: Frankly, most of this country is afraid to call a spade a spade, that folks are gluttonous and piggish. Some are, for sure, but how do you explain the epidemic of obese 6-month old kids? Do you tell them they need to suck it up and exercise more? This addresses that exact topic, in "Generation XL": 1. Common ground is reached!!!! 2. Did you watch the video? The MOTHER's DIET!!! PREVENTION. It starts in the womb. So, basically, you have just acknowledged what i just stated: Gluttonous and piggish. At the risk of drawing the ire of women, many of them are piggish and gluttonous prior to becoming pregnant...and certainly many just eat whatever they want and get as fat as they want during pregnancy. There is absolutely no reason that any woman should gain 60 pounds during pregnancy (of course there are exceptions). For thousands of years we had children and women didn't get fucking fat..because it was a daily struggle to obtain nourishment. I do believe there is some merit to the sugar/hfcs issue. Sugar or sweets were rare for most of our history.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
TheHeb		#25	[url]	[-]
Posts: 987 May 12, 2012 8:28 PM *"Dammit. I was* *this* *close to being accepted by the in-crowd. Now I'll never get one of those cool tag-lines under my avatar."*	scoobs69 wrote: likewhoa123 wrote: Montee for President wrote: I have a strong background in animal nutrition, and threads like this crack me up. Considering that the feeding of livestock has been studied and nearly perfected to the finest detail, public knowledge about human nutrition is still somewhere in the dark ages. Sugar is not poison, genetics aren't the primary cause of obesity, and processed foods are not inherently bad for you. The obesity epidemic can be boiled down to one problem: we eat too much. Cutting out sugars and carbohydrates generally gets people to lose weight, but that's simply because they're replacing them with fiber, which is indigestible. The most egregious offender in this thread is the suggestion that agave nectar is better for you than white sugar. White sugar, brown sugar, corn syrup, agave nectar, all sugar. Your body can't tell the difference. So will a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet of apples, nuts, broccoli, and lean meat have a comparable effect on somone's weight and body fat percentage as 2,000 calorie-a-day diet with soda, potato chips, and pizza sprinkled in? Honest question. Because this has sort of been my experience. I started eating healthier about a year ago and I don't think my weight has changed, because I'm eating roughly the same amount of total calories in a day. Calorie/energy wise, no. Calories are calories. Nutrition wise, it's a huge difference. Eat crappy, and you'll likely feel crappy. Eat well and you'll feel better. The biggest obesity factor is our sedentary lifestyle. It's not sugar. And your body can tell the difference between sugar and HFCS . HFCS is metabolized in the liver, and converted to fatty acids (high tryglycerides), while white sugar is converted to glucose more easily, then metabolized by ever cell in the body. So yeah, the corn growers of America are lying in their ads. Yes, but all fructose is metabolized in the liver, and there's not an outrage about people eating too many bananas. That's my question: What makes HFCS worse than regular fructose? What makes it worse than table sugar (both have 50% fructose 50% glucose)? This is my sincere question, because I do not know.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
SavannahBadger		#26	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9267 May 12, 2012 8:43 PM I've got a new girl now	Heb: you're getting fiber with real fruit, to slow digestion and keep down the insulin spike that you get with pure sugar and/or HFCS. wiggle wiggle womp, wiggle wiggle wump, wiggle wiggle ooh wah whooo "I'd prefer it that my school's mascot not be portrayed as someone that shirks work responsibilities but instead is checking out smut on the internet. On the other hand, I feel closer than ever to Bucky." - Red Wagon, 2011-09-30
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ThisCharmingFan		#27	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13555 May 12, 2012 9:08 PM The disputatious one	SavannahBadger wrote: Heb: you're getting fiber with real fruit, to slow digestion and keep down the insulin spike that you get with pure sugar and/or HFCS. This is correct. And, another reason that fruit is preferable to juice.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Pointerpride102.muskieville		#28	[url]	[-]
Posts: 8670 May 12, 2012 9:14 PM Stalker of ThisCharmingFan	I had deep fried cookie dough the other day. Sprinkled with powdered sugar. It was fucking fantastic.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Montee for President		#29	[url]	[-]
Posts: 335 May 12, 2012 9:44 PM	Pointerpride102 wrote: I had deep fried cookie dough the other day. Sprinkled with powdered sugar. It was fucking fantastic. That sounds awesome.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
CPooley4		#30	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2867 May 12, 2012 11:18 PM	Remove this ad Montee for President wrote: SavannahBadger wrote: Montee for President wrote: Considering that the feeding of livestock has been studied and nearly perfected to the finest detail You mean feeding animals things that they otherwise wouldn't eat to fatten them up significantly faster than normal while pumping animals full of growth hormones and antibiotics? If so, agreed. While your statements aren't untrue, they're also quite biased. For example, the only reason that wild bovids wouldn't normally be eating corn is that they couldn't find it. If you want to make some fast friends, bring a bucket full of ground corn to a bunch of pastured cows. They love it. Putting steers in a feedlot is not unlike sending kids to college and giving them the biggest meal plan available. They binge on beer and pizza, which may not be good for them, but it makes them happy. Antibiotics are fed to prevent disease. They do not reach your food supply; as any farmer who has accidentally messed up a dosage and received a sternly worded letter from the government can tell you. In fact, the standards for milk quality just went up, and meat is on the way. Growth hormones haven't been shown to cause any harm that I'm aware of, but it's a moot point as they are being phased out by most producers anyway. The consumer has spoken. When you feed a cow strictly a corn diet without antibiotics they die (acidosis, bloat, etc...). Antibiotics are used to keep them alive long enough on the corn diet to get them to slaughter weight. In other words they cannot properly digest corn. Putting cows in a feedlot is nothing like sending a human off to college with a meal plan. Cows cannot naturally eat a corn based diet as their rumen cannot handle it without antibiotics ( Over 25% of the antibiotics used in this country are used in feedlots). The average cow would be dead around 6 months into a strictly corn based diet. The nutritional breakdown of grass fed vs corn fed beef is quite striking. The relationship of Omega 6 (inflammatory) to Omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) fatty acids is around 10 to 1 in corn fed beef. In pasture raised/grass fed beef it is around 2 to 1. Grass fed beef is much healthier for you especially if you're looking to avoid heart disease. Farmers are incented only to produce the highest yield of corn per acre. Legislation back in the '70's set that wheel in motion. They receive direct payments from the government guaranteeing a certain price per bushel. If the target price is x, but the market price is x-y they are still earning x per bushel. Companies like Cargill and ADM (the one's with the real money in the agri-business industry) love this as their primary input to their products is corn. If farmers do not care what the price of corn is because they are guaranteed a direct payment per bushel no matter what their only concern is yield per acre. This floods the market with corn which pushes the market price down which essentially lowers Cargill and ADM's overhead on their products. Their products are fertilizers (without these you couldn't grow corn continuously on the same land), hybrid corns (which increase yield per acre), high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, ethanol, etc... Business is good. Edited 1 time by CPooley4 May 13, 2012 7:39 AM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
scoobs69		#31	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5997 May 13, 2012 1:14 AM	Studies are now showing grassfed beef fat (being a naturally occurring fat source) may NOT be linked to heart disease as was once believed. It's the industrialized fats (corn, vegetable, soybean, etc) and in most particular, the hydrogenated fats (partially and fully) that are bad for your cardiovascular health. Hell, even lard is better for you than Crisco and the other manufactured fats. don't jab, poke, pierce, stab, or joust with your sausage. you'll lose juice, and ultimately flavor. scoobs - 11/11/02
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
CPooley4		#32	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2867 May 13, 2012 7:40 AM	Thanks Scoobs, it was late. That is what I meant to say. It's fixed now.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Montee for President		#33	[url]	[-]
Posts: 335 May 13, 2012 9:01 AM	CPooley4 wrote: When you feed a cow strictly a corn diet without antibiotics they die (acidosis, bloat, etc...). Antibiotics are used to keep them alive long enough on the corn diet to get them to slaughter weight. In other words they cannot properly digest corn. Putting cows in a feedlot is nothing like sending a human off to college with a meal plan. Cows cannot naturally eat a corn based diet as their rumen cannot handle it without antibiotics ( Over 25% of the antibiotics used in this country are used in feedlots). The average cow would be dead around 6 months into a strictly corn based diet. The nutritional breakdown of grass fed vs corn fed beef is quite striking. The relationship of Omega 6 (inflammatory) to Omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) fatty acids is around 10 to 1 in corn fed beef. In pasture raised/grass fed beef it is around 2 to 1. Grass fed beef is much healthier for you especially if you're looking to avoid heart disease. Farmers are incented only to produce the highest yield of corn per acre. Legislation back in the '70's set that wheel in motion. They receive direct payments from the government guaranteeing a certain price per bushel. If the target price is x, but the market price is x-y they are still earning x per bushel. Companies like Cargill and ADM (the one's with the real money in the agri-business industry) love this as their primary input to their products is corn. If farmers do not care what the price of corn is because they are guaranteed a direct payment per bushel no matter what their only concern is yield per acre. This floods the market with corn which pushes the market price down which essentially lowers Cargill and ADM's overhead on their products. Their products are fertilizers (without these you couldn't grow corn continuously on the same land), hybrid corns (which increase yield per acre), high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, ethanol, etc... Business is good. Where do you get your information? I'm genuinely curious, since you seem to know quite a bit, but your understanding of rumen acidosis is a little off. Acidosis occurs when rumen microbes digest feed too quickly, producing acidic byproducts faster than the animal can produce bicarbonate to buffer them. This rapid digestion is the result of too many easily digestible starches and sugars in the diet, usually corn. The only way to prevent this is to make sure that adequate amounts of fiber are consumed. That's why total mixed rations have become so popular; they prevent cows from selectively eating the corn out of their feed and giving themselves acidosis. Antibiotics do nothing to prevent acidosis or bloat. Figuring out exactly how to formulate the ration to avoid acidosis isn't some Monsanto conspiracy. The best research that's been done comes from universities, including UW. Contrary to what some people might think, there are no cattle being fed a strictly concentrate diet. It just isn't possible. Besides, the current price of corn means that producers are looking to minimize its use as much as possible without effecting rate of gain. You're right on with the grass fed beef and corn production.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
SavannahBadger		#34	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9267 May 13, 2012 12:10 PM I've got a new girl now	ThisCharmingFan wrote: The MOTHER's DIET!!! PREVENTION. It starts in the womb. So, basically, you have just acknowledged what i just stated: Gluttonous and piggish. At the risk of drawing the ire of women, many of them are piggish and gluttonous prior to becoming pregnant...and certainly many just eat whatever they want and get as fat as they want during pregnancy. There is absolutely no reason that any woman should gain 60 pounds during pregnancy (of course there are exceptions). For thousands of years we had children and women didn't get fucking fat..because it was a daily struggle to obtain nourishment. I do believe there is some merit to the sugar/hfcs issue. Sugar or sweets were rare for most of our history. Normal mother, has a normal child born. Her child eats sugary foods and develops a seemingly innocuous sweet tooth. That child becomes adult, births a child after eating a good bit of sweets during pregnancy, and that child is born overweight and with a risk of diabetes. That child develops an addiction to sweets, and gives birth to an obese child after eating a ton of sweets during pregnancy. Repeat ad infiniteum, if we don't break this cycle. It's not too hard to see how the increase of HFCS and other added sweeteners has created a climate where this could develop over several generations to reach the point where we have an epidemic of obese newborn babies and young kids, and thus a biochemical drive to want/need to eat/overeat sweets. I agree 100% that it's no surprise that sugar/sweets being rare is a direct correlation to the vast majority of people not having weight issues when you go back just 100 years ago. It should also be no surprise that we're become as obese as we are due to the pervasive nature of where sugar shows up in our food supply. wiggle wiggle womp, wiggle wiggle wump, wiggle wiggle ooh wah whooo "I'd prefer it that my school's mascot not be portrayed as someone that shirks work responsibilities but instead is checking out smut on the internet. On the other hand, I feel closer than ever to Bucky." - Red Wagon, 2011-09-30
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
ThisCharmingFan		#35	[url]	[-]
Posts: 13555 May 13, 2012 12:30 PM The disputatious one	SavannahBadger wrote: ThisCharmingFan wrote: The MOTHER's DIET!!! PREVENTION. It starts in the womb. So, basically, you have just acknowledged what i just stated: Gluttonous and piggish. At the risk of drawing the ire of women, many of them are piggish and gluttonous prior to becoming pregnant...and certainly many just eat whatever they want and get as fat as they want during pregnancy. There is absolutely no reason that any woman should gain 60 pounds during pregnancy (of course there are exceptions). For thousands of years we had children and women didn't get fucking fat..because it was a daily struggle to obtain nourishment. I do believe there is some merit to the sugar/hfcs issue. Sugar or sweets were rare for most of our history. Normal mother, has a normal child born. Her child eats sugary foods and develops a seemingly innocuous sweet tooth. That child becomes adult, births a child after eating a good bit of sweets during pregnancy, and that child is born overweight and with a risk of diabetes. That child develops an addiction to sweets, and gives birth to an obese child after eating a ton of sweets during pregnancy. Repeat ad infiniteum, if we don't break this cycle. It's not too hard to see how the increase of HFCS and other added sweeteners has created a climate where this could develop over several generations to reach the point where we have an epidemic of obese newborn babies and young kids, and thus a biochemical drive to want/need to eat/overeat sweets. I agree 100% that it's no surprise that sugar/sweets being rare is a direct correlation to the vast majority of people not having weight issues when you go back just 100 years ago. It should also be no surprise that we're become as obese as we are due to the pervasive nature of where sugar shows up in our food supply. Unless the mom is overweight the child isn't likely to be born overweight. It really is that simple. As the your video noted. And, those fat moms didn't get fat by eating sweets. They got fat eating mickey d's, fried foods (chips, fries, etc.), larger portions, sedentary, etc. We always have the biomech drive to sweets. It isn't even questionable. This isn't something new. What you are really noting is that people will get addicted to crack quicker than coke. But, you can't pretend that people weren't doing blow before crack arrived. Correlation: We also did manaul labor back then. There were obese people back then as well, but they were rich. You had to have enough money to afford food. Enough money or indoor job. That didn't describe most people. The cheapness of food has contributed as well..or rather the cheapness of bad food. Take a minute and think about it historically. We didn't eat tons of beef until this country/argentina. Why? Because cows were more valuable as property/milk/birthing. You didn't eat a ton of dairy because it was used to make cheese. Kids weren't drinking milk everyday until they were 18. You had limited amount of milk so you used it to create something of value like cheese. This goes on and on. You had major harvests/festivals where folks indulged, but the rest of the year, not so much. End of the year/harvest you might slaughter a pig and celebrate, but they weren't slaughtering pigs everyday and eating pork chops. Hell, if you were preserving food like prosciutto, you didn't even get to taste that food for months. And, then you had to live/enjoy a thinly sliced piece of meat that accompanied the rest of your food. It wasn't the main thing. Anyone that too Prof. Donnelly's Irish History class can clearly remember the 10 plus pounds of taters that the average Irishmen ate per day. Yet, they didn't get fat. Because they were working their asses off to survive.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
SavannahBadger		#36	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9267 May 13, 2012 3:17 PM I've got a new girl now	ThisCharmingFan wrote: Unless the mom is overweight the child isn't likely to be born overweight. It really is that simple. As the your video noted. And, those fat moms didn't get fat by eating sweets. They don't have to eat just sweets. Added sugar is in everything now, minus fresh veggies, fruits, dairy, and meats. The moms who are fat aren't eating fresh foods from those categories as the overwhelming majority of their diet. ThisCharmingFan wrote: They got fat eating mickey d's, fried foods (chips, fries, etc.), larger portions, sedentary, etc. Let's stick to where we agree. What goes up with larger portions of McD's? Larger sodas. That 44oz super sized Coca-cola contains ~120 grams of sugars, mostly HFCS, and thus nearly 500 calories. If you believe eating fat makes you fat, then you will discount the effect that a 44oz sugary soda will have on your diet, much less the effect of the insulin response to that much sugar. The spike in insulin is what drives you to store energy into your fat cells. ThisCharmingFan wrote: We always have the biomech drive to sweets. It isn't even questionable. Sure it is. We have a preference for sweets. We can survive without sweets and sugar, as our ancestors did, so there is no biochemical "drive" specifically for sweets until one has become addicted to them. ThisCharmingFan wrote: There were obese people back then as well, but they were rich. You had to have enough money to afford food, especially sugar. Fixed. Rich people and royalty had the means to acquire sweets. They were larger than the rest of the population. Not surprising. ThisCharmingFan wrote: The cheapness of food has contributed as well..or rather the cheapness of bad food. Agree 100%, and our subsidies of corn is a driving force behind this. Remove those subsidies, and HFCS disappears off the market, along with a significant number of processed food products on the market. ThisCharmingFan wrote: Take a minute and think about it historically. We didn't eat tons of beef until this country/argentina. Why? Because cows were more valuable as property/milk/birthing. It also made NO sense to kill a cow because there wasn't the means for a single family to do anything with 1500 lbs of beef until the advent of refrigeration. Pork was a more efficient source of protein up until the early 1900's. wiggle wiggle womp, wiggle wiggle wump, wiggle wiggle ooh wah whooo "I'd prefer it that my school's mascot not be portrayed as someone that shirks work responsibilities but instead is checking out smut on the internet. On the other hand, I feel closer than ever to Bucky." - Red Wagon, 2011-09-30
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
CPooley4		#37	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2867 May 13, 2012 4:38 PM	Montee for President wrote: CPooley4 wrote: When you feed a cow strictly a corn diet without antibiotics they die (acidosis, bloat, etc...). Antibiotics are used to keep them alive long enough on the corn diet to get them to slaughter weight. In other words they cannot properly digest corn. Putting cows in a feedlot is nothing like sending a human off to college with a meal plan. Cows cannot naturally eat a corn based diet as their rumen cannot handle it without antibiotics ( Over 25% of the antibiotics used in this country are used in feedlots). The average cow would be dead around 6 months into a strictly corn based diet. The nutritional breakdown of grass fed vs corn fed beef is quite striking. The relationship of Omega 6 (inflammatory) to Omega 3 (anti-inflammatory) fatty acids is around 10 to 1 in corn fed beef. In pasture raised/grass fed beef it is around 2 to 1. Grass fed beef is much healthier for you especially if you're looking to avoid heart disease. Farmers are incented only to produce the highest yield of corn per acre. Legislation back in the '70's set that wheel in motion. They receive direct payments from the government guaranteeing a certain price per bushel. If the target price is x, but the market price is x-y they are still earning x per bushel. Companies like Cargill and ADM (the one's with the real money in the agri-business industry) love this as their primary input to their products is corn. If farmers do not care what the price of corn is because they are guaranteed a direct payment per bushel no matter what their only concern is yield per acre. This floods the market with corn which pushes the market price down which essentially lowers Cargill and ADM's overhead on their products. Their products are fertilizers (without these you couldn't grow corn continuously on the same land), hybrid corns (which increase yield per acre), high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, ethanol, etc... Business is good. Where do you get your information? I'm genuinely curious, since you seem to know quite a bit, but your understanding of rumen acidosis is a little off. Acidosis occurs when rumen microbes digest feed too quickly, producing acidic byproducts faster than the animal can produce bicarbonate to buffer them. This rapid digestion is the result of too many easily digestible starches and sugars in the diet, usually corn. The only way to prevent this is to make sure that adequate amounts of fiber are consumed. That's why total mixed rations have become so popular; they prevent cows from selectively eating the corn out of their feed and giving themselves acidosis. Antibiotics do nothing to prevent acidosis or bloat. Figuring out exactly how to formulate the ration to avoid acidosis isn't some Monsanto conspiracy. The best research that's been done comes from universities, including UW. Contrary to what some people might think, there are no cattle being fed a strictly concentrate diet. It just isn't possible. Besides, the current price of corn means that producers are looking to minimize its use as much as possible without effecting rate of gain. You're right on with the grass fed beef and corn production. Well, I spent a night at a Holiday Inn Express recently of course I'm just curious regarding the subject and have spent some time looking into it is all. Thanks for the correction regarding acidosis/bloat in relation to antibiotics. This isn't a subject I study all that often so some of my memory is a bit fuzzy regarding what I've read. Acidosis is essentially unavoidable on a corn based diet for cows if I remember correctly (and they are at risk of bloat due to the corn based diet). It then (acidosis) leads to liver failure, correct? Antibiotics are used to treat the liver/keep the animal healthy long enough to get to slaughter weight. I believe anywhere from 10 - 30% of the livers from cows need to be thrown away once slaughtered due to the effect acidosis has on the cow. One good interview I came across was this one - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/pollan.html - well worth the read to anyone interested in corn vs grass fed beef production. It's a bit disturbing in some regard.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Cdiddy34		#38	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4413 May 13, 2012 10:25 PM just starting to think about having a doner.	Montee for President wrote: Cdiddy34 wrote: Montee for President wrote: I have a strong background in animal nutrition, and threads like this crack me up. Considering that the feeding of livestock has been studied and nearly perfected to the finest detail, public knowledge about human nutrition is still somewhere in the dark ages. Sugar is not poison, genetics aren't the primary cause of obesity, and processed foods are not inherently bad for you. The obesity epidemic can be boiled down to one problem: we eat too much. Cutting out sugars and carbohydrates generally gets people to lose weight, but that's simply because they're replacing them with fiber, which is indigestible. The most egregious offender in this thread is the suggestion that agave nectar is better for you than white sugar. White sugar, brown sugar, corn syrup, agave nectar, all sugar. Your body can't tell the difference. Right, the finest detail for profit, not for the animal. You must work for Monsanto. I don't work for Monsanto, nor do I know much about them. I grew up on a family farm, got a degree in animal science, and am continuing my education while remaining highly involved in agriculture. How would you define what's "best" for the animal? Do you want them to live as long as possible? Do you want them to be as happy as they can be? Do you want them to reach their greatest potential as workers and producers? There are different rations that meet each of those criteria, but none of them can cover all the bases. Things aren't always black and white. Michael Phelps eats a diet that allows him to perform at an almost superhuman level. On the other hand, eating 10,000 Calories a day is almost certainly trimming years off of his life. Is it good for him? Hard to say. Now I'm doubting your credentials.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
SavannahBadger		#39	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9267 May 13, 2012 10:49 PM I've got a new girl now	Cdiddy34 wrote: Montee for President wrote: I have a strong background in animal nutrition Montee for President wrote: I don't work for Monsanto, nor do I know much about them. I grew up on a family farm Now I'm doubting your credentials. Good point. How does one grow up on a farm and not know who Monsanto is? Isn't that like growing up in NYC and not knowing who the Yankees are? wiggle wiggle womp, wiggle wiggle wump, wiggle wiggle ooh wah whooo "I'd prefer it that my school's mascot not be portrayed as someone that shirks work responsibilities but instead is checking out smut on the internet. On the other hand, I feel closer than ever to Bucky." - Red Wagon, 2011-09-30
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Montee for President		#40	[url]	[-]
Posts: 335 May 13, 2012 10:49 PM	Remove this ad Cdiddy34 wrote: Now I'm doubting your credentials. What I should have said is that I don't have a strong opinion about Monsanto. As far as I'm concerned, they're a business like any other. Not inherently evil, but not above it for the right price. I can tell that you fall strongly on one side of the issue, and I wasn't about to start anything there. Edit to address Savannah: Most Monsanto products aren't sold under the Monsanto label. I had never heard of Monsanto before I went to college. Growing up in a small rural town, Monsanto wasn't public enemy number one like it is to all of you communist hippies in Madison. Edited 1 time by Montee for President May 13, 2012 10:52 PM.
Interact My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

Sugar exposure correlated to diabetes risk (was UCTV: Is sugar a toxin that's fueling the global obesity epidemic?)