It's the trans-fats in potato chips which are bad for you. Saturated fat has a neutral effect on blood cholesterol levels. But mostly it's the starch in the potatoes which causes the raise in triglycerides which far and away causes the most damage to a persons blood cholesterol levels. And eating "cholestorel-free eggs" is unhealthy, you'll be missing most of the nutrition from the eggs - eating whole eggs have a positive effect on your cholesterol (see Jimmy Moore interviewing the Eades about an 88-year old dude on an all-egg diet), they only raise the "good cholesterol" - it's sugar and starches which raises the "bad cholesterol". If it's "fat-free" then it's probably very bad for your cholesterol.

This study didn't fare well under close scrutiny, it wasn't well-done. ArsTechnica investigated it further and critiqued it fairly well. Which doesn't put HFCS off the hook, but regular table sugar is still extremely damaging on any animal that consumes it!

Yes, the topic of food addictiveness has been studied a lot and is well understood. It's the sugar which causes the dopamine release, and the sensation of pleasure. Fat enhances the absorption of the sugar - fat enhances the absorption of any food it's consumed with. Take away the sugar and leave a high-fat only diet and there is no addictive overeating problem. Take away the fat and leave the sugar, and there is the same problem, it's only marginally less pronounced. The headline is entirely misleading - but expected, people with sugar addictions often blame the "fat content" for their problems, they can't face their addiction head-on.

Agave syrup is just as heavily processed as HFCS. It's also got a higher fructose content than HFCS. Agave syrup is worse than HFCS.

Kind of. Fruit is something that should generally be consumed in moderation (1 to 5 servings per day). But fruit also has fairly low amounts of fructose in comparison to most HFCS food products. For example, fruit juice or soda pop are equivalent to eating 8-14 servings of fruit in terms of fructose consumption. And people can have many cans of soda pop in a day. The liver will convert fructose into glucose until the liver's glyocgen stores are topped up - depending upon activity levels, physiology and which scientists/nutritionist you listen to, this is anywhere from 10-80 grams per day. Any fructose consumed beyond a full store of liver glycogen, and the liver turns the fructose into really nasty crap.

In terms of human evolution, it wasn't until the last one hundred years when we were able to consume fruit year round. Furthermore, we've selected for fruit which is sweeter, and higher in fructose content over the years. Today's apple can have 3 times the amount of fructose that apples consumed a hundred years ago. We simply don't have the mechanisms in our liver to deal with significant quantities of fructose.

Yes, people here are also saying that there is something wrong with the study, see ArsTechnica's take on it. It was a poorly run study. The tip off that it was a poorly run study is that the Princeton article on the study suggests that factors such as the bond between fructose and glucose could be accounting for the significant difference between HFCS and sucrose.

Agave nectar is worse than HFCS. It has a lower glycemic index because it has a higher fructose content. The fructose is converted to bad fats directly by the liver, so there is less of a blood sugar spike, but the triglycerides created in this process is worse than a blood sugar spike.

http://www.westonaprice.org/Agave-Nectar-Worse-Than-We-Thought.html

Yeah, I've looked at my local Whole Foods for HFCS. It's in many of their salad dressings and barbecue sauces they carry. Although to be fair, there are more trace amounts of HFCS, they don't carry things like HFCS-sweetened bread. However, they do stock and sell agave nectar syrup (and market it fairly aggressively as end-cap displays) and agave nectar syrup is even worse than HFCS.

You can control your HFCS intake in America. Sure, it's not an easy transition to make, but The Primal Blueprint (http://www.amazon.com/Primal-Blueprint-Reprogram-effortless-boundless/dp/0982207700) which gives guidelines for eating along a paleolithic diet, has been in top ten best selling in the Diet category for a while. The paleolithic movement has a significant amount of followers in America, and is still growing rapidly. The paleo diet also has a much lower level of recidivism than other diets, because unlike other diets, the paleo diet actually works - you feel way better than you would on other diet.

The fact that HFCS is so prevalent in bread in America is ridiculous. It's going to completely fuck-up your taste buds, and desensitive you so much that even what were traditionally sweet foods will taste bland and flavourless. But eating bread to begin with is fairly ridiculous, since it's such a poor source of nutrients and is so poorly digestable by humans. The only animals in nature that eat grains are birds. Yet humans have made it "healthy staple" of our diet. It makes no sense.

Yes, we have made small evolutionary changes to adapt to increased carbohydrate consupmtion, such as preserving the enzyme for digesting lactose beyond the age of 3. But biologically, these are small changes. Changes such as how the liver operates or how energy is used at the cellular level, are most likely the same as they were 10,000 years ago before the agricultural revolution. Carbohydrates tend to be a more difficult form of energy to process biologically than protein or fat - sugars can bind to unwanted areas of an organism (advanced glycation end products). A study done last year for example showed that c. elegans worms had a 20% reduced lifespan on a glucose high diet.

Except the land is purposefully being allowed to be fallow to slow the erosion of top soil. Top soil is eroding 10 times faster than it's being replaced in the US right now, it replenishes very slowly, and when it's gone the land becomes desert. Modern agricultural practices are already depleting the land at rate that will leave the earth with massive famine and be massively inhospitable.

http://www.seattlepi.com/national/348200_dirt22.html?source=mypi

Yeah, who are these researchers talking to? I've only heard from fitness junkies that you get "afterburn" from high intensity interval training, and no "afterburn" effect from low intensity training ...

Yeah, but the point is this car doesn't have a "full tank of gas". At that level of fuel efficiency, it's like driving your Jeep 200 miles at 50 mph on nothing but fumes - about the last 1/2 gallon of gas in a 10 gallon tank.

A 20 year lease sounds like a dumb gimmick.

But you could drive the car in a climate that gets snow and salted roads - the body is carbon fiber - no rust!

A multi-vitamin and a sugary drink (or water) is not even close to the equivalent to eating your fill of fruits and veggies. Yes, you will meet or exceed your bodies vitamin and mineral requirements, but you'll be completely lacking in phytonutrients, fiber, fatty acids and anti-oxidants. The human body requires a lot more than just vitamins, minerals and simple carbohydrates!