think on this - seeming suddenly the US decided fat most come out of

[ensho]

food. and so we have 'fat free', 2% fat, 4% fat, pretend sugars, etc.

and now the US is fatter then ever.

????

who profited from the removal of fat?

who would lose money if fat was returned to food and food was sold 'whole' and unmessed with?

with the fat gone shouldn't the nation be slimmer?

is fat removal a scam? are we fatter because of another reason(s) that has nothing to do with fat removal?

is any of this interesting?

[meegbear]

1. The issue was not the removal of fat ...

but what was used to replace it - CARBS! With the fat gone, something needed to give "food" flavor, so they added carb-heavy additives. The carbs that are not used are converted to fat and stored in the body.

The next time you goto your favorite market, find a product that has "regular", "low fat" and/or "fat free". Look at the carbs.

For a 2000 calorie diet, a person is supposed to get between 275-300 grams of carbs. Considering what the average person true diet is, all those extra carbs are gonna linger.

[ensho]

3. kick - so the carb people are making the money

nt

[Tailormyst]

7. especially the corn people.

[EOTE]

12. Amazing that people don't understand this.

It's not like fat calories are so much worse for you than sugar calories. We're told from a very young age that calories are what cause us to gain weight and fat is only one of the many things which contain calories. I've struggled with my weight a long time, I know it's because of my caloric intake, not necessarily overall fat intake.

The one exception to that is for diets which change your metabolism, like Atkins. I ate more fat (and probably calories, too) during my time on Atkins then any other time in my life, but I lost a good 90lbs in three months.

[meegbear]

13. BRAVO!

I was put on a 12 week low carb crash diet earlier this year and dropped 37 pounds. And for a 44 year old male who grew up fat and resigned himself that I'll be fat for the rest of my life, it was a life changer!

[EOTE]

26. Congrats to you as well.

I know how incredibly hard the struggle can be. I'll probably be struggling with it the remainder of my life. It's nice to know there are diets that I can actually stay on, like Atkins. It's not easy, but at least it worked unlike every other diet I've tried. The problem is staying on it. I really liked how I felt on it, I never felt lethargic like I do when I'm off the diet. I think I'm going to give it another try in the near future. Once I hit my target weight, I think I'm going to do something a little more middle of the road like South Beach, something I'd be able to stay on for more than a half year.

Kudos on your loss. You've got an awful lot of living ahead of you. Enjoy your time with your new, smaller you :)

[MN TN]

42. Yes, we need fats [unsaturated "Good" fats] to lose weight

[trotsky]

2. The Illuminati profited.

And they shared it with the lizard people to spread more chemtrails. Anyone who says otherwise is a paid shill for big yak.

[27inCali]

10. Yeah! Big Corporations would never hurt people for profit....

oh wait........

just because there are a few eccentrics out there spreading bullshit conspiracy theories doesn't mean corporations aren't putting garbage in our food that shouldn't be there so they can save a few bucks.

and the only one here who sounds like a shill is the one trying to equate criticism of sociopathic corporate behavior with spreading kooky red-neck conspiracy theories.

[trotsky]

11. A little late, but right on cue!

Thanks for the shill accusation, I really live for those. They tell me that I must be on the right track.

Look, the OP clearly implied some kind of kwazy kollusion. "Who profited?"

The fact of the matter is, Americans realized we had too much fat in our foods. Consumers don't want to cut back on what they eat, so they demanded products with lower fat. Corporations (who can't FORCE anyone to buy a box of cookies, BTW) met that demand with low-fat, high-carb foods. We got what we asked for.

Does it make sense from the mega-corporation view to be thinking of ways to kill off their consumers as quickly as possible? Really?

[JuniperLea]

15. A good book... The Omnivore's Dilema...

We are children of the corn. The USDA is absolutely in collusion with big business.

[trotsky]

19. To kill us all, right? n/t

[JuniperLea]

28. Of course not... that's really disengenuous...

To save corporate America money is the first order. Humans are a sustainable resource; collateral damage doesn't effect the bottom line. Much like tobacco and alcohol companies... they kill us, no question. And they know it.

[trotsky]

35. Actually, it makes more business sense to just give us what we want.

It's our own damn fault that what we want is terrible for us. There is no evil agenda to poison and kill.

[Skink]

4. We could use corn in our vehicles and eat real food but we don't.

has to do with profit.

[JuniperLea]

16. Yep...

Corn is a cheap crop and corporations have found a bazillion ways to use it in our food and for feeding to our food. Cows are fed corn, but it's not a natural thing for them to eat. They can't digest it without a bunch of other supplements, some petroleum based. Cows are grazers... we didn't used to eat so much beef because it was expensive to raise cattle. Thanks to the wonders of science, cows are forced to deny their instincts and eat the corn... or starve. It's an evil, evil process. And it's the tip of the iceberg.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Or just eat corn, not highly processed corn

realize corn is the basis of the diet of Mesoamerican cultures, with squash and chili...

So don't knock it... it is how it is PROCESSED.

[Hydra]

5. I prefer to eat real food myself

Organic when I can afford it. No one can settle on what actually works as the perfect diet for a human(it probably varies person to person) so I just go with what I want and don't overeat.

[JuniperLea]

14. Me too...

Real food is delicious and satisfying. What you have once in a while doesn't matter... it's what you eat 90% of the time that counts. I try to be smart about the other 10% too... probably closer to 5% for me, but I've always heard 10% was no biggie. When I want a soda, even a Coke, I'll hunt one down that doesn't have high fructose corn syrup, and instead has cane sugar. The real deal is far less hazardous in most cases. Real butter, real cheese, real yogurt... they can all be found. I'm shopping more and more at places like Trader Joe's.

[LostinVA]

24. I do 90-95% of my shopping at TJ's

The either at Whole Foods for certain inexpensive things. I'm buying produce from the farmer's market now, so it's probably more like 75% right now.

[JuniperLea]

27. I need to find a good local farmer's market...

the problem I have is that I start every Saturday and Sunday morning by walking my dogs on the beach for an hour. By the time I get home and shower, the local markets are about to close. There's one near my office on Wednesdays... I probably need to check that out.

I'm finding my grocery bill is a lot lower by shopping at TJ's! I'm even trying their facial soaps and things, and loving them.

[LostinVA]

29. Is it a big TJ's with alot of produce?

Mine is -- yay!

I love it.

I love the farmer's market! There's a farmer's market finder on Google. I don't have the link right here.

[JuniperLea]

30. Thanks for the tip! I'll look for that.

Yes, it's fairly large and there are a lot of fruits but not many veggies. I like squash and they rarely carry it. They do carry a lot of dried fruits, which I love. And the baked plantains are awesome! I use them for dipping in the TJ hummus... always a great selection of hummus.

[Tailormyst]

6. The fat was replaced with empty carbs.

Fat does not make one fat. Fat is not bad for you.

Processed, sugar-filled (tons of sugars in things you would never expect), high sodium, starchy, low value foods are what makes us fat along with genetics and a more sedentary lifestyle.

People should do a little test and log every single thing they eat or drink into "fatsecret.com" for one day. I would be willing to bet folks would be surprised at what they were consuming.

[ensho]

8. thanks for the link

nt

[Tailormyst]

9. You're welcome :) it's a pretty cool site.

Looking, really looking, at what I was eating made me change how I eat, made me think about how I eat.

[Radical Activist]

18. High Fructose Corn Syrup. ADM. Monsanto.

The same people who brought you the ethanol scam. It's all about creating new markets for industrial ag.

[trotsky]

20. Corn is far easier to grow in most of the U.S.

Making corn syrup cheaper and much easier on the environment to manufacture and ship. It's not all "about creating new markets for industrial ag." It's a lot more challenging but also rewarding to see shades of gray instead of just black & white.

[Radical Activist]

21. lol

The corn lobby and big agribusiness is very powerful and effective. Corn based ethanol does not benefit the environment. It only exists to create new markets for corn. Many of the food issues we're dealing with are also about creating new markets for corn and soy. You're being naive to not see it that way. You might have a point if corn was only being used as a sugar substitute or only when it was more environmentally friendly to do so (instead of being in nearly all processed food), but that is most certainly not the case.

[trotsky]

22. I will simply repeat my last sentence.

It's a lot more challenging but also rewarding to see shades of gray instead of just black & white.

[Radical Activist]

23. When oil clears out of the gulf,

and the dead zone returns because of industrial ag chemicals draining from Midwestern corn and soy fields, then I'll look there for the gray zone.

[pitohui]

32. thanks radical activist good post

people who think corn/soy are somehow environmentally responsible have to have never gone outside at all, it's fucking ag desert where these crops are grown, they kill

plus the added bonus of their fertilizer creating a huge dead zone in the gulf every year, for which we in the gulf states are compensated NADA

people wonder why we in louisiana continue to support the oil industry, well, you know what? BP has stepped up, there's no fucking $20 billion in victim's funding from big ag, they just fuck us and laugh

the original extinction of the brown pelican was caused by the manufacture of chemicals/pesticide upstream, from which we saw no benefit and no compensation, the entire population was wiped out, a far bigger disaster than the BP oil spill...so fuck big corn, i don't wanna hear their crap honestly

[trotsky]

34. So sugar cane doesn't dump anything into the environment?

Wow, I didn't know that. Nor was I aware that the additional fuel required to ship sugar vs. corn syrup is a factor in why there is a goddamn oil spill in the gulf to begin with. But silly me, I forgot that there is a "true" progressive position on every issue and anyone who doesn't toe the line is a stupid paid shill of big ag.

[Radical Activist]

36. Corn takes more chemicals and fossil fuels to grow and process than sugar.

I'd be interested if there's a study showing that shorter transportation distances make up the difference, but I'm skeptical of that idea.

If you want a true progressive position, IMO, it's that the US should cut its meat consumption at least in half. Much more of the corn crop goes there than into HFCS. It would result in a healthier and more environmentally sound food system.

[trotsky]

37. The fact that corn syrup is cheaper than sugar should give you your answer.

Sugar cane also requires a lot of petroleum-based fertilizers, significant processing (with chemicals used to bleach it), and can be grown in far less places than corn.

[Radical Activist]

39. Corn is the most heavily subsidized crop in the world.

Its market price tells me nothing.

[trotsky]

40. Cite for that?

Do you think sugar gets no subsidies? Or that its environmental impact is minimal?

http://environment.about.com/od/pollution/a/sugar.htm

Sugar Production Damages the Environment
According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), roughly 145 million tons of sugars are produced in 121 countries each year. And sugar production does indeed take its toll on surrounding soil, water and air, especially in threatened tropical ecosystems near the equator.

A 2004 report by WWF, titled “Sugar and the Environment,” shows that sugar may be responsible for more biodiversity loss than any other crop, due to its destruction of habitat to make way for plantations, its intensive use of water for irrigation, its heavy use of agricultural chemicals, and the polluted wastewater that is routinely discharged in the sugar production process.

Environmental Damage from Sugar Production is Widespread
One extreme example of environmental destruction by the sugar industry is the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia. Waters around the reef suffer from large quantities of effluents, pesticides and sediment from sugar farms, and the reef itself is threatened by the clearing of land, which has destroyed the wetlands that are an integral part of the reef’s ecology.

Meanwhile, in Papua New Guinea, soil fertility has declined by about 40 percent over the last three decades in heavy sugar cane cultivation regions. And some of the world’s mightiest rivers—including the Niger in West Africa, the Zambezi in Southern Africa, the Indus River in Pakistan, and the Mekong River in Southeast Asia—have nearly dried up as a result of thirsty, water-intensive sugar production.

[Radical Activist]

44. Do some research.

Even a simple google search will turn up comparisons between the two crops. I realize there are impacts of sugar. It's not as great as corn.

[trotsky]

45. LOL, love it.

I ask you to provide a source for YOUR claim, and I'm told to go find it myself.

So typical. (Along with completely ignoring everything else that's been said.)

[Radical Activist]

46. You're the one with your head in the soil.

You can be responsible for pulling it out. I asked you to do your own research because it's at least the third key piece of information you're ignorant of in this conversation that's necessary to seriously discuss it. You seem generally ill-informed. One link isn't going to solve that problem for you.

Did you ever find that study about how transportation costs are greater than the extra fossil fuels it takes to grow and process corn? It's pathetically lame to attack me for not linking a source after you ignored my request that you cite yours.

[trotsky]

47. And next come the personal attacks.

So far, you're holding quite true to the historical pattern. Good job.

Did you ever find that study about how transportation costs are greater than the extra fossil fuels it takes to grow and process corn?

Well to start, I never made that claim. What I did say was that it took less fuel to transport corn products than sugar cane products, and that is patently obvious because the corn is already in the contiguous US whereas sugar comes more from tropical areas so you've first got to get it to our shores, and THEN ship it just as far (or farther) than corn.

It's pathetically lame to attack me for not linking a source after you ignored my request that you cite yours.

Almost as lame as telling me to provide a source for a claim I didn't make, huh? But since you've completely ignored a very good source I *did* already use, let me repeat what was said since you are ignoring it:

A 2004 report by WWF, titled “Sugar and the Environment,” shows that sugar may be responsible for more biodiversity loss than any other crop, due to its destruction of habitat to make way for plantations, its intensive use of water for irrigation, its heavy use of agricultural chemicals, and the polluted wastewater that is routinely discharged in the sugar production process.

So there are a lot of variables to consider here before you can declare corn to be the more harmful crop, which is apparently what you strongly believe - and think anyone else is a stupid shill to question.

[rucky]

38. Why so heavily subsidized, then?

And all the processing required to make it (energy input).

Are we figuring the full extent of the costs & environmental impact?

[trotsky]

41. The same questions can be asked of sugar, or any other crop.

I understand the current "party line" that we are supposed to bash corn but as I've stated on this thread a couple of times, the world comes in shades other than black and white.

[Bryn]

25. I started Low Carb diet last April 1st

so far I've lost 27 lbs!

By eating fat! lol

Real Butter
Cream Cheese
Eggs
All kinds of cheese
Sour Cream
Coconut Oil & all kinds of healthy oils like Olive Oil
Nuts
Nothing fake
in addition to many veggies low in carb like tomatoe, green beans, spinach, broccoli, lettuce, pumpkin & lots of blueberries/strawberries.

There's a book called "Eat Fat Get Thin"

I believe that lack of fat & oil gets skin dried up & wrinkled.

[pitohui]

31. fat free food does not satisfy the satiety centers in the brain

fat free food causes people to eat more than they would

ever see that paul newman movie, i think it was HUD, where he has to eat the 50 eggs? he can't do it, you try it, you prob. can't eat more than 4 eggs (i can't) because even though an egg only has abt 100 calories and 4 eggs is about 400 calories, the fat in the yolk affects the brain and causes you to feel full, you actually feel like you're going to vomit if you try to force yourself to overeat

i've tried this experiment for myself, it ain't just theory

now take out the fat and just eat the egg white, you can eat all day and not be satisfied

[Mike 03]

33. Great Thread. I have one of those "By Mistake" contributions

This was just a weird accident.

I despise cheese without fat, but last week I accidentally purchased Feta with tomato flavoring that had no fat, and I ate it without knowing this and was shocked beyond belief.

[Statistical]

43. The reason for reduced fat intake isn't just calories.

100 calories of low fat sour cream and 100 calories of "full fat" sour cream contain the same amount of energy, thus allow you to do the same amount of work, and if you don't will produce the same amount of stored energy (fat).

However 100 calories of low fat sour cream is still better for you. A diet high in saturated fats is bad for a long list of reasons none of which have to do with gaining weight.

I buy 2% cheese, and light sour cream. I am not foolish enough to think that one can eat it by the gallon with no effect.

Calories are calories but all said and done a diet of 2000 calories low in saturated fat is superior to 2000 calories high in saturated fat.

To answer you question directly:
"with the fat gone shouldn't the nation be slimmer?"
No we simply eat more.

Sour Cream - 33 calories per tablespoon
Low Fat Sour Cream - 22 calories per tablespoon

If you eat 2x the servings of low fat then you actually increased your caloric intake (44 vs 33).