search results matching tag: glucose

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (6)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (0)     Comments (42)   

Raccoons Really like Cookie Crisps

Raccoons Really like Cookie Crisps

Sagemind says...

Except that's not food, so actually no one ate food

Cereal Grains (Whole Grain Wheat (35.0%), Maize Semolina (28.6%), Wheat Flour), Sugar,
Glucose Syrup, Wheat Starch, Brown Sugar, Sunflower Oil, Vitamins and Minerals (Calcium, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Iron, Vitamin D, Folic Acid, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin), Fat-Reduced Cocoa Powder (1.2%), Salt, Icing Sugar, Cocoa Powder (0.5%), Natural Flavouring, Raising Agent: Sodium Bicarbonate, Acidity Regulator: Tripotassium Phosphate, Maize Starch.
https://www.nestle-cereals.com/uk/en/products-promotions/brands/cookie-crisp-brand/cookie-crisp

Big Think: Penn Jillette lost over 100 lbs & Eats His Wants

RedSky says...

Agree with lots of it. Taste is definitely to a large part habitual, you definitely dull your sense of taste if you eat lots of sugary / salty foods.

However choosing potatoes is a terrible idea for a diet. Like sugar, starches rapidly turn to glucose, release insulin and promote addiction. They admittedly have high satiety and may be less calorie dense than what he was eating before (which is what caused the weight loss) but I would not suggest swapping one addiction for another.

Also I love refuting the instinctual assumption that you can lose weight eating badly by simply offsetting it with exercise. He's correct to stress diet over exercise. Exercise does make you lose weight (and has other health benefits) but the effect of high calorie food utterly dwarfs exercise:

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12051520/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories-video

Also, it's more of a subjective thing, but lean meat proteins (eggs, chicken, fish) are very filling and can make it easier to avoid the high GI carbs that absorb into your body too fast to be used effectively and end up as excess body fat. I'd argue you're making your diet considerably more difficult if you try to give up meat at the same time as losing weight.

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Sugar

serosmeg says...

Just try and consume the WHO recommended sugar intake. About 24 grams per day. One can of Pepsi, 41 grams. Eat processed food and you will get up to 24 by breakfast.

"A new WHO guideline recommends adults and children reduce their daily intake of free sugars to less than 10% of their total energy intake. A further reduction to below 5% or roughly 25 grams (6 teaspoons) per day would provide additional health benefits.

Free sugars refer to monosaccharides (such as glucose, fructose) and disaccharides (such as sucrose or table sugar) added to foods and drinks by the manufacturer, cook or consumer, and sugars naturally present in honey, syrups, fruit juices and fruit juice concentrates."

What diet coke really does to your body in 1 hour

Asmo says...

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

Coca Cola vs Coca Cola Zero - Sugar Test

korsair_13 says...

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Coca Cola vs Coca Cola Zero - Sugar Test

korsair_13 says...

Sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is glucose and fructose combined and it is immediately separated in the body by the saliva in your mouth. Glucose is fine for your body, it is the energy storage system that metabolizes into glycogen in the liver. Fructose, on the other hand, is a toxin that is metabolized in the body similarly to alcohol, as ChaosEngine said. Essentially it is treated as a toxin and turned into numerous by-products which do things like: delay your leptin response (you feel full later, thus making you eat more), increase your high-density lipo-protein (increasing your cholesterol and storing fat in your liver), and decreasing your sensitivity to insulin (leading to type-2 diabetes).

As to what artician said, high-fructose corn syrup and sugar are treated exactly the same in the human body. In fact, here is a list of all of the things that companies call sugar to hide it when it is the exact same thing: brown sugar, caster sugar, fruit sugar, organic sugar (in fact sometimes they just put organic in front of any of these things to make it seem better for you but trust me, it isn't), evaporated cane juice, evaporated cane syrup, high fructose corn syrup, sucrose, glucose-fructose, brown sugar, honey, molasses, golden syrup, high glucose corn syrup, agave/agave nectar, corn sweetener, fruit juice solids, cane syrup solids, fruit juice concentrate, invert sugar, maltodextrin and even fruit juice.

All of the studies done in the last 15 years have shown that sugar is sugar and calories are not calories. All of the kinds of sugar that have quantities of fructose are bad for you, except when they have fiber. This is why fruit is still good for you while fruit juice is the same thing as soda.

The only things that you do not have to avoid as a sugar are these: brown rice syrup, dextrose and glucose. All of these things are completely glucose, no fructose whatsoever. Therefore, they are largely safe. However, large quantities of glucose can give you a large liver because of the stored glycogen.

Some links if you don't believe me:

Comparison: http://www.foods4betterhealth.com/what-evaporated-cane-juice-sugar-vs-evaporated-cane-juice-8645

Aspartame: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4127 ; http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-artificial-sweeteners-safe/

HFCS vs Sugar: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4157

Dangers of Fructose: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/high-fructose-corn-syrup/

Coca Cola vs Coca Cola Zero - Sugar Test

Baristan says...

High fructose corn sugar is about 55% fructose and 45% glucose.
"Table sugar" ie sucrose is about 50% fructose and 50% glucose.

Glucose is not fine. You gain the same amount of weight regardless of the type of sugar. Glucose can still kill you, but fructose is worse. It has shown some insulin resistance and also increased cholesterol levels.
http://www.webmd.com/heart/metabolic-syndrome/news/20090421/fresh-take-on-fructose-vs-glucose?page=2

HFCS is not much worse for you than table sugar, but it is worse than dextrose(ie d-glucose). Why don't more people use dextrose? It requires 3 times as much dextrose to achieve the same taste as HFCS. I'm still not sure which is worse.

PS: Both HFCS and dextrose are made from corn.

ChaosEngine said:

That's the thing, most "sugar" in coke and other processed food isn't glucose, it's fructose.

Glucose is fine and your body can store heaps of it. Fructose is basically alcohol with the buzz.

Coca Cola vs Coca Cola Zero - Sugar Test

ChaosEngine says...

That's the thing, most "sugar" in coke and other processed food isn't glucose, it's fructose.

Glucose is fine and your body can store heaps of it. Fructose is basically alcohol with the buzz.

FlowersInHisHair said:

Given that most (if not all) sugar and carbohydrate metabolises into glucose (a sugar; one of the most important biological fuels your body uses) anyway, it's pretty OK to be "addicted" to it.

Coca Cola vs Coca Cola Zero - Sugar Test

How to make Sambuca swirls (Alcoholic Candy)

Puppy Determined To Get On Treadmill

scottishmartialarts says...

Interesting that A10anis keeps citing "the data and statistics", and yet hasn't cited a single datum or statistic. Although completely unrelated to knowledge of dog attacks, his shocking ignorance of exercise physiology (the relationship between long duration aerobic exercise and muscle catabolism is pretty well established -- exhaust your Glucose stores, and your body starts breaking down muscle and fat to keep your body moving) doesn't help his case much.

I haven't studied the "inherent violence" of the American Pit Bull Terrier to any great extent, so without any actual data, who knows whether or not they truly are "inherently violent". What I can say is that there are a number of breeds that are commonly mistaken for the Pit Bull, and dog attacks by any breed that vaguely looks like a Pit Bull often get called a "Pit Bull Attack" in the media. I have never owned a Pit, but my interactions with the breed suggest that they are very mellow and gentle: the polar opposite of, say, the highly strung, yappy, and territorial Chihuahua. The difference however is that if you piss a Chihuahua off it's not going to be able to do much to hurt you, whereas an angry Pit Bull can kill you. Of course, this is all just conjecture from anecdote, but until someone actually posts some data, that's all we have to go on.

Get UNREAL - Candy UNJUNKED

Scientists Scan Movie Clips From Your Brain

MonkeySpank says...

What I do for a living and what I do in my bedroom are polar opposites...

>> ^AgentSmith:

>> ^MonkeySpank:
I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.

...says "MonkeySpank", lol! Really, thank you for the insight, but the association between your well informed comment and your avatar is what did it for me.
This is what led me to believe that E = MC2 --LoudBelcher78

Scientists Scan Movie Clips From Your Brain

AgentSmith says...

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.


...says "MonkeySpank", lol! Really, thank you for the insight, but the association between your well informed comment and your avatar is what did it for me.

This is what led me to believe that E = MC2 --LoudBelcher78



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon