Prior to the yuckyness I used to have conversations with strangers about HoHos and DingDongs. It is amazing how people react to the debate of HoHos vs. DingDongs. I would say 90% of those I talked to, definitely had a preference for one or the other. I miss those days, everyone loved to get into the HoHo and DingDong debate. One time I had a whole store crowed around talking to this subject, probably right around 30 people. Now all I have to talk about is what happened to Mars and the Snicker’s candy bar, which is yucky as well. With all this going on, I might get back to my high school weight.

Isn’t the internet a great place

Having said that, I have both successfully quit smoking in my life as well as been successful in areas of dietary change, and I can testify that the with-drawl and the mental strength required to change are very similar. I agree though that quitting nicotine is far more difficult and can be regarded as a true addiction.

I also feel that a habit that one finds extremely difficult to change can similarly be regarded as an ‘addiction’, if only psychologically. I prefer to think, after evaluating the medical definition of ‘addiction’, that addiction has many forms and some are based on different physical factors of differing strengths, while other forms are based on psychological factors with differing strengths.

Again just to clarify, the term ‘addiction’ in being used in my posts in the more colloquial sense.

PS : Being an uncouth barbarian, *Grunts in agreement with JediBear and drinks his nasty coffee …. “mmm coffee good”*

On the other hand, most people have some kind of habitual diet, and breaking a habit can always be tough. To use the word addiction properly, it needs to apply to things that go beyond simple habit. Not just something that’s hard to stop doing, or that you miss doing, but something that has withdrawal symptoms. Cutting sugar is not like quitting cigarettes.

I don’t think there’s any solid science (and I could be wrong) backing reducing one of the three categories of nutrients in favor of the other two as a healthy choice for weight reduction. The basic key to healthy, long-term weight-loss is to eat less (while maintaining a balanced diet — which most people don’t have in the first place) and/or excersise more.

As to the HoHos, I don’t even know if the no transfats thing even represents a change to the recipe. I certainly can’t say I have any preference for transfats. For sure, some things need fats to taste right, but transfats? Um, no.

I will admit, adding sugar to cheap instant coffee is almost essential to get rid of the taste of the um … cheapness, but if you get a fresh ground coffee of high quality, give it a week or so of getting used to having no sugar in it and you will never go back. Well at least I didn’t. I bought a high quality coffee a few weeks ago that had sugar added to it by mistake. By the time I went to drink it it was too late to go back, but when I tasted the sugar it was really noticeable, and it spoiled the flavour of the coffee itself. Chucked it.

Day old in the pot is one thing. Day old in your stomach is another.

At least you never have to worry about it going cold.

Actually, I’m in need of a digestive system that can handle coffee. I drink it, and it stays with me all day. Nothing like the taste of the coffee you drank in the morning when you’re going to bed that night. And I don’t mean a new cup from the same pot. Day old in the pot is one thing. Day old in your stomach is another.

Yeah, I guessed, but I was being pedantic. What KC meant to say was not what (s)he actually did say.

Irishman again:
“Nigel, thanks for the link on cis vs trans, etc.”

No problemo.

Oh. You are in desperate need of finding some good coffee. A good-quality coffee is smooth enough by itself that it needs neither sugar nor milk / cream to take off the bitter edge.

If you feel like splashing out, I would recommend Jamaica Blue Mountain; otherwise a Colombian medium roast should illustrate the point sufficiently. After all, there’s nothing quite like a bit of pure Colombian first thing in the morning!

Checked the link. No details there. There seems to be an assumption in your argument that smokers and obese will be relatively healthy up until they kick off, whereas non-smokers and non-obese people will have lots of declining health issues over time. I’m not sure that’s a valid assumption. While I concede that everyone is probably subject to some declining health with age leading to chronic meds and treatment, I fail to see how one can assume that smokers and obese will not have long term health issues and costs leading up to their shortened life span. If the rate of decline over time is related to the lifestyle choices as well as the age, then it cannot be a simple matter to state more age means more costs.

billg said:
> I recommend dark chocolate, salty almonds, and strong coffee.

Why the heck does everyone keep recommending dark chocolate? Some of us like sweet. Same goes for coffee. What’s the point of drinking that? I have to add so much sugar and creamer to make it tolerable, I might as well just drink a soda. (And the coffee doesn’t digest as well. YMMV.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfat

I’ve heard that even tonic water in the USA is made with corn syrup. Which sucks if you have a corn allergy. But also might make it taste disgusting.

“Indian Tonic Water” was invented as prophylaxis against malaria. But the quinine in the tonic gave it a very sharp taste, so the Brits added gin to it to make it more palatable. Hence the G & T. Tonic water is supposed to have a sharp taste, not be sweet.

That sounds like an Atkinson diet to me.

There is a theoretical basis behind all of that. A diet high in carbohydrates causes our bodies to convert sugars into fats. Thus, after a high-carb meal (particularly with a sugar kick at the end), our metabolism is working overtime to convert sugar into fat. Subsequently, once we have absorbed all the sugar from our guts, the anabolism of sugar into fat causes a dip in blood sugar level, which we interpret as hunger.

A high-fat low-carb diet, by contrast, kick-starts the catabolism of fats (because, in the absence of carbohydrate in the gut, without breaking down fat, we would not get enough energy to keep moving). Blood sugar level is maintained from (a) residual carbohydrate in the diet (because you cannot eliminate all carbs completely – even a fatty steak contains some carbohydrate), and (b) conversion of acetate (which can be derived from fats) into sugars. However, during a low-carb diet, the muscles and most organs metabolise fat for energy. Only the brain continues to run on sugar (because it is incapable of metabolising fat for energy).

I think some of this is still hypothetical, but, if you ask me, it seems reasonably coherent.

I suspect in fact your taste buds have changed (i’ve found I dislike foods i used to like, and some still contain transfat).

Also, I do not think it is fair to say they’re infringing on your taste to ban something. Recipes can very well be changed to account the slight difference in the fats. In addition, health care is crazy, and no one healthy should have to pay premium (I don’t mean premiums) for those who want their Ho’s.

The public was never educated (still really isn’t, besides an unquantifiable “bad”) of the dangers. = Not fair.

Besides this….Great blog!

I used to love those stupid freakin’ ‘peeps’ (marshmallow candies you see at Easter, used to be yellow little chick shaped, now you can get them in almost any color). Anyhoo, but some for my kids recently and tried one and I nearly spat it out too!

Damn those things are horrid! So sweet they’re almost bitter to me.

Most of the things i loved as a kid are abhorrent to me now.

Really it could be just maturity.

Transfats really are no damned good for ya though. Whether or not the gov’t should be in the business of making food illegal….that’s a tough one. People are idiots, when do they ever do what’s best for themselves….then they turn around and sue the companies for poisoning them and the gov’t for not protecting them.

No one is responsible for him or herself anymore.

R.

I kicked my sugar addiction when I started on a controlled-carb diet a few years ago. I never went back. Some people think I’m some kind of loony, but hey, I’m not the one running around proclaiming “But I just have to have my potatoes/sugar/white bread!” I’m not the one who goes into a feeding frenzy every time someone sticks a plate of doughnuts in front of my face.

Informing the people that trans-fats are is a start, but the trouble is that most people just don’t care enough to do anything. They are literally addicted to the products that contain them.

I’ve done a lot of reading and research into diet and nutrition, and the evidence points to fats being largely unresponsible for the health problems people face. I make no effort to cut fats, yet I maintain my weight despite my fairly sedentary lifestyle. Instead, I cut sugars and starches. It works for me. (Unlike carbohydrates, fats actually satiate my hunger, and keep me feeling full longer.) People can hound and rail at me, tell me that there’s no way that what I’m eating can be healthy, but I’ve done the research. For some mysterious reason, the way I’m eating is working for hundreds of people. People inexplicably have normal levels of blood cholesterol. They don’t feel hungry every time they turn around. They don’t gorge themselves because the foods they eat actually satisfy them. Bloodsugar problems disappear. Diabetics no longer require insulin. Hypoglycemiacs stop their problem from turning into diabetes in the first place.

Yet despite these vast improvements, people still inform us that we’re “doing it wrong.”

Hmph! If we’re so healthy, how is it so wrong?

Hydrox cookies have never been the same since they took the lard out of the filling. Lard is natural, bring back the lard!

It seems to me, then, that trans-unsaturated fatty acids are a bit worse than saturated fats with respect to CHD, and they may play a role in type II diabetes, but this is unclear at the moment.

However, it also occurs to me that the foods that naturally contain trans-fats also contain saturated fat, so minimising one’s intake of saturated fats will also minimise the intake of trans-fats.

WRT processed fats, i.e. hydrogenated oils (which seems to be the principle source of trans fats in most people’s diets), eating less processed food will be better for you. Since a great deal of processed food has sugar added also, it seems that avoiding a diet high in processed foods is a win-win (from the perspectives of dental wellbeing, type II diabetes risk, and CHD risk).

However, I hardly think this is enough to justify describing trans-fats as “toxic”, as Budget Astronomer did. Potassium cyanide is toxic. Sodium azide is toxic. Trans-fats appear to be a risk factor, but so are many other substances in our food, which we can control by consuming them only in moderation.

HoHos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HoHos

Picture: http://www.hostesscakes.com/images/box_hohos.jpg