High Fructose Corn Syrup Responsible for Obesity

[endersshadow]

I guess I could say I expected a little bit more from you guys than the PC answer that doesnt make anyone mad. Anyone being, companies that produce high fructose corn syrup.


Maybe you could look into something for me as you guys might have more tools at your disposal.

I remember reading a small and rather discreet column in the mens health magazine regarding obesity and HFC's role. From what I remember they claimed that HFC wasnt utilized the way normal sugar was, HFC wouldnt not get used immediately like white sugar, HFC would turn almost immediately into fat, HFC would not trigger the release of Leptin, a hormone that was explained to give people the "FULL FEELING" after they have ate so much.

So we have people eating more and not becoming full and to top it off teh calories they are eating are almost immediately being turned into fat. Sounds like a recipe for obesity to me.



/edit

I was rereading the article you all wrote and I guess I missed the part where you make the acknowledgement that A-HFCs stop the release of the hormone that makes you full and then B-Claim were drinking a load of soda that have HFCs in them but then UTTERLY FAIL TO MAKE THE CONNECTION that you might eat a whole lot more food because of the consumption of so much HFCS?
Really? You missed that?

It didnt make sense to you that maybe the american public is eating more because they dont feel full because they are eating HFCs in almost every meal?

Cant wait to hear a response to this.

Is it possible you guys might be able to find the article Im talking about?

Not to get to conspiracy theorist with this, but it makes an absolute whole lot of sense to put something into food that would make people eat more.

[Broomstick]

Methinks you might have a bit of an agenda yourself. You seem convinced of the notion that HCFS is the product of some horrific conspiracy and appear unwilling to even consider contrary evidence.

One article in a magazine - an article you can't cite, a magazine you either won't or can't name - does not constitute scientific evidence.

There is no question that adding HCFS to foods adds essentially empty calories and that empty calories is the last thing people with weight problems need, but obesity rates are rising even where HCFS is not a common additive (such as Europe and urban China) so even if it is a factor is can not be the only one in the problem of global obesity.

[jjimm]

What the hell is "PC" about Cecil's response?

I tells ya, overuse of the term "PC" is political correctness gone mad.

ETA: linky (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2561/is-the-increased-use-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup-responsible-for-the-rise-in-obesity).

[Ferret Herder]

It's actually the fructose that doesn't trigger leptin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leptin#Fructose_and_leptin_resistance), in a rat study. Good ol' sucrose (white sugar) and HFCS both contain similar amounts of fructose vs. glucose, so it sounds like there's plenty of sweet stuff that might meet this criteria. (Honey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey#Nutrition) has a similar composition too.) Watch that sweet stuff rather than simply demonizing the corn industry.

[Fear Itself]

I don't think it is the HFCS per se, but the fact that they are so hard to avoid without reading labels. That stuff is in everything, even stuff most people don't associate with sweets, like salad dressing and barbecue sauce. I don't curse the corn industry and much as I do the prepared food industry for putting sugar (and HFCS is the cheapest and most ubiquitous) in everything they make. That is why those pro-HFCS ads scoffing at people who avoid HFCS are so misleading; even they say it should be used "in moderation", but unless you read labels like a hawk, it is very difficult to consume HFCS in moderation.

[Imasquare]

It didnt make sense to you that maybe the american public is eating more because they dont feel full because they are eating HFCs in almost every meal?
The UK and Australia have a similar obesity problem to the US.

HFCs are not used in the UK or Australia...

[andros]

.
The study upon which endersshadow's mystery article is based seems to be this one:

Shapiro, Alexandra; Wei Mu, Carlos A Roncal, Kit-Yan Cheng, Richard J. Johnson, and Philip J. Scarpace (November 2008). "Fructose-Induced Leptin Resistance Exacerbates Weight Gain in Response to Subsequent High Fat Feeding". Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol.

Anyone with Pubmed or the like feel like digging that one up and posting the abstract?
.

[Ferret Herder]

.
The study upon which endersshadow's mystery article is based seems to be this one:

Shapiro, Alexandra; Wei Mu, Carlos A Roncal, Kit-Yan Cheng, Richard J. Johnson, and Philip J. Scarpace (November 2008). "Fructose-Induced Leptin Resistance Exacerbates Weight Gain in Response to Subsequent High Fat Feeding". Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol.

Anyone with Pubmed or the like feel like digging that one up and posting the abstract?

Here you go:
It has been suggested that increased fructose intake is associated with obesity. We hypothesized that chronic fructose consumption causes leptin resistance, which subsequently may promote the development of obesity in response to a high-fat diet. Sprague-Dawley rats were fed a fructose-free control or 60% fructose diet for 6 mo and then tested for leptin resistance. Half of the rats in each group were then switched to high-fat diet for 2 wk, while the other half continued on their respective diets. Chronic fructose consumption caused leptin resistance, while serum leptin levels, weight, and adiposity were the same as in control rats that were leptin responsive. Intraperitoneal leptin injections reduced 24-h food intake in the fructose-free group (73.7 +/- 6.3 vs. 58.1 +/- 8 kcal, P = 0.02) but had no effect in fructose-fed rats (71.2 +/- 6.6 vs. 72.4 +/- 6.4 kcal, P = 0.9). Absence of anorexic response to intraperitoneal leptin injection was associated with 25.7% decrease in hypothalamic signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 phosphorylation in the high-fructose-fed rats compared with controls (P = 0.015). Subsequent exposure of the fructose-mediated, leptin-resistant rats to a high-fat diet led to exacerbated weight gain (50.2 +/- 2 g) compared with correspondingly fed leptin-responsive animals that were pretreated with the fructose-free diet (30.4 +/- 5.8 g, P = 0.012). Our data indicate that chronic fructose consumption induces leptin resistance prior to body weight, adiposity, serum leptin, insulin, or glucose increases, and this fructose-induced leptin resistance accelerates high-fat induced obesity.

Note that this was done to rats, and the groups compared were a fructose-free diet versus a 60% fructose diet, which are definite extremes. This is a "proof of concept" type of study, but whether it applies to humans and to diets that they might conceivably ever eat is another matter.

[andros]

.
Much obliged.
.

[aruvqan]

I know that personally HFCS does whack things to my blood glucose readings, how it affects my metabolism I have no idea, I just avoid the stuff as much as possible.

What I think the problem is for most people is they are now chugging immense quantities of drinks that are not plain water. It is amazing how many calories is in just plain soda or powdered drink mixes. A person can chug down several hundred calories in a few minutes if they are not careful. Portion control nowdays is hosed up, portions when eating out are enough for 3 meals for me. If you open a can of spaghettios, it is 2+ servings per can, canned soup is more than one serving per can. I have seen people at work eating 2 and 3 of the little healthy choice meals at a single meal...

[Exapno Mapcase]

Here's an absolutely critical point from Cecil's article:
Whatever chemical differences there may be between fructose and glucose, the difference between HFCS and traditional sugar is slight. Both sweeteners contain both compounds, and in roughly similar amounts--table sugar is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose, whereas the most common form of HFCS is 55 percent fructose and 45 percent glucose.

Let me add to that from the Wiki page on HFCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HFCS).
The most widely used types of high-fructose corn syrup are: HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 45% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in many foods and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 58% glucose.
See what I'm getting at? Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. The type of HFCS used in soft drinks has a few percentage points more fructose. The type used in other commercial products has a few percentage points less fructose.

Sorry, you cannot make a conspiracy out of that. And another fact also affects the hysteria about obesity.
Sucrose has approximately 4 kcal per gram, while HFCS has approximately 3 kcal per gram. This is because HFCS contains roughly 25% water.
The problem with sugar is sugar. Not the type of sweet stuff, but the amount we take in. Supersizing portions has far more effect on obesity than the type of sugar used as a sweetener. Coke used to come in 6 oz bottles. Pepsi, a distant second place, doubled the size of its bottles to 12 oz for the same price and doubled its profits.

Both sizes now feel like quaint anachronisms. People drink from 16 oz or 20 oz or larger containers on a regular basis. Or chug a liter or two. We have the never-empty glass free at restaurants, something that was unheard of as recently as the 70s.

Quantity. It's the quantity of sugar that people consume that contributes to obesity. The quantity of sugar per capita (http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050328/28sugar.b.htm) has increased over the span of time you talk about.
In 1967, Americans ate 114 pounds of sugar and sweeteners a year per capita, nearly all of it as either raw or refined sugar. In 2003, each person consumed about 142 pounds of sugar per year.

Since high-fructose corn syrup was developed more than 30 years ago, consumption of the sweetener, which flavors everything from soda pop to ranch dressing, has skyrocketed. Now Americans down about 61 pounds a year each.

Since 1950, soft-drink consumption per capita has quadrupled, from about 11 gallons per year to about 46 gallons in 2003--nearly a gallon a week per person.
We drink an average of 35 gallons of soft drinks more each year. Soft drinks contain about 13 calories per ounce. There are 128 ounces in a gallon. 13 x 128 x 35 = 58,240 calories. That's 16 extra pounds. Per year. On average. Just from soft drinks. Some people have to push the average up. (I don't drink carbonated beverages, so I push the average down.) That means more than 16 pounds extra per year. In addition to all the extra sugar in all the extra foods.

Quantity. Quantity, quantity, quantity. More sugar, more carbohydrates, more fat, even more protein. That's the problem. Take HFCS out of this equation and you still have the exact same equation.

[Fear Itself]

Take HFCS out of this equation and you still have the exact same equation.Not exactly. Many products use HFCS not because it is sweet, but because it is cheap. If it were not available, they would use other additives to increase viscosity, for instance. Many "low fat" salad dressings use HFCS to create the viscosity of oil without the fat, then cut the sweetness with salt. So they end up with a product which is technically low fat, but has just as many calories due to the HFCS, plus additional sodium. If it wasn't so cheap, they would use other emulsifiers to create the viscous mouth feel of oil. Not all HFCS applications would be replaced by other sugars.

[DSYoungEsq]

One other problem with the statistical analysis by Exapno is the fact that it ignores the amount of the soft drink market taken by diet drinks that have no calories. So in fact, the effect of the increase is not so great as made out.

Still, these are minor points. The main point he made is accurate. We eat more per serving, and we eat more often, than we did in the past. This has made us fatter, not HFCS, which is actually not significantly different than regular sugar.

[Broomstick]

it is very difficult to consume HFCS in moderation.
Well, yes and no - you could make everything you eat from scratch, yielding a very tight control over the contents, but that would mean you spend more time and effort cooking.

As I am poor these days we eat very little processed foods (I do not drink soda, the husband drink sugar/HCFS-free diet soda) and thus have a low intake of HCFS. We still get some in our condiments, but much less than the average family.

[DSYoungEsq]

The fact that we eat pre-packaged, pre-prepared meals regularly is one of the banes of our society. I try to cook for myself from scratch now as often as possible. It does take time, though. :(

[Broomstick]

The pre-prepared stuff isn't inherently bad - in some niches it's a godsend, in fact. The problem comes from eating it all the time. Once again, it's a lack of moderation that a major factor.

[glilly]

Full disclosure: I worked at a facility that makes HFCS, but I didn't work directly with that process.

Slate did an article about the negatives and not-so-negatives of HFCS: link (http://www.slate.com/id/2216796/).

There are a couple reasons producers prefer HFCS over sugar. The first was cost. As I understood it, it's not that HFCS is cheap, it's that in the US sugar is tarriffed enough to drive the cost higher than HFCS (which is why HFCS isn't as popular outside the US). The second is liquid HFCS is easier to handle than granular sugar (a pump and pipe is cheaper and more reliable than a conveyor belt).

Interesting fact: People in the HFCS business tend to pronounce the "fruc" part of fructose in a way that rhymes with "truck" rather than the way I learned it in biology (in which it rhymed with "fruit").

[Exapno Mapcase]

I'm not going to quibble with any criticisms of my post. I think they help my larger point that the complexities of the total food consumption of the nation over a period of years make any accusations of a specific additive ludicrous. HFCS is the cause of obesity? You can't even define what its role is in the foods that use it.

It works the other way as well. You can't proclaim that any food or supplement or nutrient is "the" preventer of disease or cause of health or longer life. Even the very best longitudinal studies involving thousands of cases have a poor overall record for isolating individual effects. Smaller studies are totally meaningless.

It's always convenient to simplify the issue and cull out one specific item to fixate on, while shouting loads of faux scientific terms. This works for almost anything. People like simplicity and like the appearance of validity, even if they don't understand anything about the issue. Hearing it loudly is easier than researching it independently.

Bah, humbug. Or maybe: bah, hamburg. :p

[Fear Itself]

Humbug, indeed.

No response necessary.

[Exapno Mapcase]

Humbug, indeed.

No response necessary.

I give up. Are you agreeing with me or dismissing me? I honestly can't tell.

[John W. Kennedy]

See what I'm getting at? Sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.But there is a chemical difference between a mixture of two monosaccharides and the disaccharide formed from the same, so you cannot simply assert that the two are nutritionally equivalent in every way without investigation.

[Chronos]

But there is a chemical difference between a mixture of two monosaccharides and the disaccharide formed from the same, so you cannot simply assert that the two are nutritionally equivalent in every way without investigation.True, but the first step in metabolizing sucrose is splitting it up into glucose and fructose, so one would expect the effects to be very similar, at least.

[DSYoungEsq]

True, but the first step in metabolizing sucrose is splitting it up into glucose and fructose, so one would expect the effects to be very similar, at least.
What, if any, byproducts are there of the split? Nothing comes for free, I'm told.

[Terminus Est]

What, if any, byproducts are there of the split? Nothing comes for free, I'm told.

The reaction is: sucrose + water -> glucose + fructose

[John W. Kennedy]

True, but the first step in metabolizing sucrose is splitting it up into glucose and fructose, so one would expect the effects to be very similar, at least.But this started out with the claim that sucrose invokes a higher degree of appetite suppression, which could, at least in principle, involve bodily processes (including mere taste) at an earlier stage than initial catabolism.

My own history can be nothing more than anecdotal, of course, but the era of HFCS's large-scale replacement of sucrose corresponds pretty neatly with the era of me going from skinny adult to obese adult.

[MsRobyn]

But this started out with the claim that sucrose invokes a higher degree of appetite suppression, which could, at least in principle, involve bodily processes (including mere taste) at an earlier stage than initial catabolism.

My own history can be nothing more than anecdotal, of course, but the era of HFCS's large-scale replacement of sucrose corresponds pretty neatly with the era of me going from skinny adult to obese adult.

But as Exapno and others pointed out, the increase in obesity can't just be attributed to the switch to HFCS. Portion sizes overall have gotten much much bigger over the years. This handout from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_research.pdf) gives some information about that, and lists strategies that health-care providers can teach their patients. Also, people eat more processed food now than they did when you were younger.

The nature of processed foods is also such that it's nearly impossible to tell what's most responsible for any weight gain associated with that food. There is a good bit of overlap in terms of what additives go in which foods; the same handful of ingredients are as likely to be in a relatively healthy breakfast cereal as they are in a Twinkie. Which one will make you fatter?

In any event, this may be academic anyway. Many low- and no-fat foods have HCFS to replace the fat. So it's a double-edged sword. Do we want people to consume more fat, or do we want them to consume more sugar? Which is the lesser evil?

[tracer]

True, but the first step in metabolizing sucrose is splitting it up into glucose and fructose, so one would expect the effects to be very similar, at least.

I would like to have seen Cecil's article mention this.

As written, the article says simply that sucrose is 50% glucose and 50% fructose, implying that it's a 50-50 mixture of two monosaccharides (which it isn't).





EDIT: Incidentally, doesn't the sweetness of fresh fruit come almost entirely from fructose?
If it's fructose that causes obesity, as the cited studies claim, wouldn't that mean fresh fruit is worse for your waistline than HFCS is?

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

I've heard that orange juice is little better than a soft drink plus a vitamin C tablet, as far as your health is concerned. What makes fruit not as bad as HFCS is that it's packaged with a crapload of fiber, and this fiber fills you up in a way that HFCS does not.

It could take me four or five oranges to squeeze a glass of orange juice. I could drink that glass in five minutes, taking it easy and slow along with breakfast. I definitely couldn't eat five oranges in five minutes.

[not_alice]

I've heard that orange juice is little better than a soft drink plus a vitamin C tablet, as far as your health is concerned. What makes fruit not as bad as HFCS is that it's packaged with a crapload of fiber, and this fiber fills you up in a way that HFCS does not.

It could take me four or five oranges to squeeze a glass of orange juice. I could drink that glass in five minutes, taking it easy and slow along with breakfast. I definitely couldn't eat five oranges in five minutes.

Heh - here in orange growing country, we aren't doing our jobs if you aren't eating oranges that fast, we are growing them that fast :)

Plus, did you know that almost all table oranges come from CA, and almost all juice oranges come from FL?

Let's talk about juices for a minute though.

I buy 100% fruit juices, no added sugar of any kind. I cut them with water, usually 3:1 water to juice to get the calorie range to 30-40 cal/cup instead of the more common 120 to 140 as constituted.

This makes me wonder - why do almost all fruit juices have almost the same caloric content, regardless of fruit? Even if the juice has HFCS or other sweetener? Are all fruits really in such a close range of calories when juiced?

My WAG: Most of the juices are in fact made from concentrate, and so there is some leeway in how much water to add. And the public seems to be willing to drink a certain sweetness for some reason, one I find too sweet now that I have been doing this for years. Recently I was visiting my mother and for breakfast she served some straight up OJ and she might as well have injected it, it was far far too sweet. Same thing happened the other day when circumstances forced me to sip a regular coke instead of my preferred diet. I almost puked.

Anyway, I think people are just conditioned to too much sweetness in drinks, it doesn't have to be that way, although it is a relearning-curve that is pretty steep for a while.

[Nametag]

Well, if you're talking about pure juices, it's very likely because they're made from fruit that has been bred (Breeding plants? Is that right?) to contain enough sugar to be highly marketable. If you're talking about "100% juice" blends, most of the juice is from apples, which add enough sugar to make sour cherries taste sweet.

[Liberal]

Pepsi has introduced Pepsi Throwback, sweetened with "pure sugar". Same price as regular.

[SCSimmons]

Quantity. It's the quantity of sugar that people consume that contributes to obesity. The quantity of sugar per capita (http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/050328/28sugar.b.htm) has increased over the span of time you talk about.

We drink an average of 35 gallons of soft drinks more each year. Soft drinks contain about 13 calories per ounce. There are 128 ounces in a gallon. 13 x 128 x 35 = 58,240 calories. That's 16 extra pounds. Per year. On average. Just from soft drinks. Some people have to push the average up. (I don't drink carbonated beverages, so I push the average down.) That means more than 16 pounds extra per year. In addition to all the extra sugar in all the extra foods.

I just wanted to bring this into relative focus. Those little sugar packets you put one or two of into your morning coffee--or maybe you put three or four in, and get smart-asses asking if you want some coffee with your sugar--contain about a sixth of an ounce, or 4-5 grams, of sugar. So a 12-ounce can of Coke, which has 40 grams of sugar according to the label, has 8-10 packets worth of sugar in it. :eek: Now multiply that by how many cans you drink per day, or the ~15 packets per 20-ounce bottle by the number of bottles you drink per day.

When you're pouring that much sugar syrup into your body, how much do you really think it matters whether it's sucrose or fructose/glucose?

[Irishman]

Nametag said:
If you're talking about "100% juice" blends, most of the juice is from apples, which add enough sugar to make sour cherries taste sweet.

A lot of them also use pear juice, for the same reason.

[Chronos]

White grape juice is used the same way. Basically, instead of adding sucrose, they're adding high-sugar, low-flavor juice concentrate, which amounts to the same thing.

[Irishman]

A while back I was looking at fruit juices and cocktails as an alternative to sodas. I noticed that pear juice was in just about everything. You'd have a "raspberry/cranberry cocktail"* and the main ingredient would be pear juice. Yes, that is exactly the reason why, but at the time it was odd to me that nothing mentioned pear in the advertising. Of course, it's precisely because pear juice has very weak flavor that it isn't mentioned. The flavor comes from the other fruits, so they're the ones that get named.

*Not necessarily a real flavor.

[Saint Cad]

Pepsi has introduced Pepsi Throwback, sweetened with "pure sugar". Same price as regular.

Apparently not in Phoenix

[DrDeth]

But this started out with the claim that sucrose invokes a higher degree of appetite suppression, which could, at least in principle, involve bodily processes (including mere taste) at an earlier stage than initial catabolism.

My own history can be nothing more than anecdotal, of course, but the era of HFCS's large-scale replacement of sucrose corresponds pretty neatly with the era of me going from skinny adult to obese adult.

It also likely corresponds to the era of a "large" soda being 32oz (or even twice that) instead of 16-20oz. Yes, we are drinking more, but WHY are we drinking more? I think it's because HFCS does not signal the brain "you're full- stop now" like other sugars do. Remember, the original Coke serving was a tiny 8oz (or 7oz?) glass bottle.

I have seen studies that give HFCS a very low satiety rating, ie you don't feel "full" unless you drink more. OTOH, I have seen other studies that contradict that.:confused:

Left Hand of Dorkness- OJ with the pulp (such as the stuff you squeeze yourself) has a decent amount of rather nice fiber. OJ without the pulp is more or less "flavored sugar water with vitamin C added".

[md2000]

I'll go along with blaming the portions.

A fast meal used to include one of those 6 or 8 oz. coke bottles. The little paper pouch of fries; and a burger was the size of a McDonalds burger. Now, quarter pounders, whoppers, super-size fries, and 16 to 24 oz soft drinks are standard. Those little dainty cakes at tea? those were supposed to be a dessert. Steaks were 6 or 8 oz. - now 10 is small, 14 or 16 is normal. You every look at a "normal" serving of breakfast cereal, as recommended on the side of the box? Supposed to be half a cup, one of those tiny boxes we used to take camping 30 years ago - yeah right, who eats that little today?

Part of the problem is the arms race of size. If you can't beat them on taste, compete on size. One has super-size, they all have to. Part of the problem is money - really, food has gone from being the second-biggest cost of living after housing, to more trivial than communication and information. Add up your cell phone, cable, internet, video rentals, music etc. and you probably pay more than for groceries. We're fat because food is cheap.

Originally, fat was tagged as the belly-buster, being 2.5 times the calories of protein or sugar. To make things "fat free" they add sugar as necessary to make them taste edible. So the caloric ocntent ahsn;t gone down much, but the balance - fat vs. sugar - has. Maybe that's part of the problem too - not enough fat, our appetite doesn't slow down. Soft drinks would be the worst in that regard - all sugar, no fat. Very few people drink a litre of milk.

[Dangerosa]

Most Americans also used to go out for food rarely. So if a restaurant gave you a big portion, it was a treat. Now there are families who seldom eat a meal cooked at home. And often when they do, its packaged food. So we have a lot less control over what is in our food, and a lot less control over how much ends up on our plates. And, restaurants have helped us establish an idea of portion size that's really not sustainable if you aren't a longshoreman.

Most of us grew up with a "clean your plate/don't waste food" mentality - driven by the thought that food was expensive and necessary. When you are trained from a young age not to "waste" food - then presented with a 12 oz steak, a salad big enough for a meal (covered in dressing, of course), mashed potatoes to feed a hard working farm hand, and a slice of cheesecake bigger than your head - we do what has been ingrained in us by our parents.

[MsRobyn]

A lot of restaurants (and people, for that matter) assume that large portions equal value. If I can get a six-ounce steak for $9.99, wouldn't it be better to get a 12-ounce steak for $12.99? After all, it's twice the meat for only three bucks more. In fact, there's a diner near me whose marquee sign reads "GREAT HOMEMADE FOOD AND PLENTY OF IT." And one of the major casual-dining chains (TGI Fridays, IIRC) advertises smaller portions at lower prices.

I am now going to eat a whole bag of celery sticks. I don't think that's a bad thing.

[Powers]

Very few people drink a litre of milk.

I do so sometimes (more often 10 oz. or so). It's not a panacea, but it's probably better for me than the equivalent amount of pop.


Powers &8^]

[Irishman]

MsRobyn said:
A lot of restaurants (and people, for that matter) assume that large portions equal value. If I can get a six-ounce steak for $9.99, wouldn't it be better to get a 12-ounce steak for $12.99?

But it is a value, you just don't have to eat it all in one sitting.

[MsRobyn]

MsRobyn said:


But it is a value, you just don't have to eat it all in one sitting.

Well, sure, and when I order that much, I tend to do just that. But when you factor in the "don't waste food!" mindset and the "if you don't clean your plate, you won't get dessert" mindset, you get a lot of people eating a lot of food. I've also noticed that some restaurants make it difficult to take leftovers home; one restaurant near me has a "boxing" charge of (IIRC) $2.00 per person that they add to the bill if you request a doggy bag. Others require the server to take the food back to the kitchen to box it, and it's not always a priority with servers.

[md2000]

We see the latest salvo in the burger wars - here McDonalds has the "Big Angus" - going from a quarter-pounder to now a 1/3-pound meat patty. Plus bacon, cheese and whatever other fattening ingredients you wish to add.

There's also a mindset I've taht several co-workers ahve mentioned, so I'm not alone. If I buy a package of nibblies - cookies, chips, whatever - or some baking, I rarely have the willpower to just eat a simple portion. As a result, part of my (unsucessful) dieting means I don;t often buy bags of cookies, or pastry or pie - especially from Costco, where a pie is big enough to feed a village in Bangladesh.

I also like to point out that food is stupidly cheap (but not sure I'd want to be responsible for changing that). It used to be the biggest cost after housing; today we probably spend more on information, when you add up cell, telephone, cable, internet, etc. It only becomes a significant expense if you eat at restaurants a lot.

I still think the culprit is less the corn-syrup-fructose-vs-sucrose issue as I think it's the attempt to substitute sugar for fat. Perhaps the correct mix of those two in the diet is a necessary appetite regulator, and fat-free foods coupled with sugar-water soda is what's helping do us all in...

[Irishman]

MsRobyn said:
Well, sure, and when I order that much, I tend to do just that. But when you factor in the "don't waste food!" mindset and the "if you don't clean your plate, you won't get dessert" mindset, you get a lot of people eating a lot of food.

Yes, it is the mindset that is the problem. Hell, I almost never order appetizers or dessert, and often take half my dinner home. I can't imagine eating appetizer, a full dinner, and desert, and still being able to move.

It's amusing to me, I've noticed when I go visit my parents they typically have dessert. Usually I will eat enough of entree and sides to be too full for dessert right after dinner. Since this is often holidays and the like, I will have a bit of dessert a little later after dinner has settled.

I've also noticed that some restaurants make it difficult to take leftovers home; one restaurant near me has a "boxing" charge of (IIRC) $2.00 per person that they add to the bill if you request a doggy bag. Others require the server to take the food back to the kitchen to box it, and it's not always a priority with servers.

Really? What places do you go? I think I've only been to one place that the waitstaff wanted to take my plate in back to box it for me, and I don't eat there regularly (been there twice). Just about anywhere I go in the standard sit down variety will get you a to-go box, no hassle no charge. Unless it's a buffet*, you've bought the food, it's yours whether you eat it there or take it home, so they shouldn't be fussy about that, and if they are then talk to the management. And if the servers aren't responsive to your request, take it out of their tip. And let them know why.

*All-you-can-eat buffets are the exception, because of their pricing strategy. The idea is to charge enough that the prices averaged across the customer base work out slightly in the restaurant's favor. That means the small eaters (1 time through and they are full) balance the huge eaters (4 plates and may be ready for dessert). Too expensive, small eaters won't go. Too cheap, can't break even, nevermind make profit. So they have to have a "can't take it with you" policy, or everyone becomes a big eater.

[DrDeth]

I can't imagine eating appetizer, a full dinner, and desert, and still being able to move.

It's amusing to me, I've noticed when I go visit my parents they typically have dessert. Usually I will eat enough of entree and sides to be too full for dessert right after dinner.


Really? What places do you go? I think I've only been to one place that the waitstaff wanted to take my plate in back to box it for me, and I don't eat there regularly (been there twice). Just about anywhere I go in the standard sit down variety will get you a to-go box, no hassle no charge.

Right, I agree, after I finish my salad and entree, I can't image eating dessert also. Once in a while if there's a group of us, we'll split an appetizer. Sometime when I have had a big lunch I go for just dessert.

I also agree about "doggie bags", I have never seen anyplace reluctant to let me take it home. (I don't, but my date often does)

Except, as you said, a buffet, and even there they will often be OK if you want a piece of whole fruit to go. I eat at the Disney buffets a few times a year and they are quite generous in that regard.

[Irishman]

I've had a buffet place frown at me for trying to walk out while eating a cookie.

[MsRobyn]

Really? What places do you go? I think I've only been to one place that the waitstaff wanted to take my plate in back to box it for me, and I don't eat there regularly (been there twice). Just about anywhere I go in the standard sit down variety will get you a to-go box, no hassle no charge. Unless it's a buffet*, you've bought the food, it's yours whether you eat it there or take it home, so they shouldn't be fussy about that, and if they are then talk to the management. And if the servers aren't responsive to your request, take it out of their tip. And let them know why.

The restaurant that charged was a fancy restaurant; I can only assume that the charge covered whatever extras, like plastic cutlery. I haven't been there in several years, so I don't even know if they still do that. I didn't take leftovers home that night.

I'm not sure why some restaurants take the plates back to the kitchen to box, unless it's to "freshen it up" a bit. A friend of mine works at a restaurant that does that, and if the pasta-to-sauce ratio looks a little off, they'll fix it. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense, and it's annoying.

That said, though, said friend told me about restaurants he's heard about that have a strict no-doggy bag policy because they serve food that isn't exactly low-risk for food poisoning. I guess someone tried to sue after they left a box of leftovers in their car while they went to a movie or something. One of these restaurants gets around the PR problem by offering customers a coupon good for one free half-order in lieu of the leftovers.

[SeanArenas]

re: doggy bags, I have several friends who think it's OK to let doggy bags sit for long periods before frigging. One time we went to a restaurant on the way to the concert. The meals were HUGE(!) and we each only ate half our meals.

I didn't get mine bagged up. I said ... it's just going to sit in the car for 4 hours, then another 45 minutes home. Food won't be good then.

They said sure it is, just fridge it when you get home, then reheat it before you eat it.

I said, fridge it in 90 minutes or toss it. They didn't agree.

With huge meals served (especially if the price isn't low) that makes people MORE likely to take large meals and let them sit for longer. The mindset of not wasting food (or the mindset of not wasting the money on the expensive food) kept them saving that food through what I considered unhealthy conditions.

[bibliophage]

I have several friends who think it's OK to let doggy bags sit for long periods before frigging. I'm not normally one to judge, but I don't believe you should be frigging (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/frig) your food, especially if you plan to eat it later.

[SeanArenas]

An article in PopSci talks a bit about this:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-02/unusual-suspects-0

[Chronos]

It should be noted, incidentally, that honey is almost the exact same thing as high fructose corn syrup. Oddly, many of the same folks who decry HFCS as the work of the Devil and responsible for all our health problems also praise the virtues of that all-natural sweetener honey.

[Duckster]

Pepsi has introduced Pepsi Throwback, sweetened with "pure sugar". Same price as regular.

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback were a limited production run that operated from mid-April to mid-June.

I'm down to 15 cases of the stuff in my garage now. It's gotta last until we can convince Pepsico to bring it back permanently.

[SeanArenas]

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback were a limited production run that operated from mid-April to mid-June.

I'm down to 15 cases of the stuff in my garage now. It's gotta last until we can convince Pepsico to bring it back permanently.Huh! I don't think they had that near me...... what's it taste like?

[kidchameleon]

Huh! I don't think they had that near me...... what's it taste like?

Coke. :p

[MsRobyn]

Pepsi Throwback and Mountain Dew Throwback were a limited production run that operated from mid-April to mid-June.

I'm down to 15 cases of the stuff in my garage now. It's gotta last until we can convince Pepsico to bring it back permanently.

I bought a case of bottles yesterday. I got the feeling that the store manager was happy to get it off his hands.

[TSBG]

I know these are not scientifically validated data points (and my dad is a physicist, so I understand the distinction), but there's a certain amount of observation going on in this thread anyway:

1. I remember 12-oz glass bottles of soda (or pop, as we said) when I was perhaps 14, in 1982. I didn't drink a whole bottle. I'd pour half over a lot of ice, too sweet otherwise. Of course if I didn't drink the rest soonish, or share with little sis, mom got annoyed as the soda got flat and then poured out.

2. I think I remember "RC" cola--"Royal Crown"--having bigger bottles, maybe 20 oz, but with a screw cap to preserve the fizz. Was RC Canadian? I grew up in Buffalo so we had Ca. products. But those big bottles seemed luxurious.

3. However, I drank a boatload of "iced tea" that my mom made with generous helpings of frozen lemonade or limeade. Goodness knows what was in it--pre-nutritional labeling. However it was also, I think, pre-HFCS. In California, where I live now, we'd call it an "Arnold Palmer"--half iced tea, half lemonade. Pretty sweet. I drank enough that my dentist at 16 thought I was a smoker, my teeth were that dark from the tea. I was not fat as a kid, though not especially active either.

For what it's worth.

[SeanArenas]

I know these are not scientifically validated data points (and my dad is a physicist, so I understand the distinction), but there's a certain amount of observation going on in this thread anyway:

1. I remember 12-oz glass bottles of soda (or pop, as we said) when I was perhaps 14, in 1982. I didn't drink a whole bottle. I'd pour half over a lot of ice, too sweet otherwise. Of course if I didn't drink the rest soonish, or share with little sis, mom got annoyed as the soda got flat and then poured out.

2. I think I remember "RC" cola--"Royal Crown"--having bigger bottles, maybe 20 oz, but with a screw cap to preserve the fizz. Was RC Canadian? I grew up in Buffalo so we had Ca. products. But those big bottles seemed luxurious.

3. However, I drank a boatload of "iced tea" that my mom made with generous helpings of frozen lemonade or limeade. Goodness knows what was in it--pre-nutritional labeling. However it was also, I think, pre-HFCS. In California, where I live now, we'd call it an "Arnold Palmer"--half iced tea, half lemonade. Pretty sweet. I drank enough that my dentist at 16 thought I was a smoker, my teeth were that dark from the tea. I was not fat as a kid, though not especially active either.

For what it's worth.I find it interesting, it's called "pop" in the midwest and eastern U.S., "soda" in the far west, and "cola" in the rest (although the term never refers to clear carbonated beverages of course). YMMV, but so far, I've never been wrong about guessing what 1/3 of the U.S. someone is from based on what they call the beverage.

I remember the advent of 2-liter bottles and Super Big Gulp drinks at 7-11 (when was that, mid 80s?). Back then, it was standard procedure for a 2-liter bottle to last 3 or 4 days, even when the whole family was drinking from it. It was a long-lasting purchase.

In the late 90s, I lived in a LAN-party house with a ton of people hanging out constantly who would play computer games about 20 hours a day. Many of these people drank 1 or 2 bottles (2-liters each) every day. Each.

Either attitudes changed, or ingredients changed, or both.

[Khadaji]

I find it interesting, it's called "pop" in the midwest and eastern U.S., "soda" in the far west, and "cola" in the rest (although the term never refers to clear carbonated beverages of course). YMMV, but so far, I've never been wrong about guessing what 1/3 of the U.S. someone is from based on what they call the beverage.

I remember the advent of 2-liter bottles and Super Big Gulp drinks at 7-11 (when was that, mid 80s?). Back then, it was standard procedure for a 2-liter bottle to last 3 or 4 days, even when the whole family was drinking from it. It was a long-lasting purchase.

In the late 90s, I lived in a LAN-party house with a ton of people hanging out constantly who would play computer games about 20 hours a day. Many of these people drank 1 or 2 bottles (2-liters each) every day. Each.

Either attitudes changed, or ingredients changed, or both.The Soda/Pop map: http://popvssoda.com:2998/

[SeanArenas]

The Soda/Pop map: http://popvssoda.com:2998/Thanks.. I forgot to mention about people who call it Coke, whether they mean Coke or Pepsi.

My department at work goes to lunch together every Friday. People have determined the most specific ways for getting exactly what they want.

Person one: Coke or Pepsi
Person two: Water with no ice
Person three: Soda water
Person four: Strawberry lemonade
Person five: Water with ice
Person six: Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi
Person seven: Root beer

No one says "cola" or "pop" or "soda" because that elicits a response question, usually listing what they carry that meets that criteria. By saying "Coke or Pepsi," they get the "cola" of that line without further conversation.


But all that is while ordering. In casual conversation, they say "soda."

[DrDeth]

Thanks.. I forgot to mention about people who call it Coke, whether they mean Coke or Pepsi.

My department at work goes to lunch together every Friday. People have determined the most specific ways for getting exactly what they want.

Person one: Coke or Pepsi
Person two: Water with no ice
Person three: Soda water
Person four: Strawberry lemonade
Person five: Water with ice
Person six: Diet Coke or Diet Pepsi
Person seven: Root beer

But all that is while ordering. In casual conversation, they say "soda."

I say "diet soda". Now, 80% of the time that's Diet Coke, but I prefer Diet Pepsi. But if I order Diet Pepsi, they will correct me if all they serve is Coke products.

[Khadaji]

I say "diet soda". Now, 80% of the time that's Diet Coke, but I prefer Diet Pepsi. But if I order Diet Pepsi, they will correct me if all they serve is Coke products.
I say diet cola, if I indeed want a diet cola. It seems that this isn't sufficient, because I will almost always be asked "Is diet coke OK?"

[DrDeth]

I say diet cola, if I indeed want a diet cola. It seems that this isn't sufficient, because I will almost always be asked "Is diet coke OK?"

Yeah, that chaps my hide too. But if you say "Diet Pepsi", you will always get corrected if all they have is Diet Coke.

OTOH, I have never had a table-service restaurant serve any Diet other than diet cola from it's fountain. Some fast-food places have more selection- sometimes they have the Diet lemonade sold by Coke or if they carry Pepsi products they might have Diet Mt Dew or Diet Sobe. I like having a non-caffeine diet beverage as a choice.

[MsRobyn]

Yeah, that chaps my hide too. But if you say "Diet Pepsi", you will always get corrected if all they have is Diet Coke.

OTOH, I have never had a table-service restaurant serve any Diet other than diet cola from it's fountain. Some fast-food places have more selection- sometimes they have the Diet lemonade sold by Coke or if they carry Pepsi products they might have Diet Mt Dew or Diet Sobe. I like having a non-caffeine diet beverage as a choice.

There are a handful of restaurants where I live that serve Diet Dr Pepper and Diet Mountain Dew, and one that serves diet orange. They tend to be Chinese buffets.

[DrDeth]

There are a handful of restaurants where I live that serve Diet Dr Pepper and Diet Mountain Dew, and one that serves diet orange. They tend to be Chinese buffets.


But they aren't table service are they? Do you serve yourself your own drink?

[MsRobyn]

No, there is a server who brings drinks and clears dirty dishes. The customers get their own food, however.

[SeanArenas]

I say diet cola, if I indeed want a diet cola. It seems that this isn't sufficient, because I will almost always be asked "Is diet coke OK?"Try what my friends try. Say, "I'll take a Diet Coke or a Diet Pepsi, whichever you have," and see if that helps the conversation just move on at that point.

[sawdee]

I would like to highlight something that is, though perhaps not immediately relevant to the article, nonetheless significant and missed there and mentioned only once in this thread:

As I understood it, it's not that HFCS is cheap, it's that in the US sugar is tarriffed enough to drive the cost higher than HFCS

The reason there is even a discussion about HFCS in the first place is because the US corn lobby has paid congress to make American consumers and food manufacturers pay almost 200% more for sugar than the rest of the world. Select few industries in the US puppeteer congress as shamelessly as corn. Corn prices too low? No problem -- congress (via legislation authorizing it) pays farmers /not to grow/ corn in order to decrease market supply and raise the price.

Did you ever wonder why corn is the leading ingredient in most pet food? It's not because our feline companions have ever been observed stalking corn stalks, it's because the corn lobby set it up this way. Veterinarians can tell you about the ill-effects of starch build up in dogs as a result of most dog food.

Apparently when your industry is a member of the country's Good Ol Boys club, the word Free in Free Market means Free to do whatever you want.

[md2000]

... Select few industries in the US puppeteer congress as shamelessly as corn.

Apparently when your industry is a member of the country's Good Ol Boys club, the word Free in Free Market means Free to do whatever you want.

they say an honest politician is one who stays bought.

[tr0psn4j]

I would like to highlight something that is, though perhaps not immediately relevant to the article, nonetheless significant and missed there and mentioned only once in this thread:



The reason there is even a discussion about HFCS in the first place is because the US corn lobby has paid congress to make American consumers and food manufacturers pay almost 200% more for sugar than the rest of the world. Select few industries in the US puppeteer congress as shamelessly as corn. Corn prices too low? No problem -- congress (via legislation authorizing it) pays farmers /not to grow/ corn in order to decrease market supply and raise the price.



Can you either elaborate on that or provide some good links to further reading. I was having a discussion with a coworker and I was pretty much starting to make that point but ended up letting it go since I didn't feel like I knew enough about it.

[sawdee]

Can you either elaborate on that or provide some good links to further reading. I was having a discussion with a coworker and I was pretty much starting to make that point but ended up letting it go since I didn't feel like I knew enough about it.

Sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_farm_bill:
"Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, drafts and sponsors initial house farm bill. His proposal would spend the equivalent of the entire federal budget surplus for FY2001, and included $76 billion in new spending on top of the previous bill's spending, for a total of $171 billion."

The merits of agricultural subsidies are one controversial debate (on which you can guess my position); that corn deserves far more of them than any other crop is a controversy I would scarcely call a debate outside of the local economies that benefit directly and mostly from agriculture.

According to Wikipedia's source
"Encyclopedia of Junk Food and Fast Food, Andrew F. Smith, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 (page 258)" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup:
"Since the mid-90s US Federal subsidies to corn growers have amounted to $40 billion"

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html
FTA:
"Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30." I would ask that anyone who takes issue with CATO's general political positions (Democrats) consider this particular research in isolation. The agriculture industry it's speaking out against is far more aligned with the party it traditionally supports, lending credibility to their position if anything.

[Lute Skywatcher]

The reason there is even a discussion about HFCS in the first place is because the US corn lobby has paid congress to make American consumers and food manufacturers pay almost 200% more for sugar than the rest of the world. Select few industries in the US puppeteer congress as shamelessly as corn. Corn prices too low? No problem -- congress (via legislation authorizing it) pays farmers /not to grow/ corn in order to decrease market supply and raise the price.Moreover, the vast majority of the corn that is grown has much less nutritional value than it did 50 years ago because corn that is full of nutrients isn't beneficial for producing corn syrup.

[Guinastasia]

Pepsi has introduced Pepsi Throwback, sweetened with "pure sugar". Same price as regular.

Does it come in caffeine-free?

[Acsenray]

I said, fridge it in 90 minutes or toss it. They didn't agree.

I wouldn't agree either.

With huge meals served (especially if the price isn't low) that makes people MORE likely to take large meals and let them sit for longer. The mindset of not wasting food (or the mindset of not wasting the money on the expensive food) kept them saving that food through what I considered unhealthy conditions.

Eh. You can leave cooked food unrefrigerated 8-12 hours no problem, so long as it's covered. Remember cooking is a preservation technique.

This about this: Do you buy bread from the supermarket? They don't refrigerate it. It's probably been sitting on the shelf for days.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

This about this: Do you buy bread from the supermarket? They don't refrigerate it. It's probably been sitting on the shelf for days.No, that's probably not accurate for bread.

In the USA, bread is baked at night and delivered to supermarkets every morning, 5-6 days a week. Any leftover bread that hasn't sold is removed, and sold as day-old bread in bakery outlet stores. They have various color codes on the twist-ties used on the packages so the store workers can quickly identify old bread.

Most bakeries don't deliver on Sundays, so if you shop Sunday evening, you might get bread that was baked Friday night and delivered Saturday morning, and so is 40 hours old or so. But bread doesn't get much older than that.

If you want old stuff, look in the produce section. I've been in a warehouse in the midst of a Minnesota January winter, and seen racks of 'Minnesota grown' apples that were picked in September or October, about to be sent to stores February 1st. And they weren't preserved in any way, except being stored in a controlled environment.

[glilly]

Moreover, the vast majority of the corn that is grown has much less nutritional value than it did 50 years ago because corn that is full of nutrients isn't beneficial for producing corn syrup.

Though this may be technically true, it sounds misleading. Over the past 50 years there has been a large growth in demand for high-starch corn, which farmers have supplied. That could let one say that corn "on average" has less nutritional value, but that average is skewed by corn not grown for human consumption, which makes it a meaningless metric.

Farmers grow strains of corn with high starch content (and low everything-else*) for HFCS, ethanol, and other products derived from starch.

These aren't particularly palatable, so varieties of sweet corn are grown for human consumption.



*I've simplified the explanation a bit, for example, there are strains of corn with both high starch and high oil (for corn oil extraction). But generally there are "industrial" corn and sweet corn.

[aceplace57]

It seems like soda is sweeter these days than forty years ago. I read somewhere that Pepsi won all those taste tests in the 1980's because it's sweeter. Younger people preferred it in the test because it is sweeter.

Maybe it's the HFCS? Or maybe coke added more sweetener too? Coke had to do something to stay ahead in the cola wars.

Size plays a big role. Coke started in 6 oz bottles. Then 10 oz when I was a kid. But, we only got coke about three times a week. Suddenly, cokes are 20 oz and kids are drinking the things for breakfast? No wonder childhood diabetes is rising.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Coke started in 6 oz bottles. Then 10 oz when I was a kid. But, we only got coke about three times a week. Suddenly, cokes are 20 oz and kids are drinking the things for breakfast?
No wonder childhood diabetes is rising.Do you have a cite for your implication that drinking sweet things causes diabetes?

Because as far a I know, it is still a genetic-related disease. It may be noticed sooner in people who comsume more sheets, but the actual cause is still their genetics.

(As someone with a grandmother, both father & mother, 3 uncles, 2 aunts, 4 cousins, and 1 brother who are diabetic, I'm well aware of the genetic connections!)

[kidchameleon]

Do you have a cite for your implication that drinking sweet things causes diabetes?

Because as far a I know, it is still a genetic-related disease. It may be noticed sooner in people who comsume more sheets, but the actual cause is still their genetics.

Type 2 is a little different, according to this article (https://health.google.com/health/ref/Type+2+diabetes):

"Because sugar is not getting into the tissues, abnormally high levels of sugar build up in the blood. This is called hyperglycemia. Many people with insulin resistance have hyperglycemia and high blood insulin levels at the same time. People who are overweight have a higher risk of insulin resistance, because fat interferes with the body's ability to use insulin."

[aceplace57]

Do you have a cite for your implication that drinking sweet things causes diabetes?


It seems like every news report blames a high sugar diet (in childhood) and lack of exercise for the ballooning childhood diabetes epidemic. Maybe the news people are blowing it out of proportion. I'm just repeating what they say. I do hear people ordering cokes for breakfast at McDonalds. Makes me want to gag. Cokes were for special occasions in my family. You drank one after mowing the yard, or playing football in the backyard. They weren't intended as a substitute for water.

[md2000]

I don't think it's so much childhood (Type I) diabetes that is epidemic. Moreso, it is Type II - adult onset - which used to happen about age 40 or 50 for obese people; now happens at 20 or 30 for some.

One scientist I heard interviewed on the radio was working on the 30-second work-out. Sounds stupid, but basically - Type II is from the body having so much sugar in the system, it decides to strop processing it. Insulin stops working the way it should. They were experimenting to show that exercising for at least 30 seconds at top effort 3 times a week was as effective as anyting else in making insulin to do its job. This was enough effort (if you did 110%) to empty the stored energy in your muscles, allowing the insulin to recharge them.

My theory is that most "random" disease like Type I diabetes, heart attacks, alzheimers, Parkinsons, arthritis and such are virus-related. Unlike chronic conditions, they strike randomly at people for no specific reason - just like a virus. Other factors may contribute; but some obese people have no heart problems, some perfectly thin people get clogs. Your immune system may just decide to randomly attack your joints or your pancreas - or it may be in response to some minor infection we don't know about.

Parkinsons often behaves just like a wasting disease - some cures like stem cells or fetal brain tissue relieve the symptoms for a while, then as that new tissue is destroyed too - the symptoms return just as strong.

When something just "flares up" it may be a recurrence of a dormant virus, much as cold sores or post-polio syndrome happen randomly.

See how much effort it took to just find the AIDS virus when they knew it was there in the 1980's? We're not even looking at this problem. Who remembers that until the 1990's stomach ulcers were believed to be life-style induced, usually from chronic worrying? Today we acknowledge they are infections, and a simple drug will cure them.