<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_24_2122231</id>
	<title>High Fructose Corn Syrup Causes Bigger Weight Gain In Rats</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269423000000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>krou writes <i>"In an experiment conducted by a Princeton University team, 'Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/">gained significantly more weight</a> than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.' Long-term consumption also 'led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.' Psychology professor Bart Hoebel commented that 'When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese &mdash; every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>krou writes " In an experiment conducted by a Princeton University team , 'Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar , even when their overall caloric intake was the same .
' Long-term consumption also 'led to abnormal increases in body fat , especially in the abdomen , and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides .
' Psychology professor Bart Hoebel commented that 'When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop , they 're becoming obese    every single one , across the board .
Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet , you do n't see this ; they do n't all gain extra weight .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>krou writes "In an experiment conducted by a Princeton University team, 'Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
' Long-term consumption also 'led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides.
' Psychology professor Bart Hoebel commented that 'When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese — every single one, across the board.
Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606668</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>pydev</author>
	<datestamp>1269444540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Biochemically [fructose] can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.</i></p><p>Fructose is only metabolized when there is fructokinase available, and that exists only in the liver (well, and in sperm). Glucose, on the other hand, can be metabolized by just about every cell in the body.   This has big implications for obesity and health.  In addition, fructose seems to affect appetite differently from glucose.  See the links below.</p><p><a href="http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time\%201-2/carbohydrate\_metabolism.htm" title="medbio.info">http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time\%201-2/carbohydrate\_metabolism.htm</a> [medbio.info]</p><p><a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091811.htm" title="sciencedaily.com">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091811.htm</a> [sciencedaily.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Biochemically [ fructose ] can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.Fructose is only metabolized when there is fructokinase available , and that exists only in the liver ( well , and in sperm ) .
Glucose , on the other hand , can be metabolized by just about every cell in the body .
This has big implications for obesity and health .
In addition , fructose seems to affect appetite differently from glucose .
See the links below.http : //www.medbio.info/Horn/Time \ % 201-2/carbohydrate \ _metabolism.htm [ medbio.info ] http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091811.htm [ sciencedaily.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Biochemically [fructose] can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.Fructose is only metabolized when there is fructokinase available, and that exists only in the liver (well, and in sperm).
Glucose, on the other hand, can be metabolized by just about every cell in the body.
This has big implications for obesity and health.
In addition, fructose seems to affect appetite differently from glucose.
See the links below.http://www.medbio.info/Horn/Time\%201-2/carbohydrate\_metabolism.htm [medbio.info]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090325091811.htm [sciencedaily.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604296</id>
	<title>How does this compare to regular corn syrup?</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1269427920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anybody know of research that compares this to regular corn syrup (i.e., that which has not been "treated" to convert some of the glucose into fructose to bring the sweetness to table-sugar levels)? I'm just curious if it's corn syrup in general or if there's something peculiar to HFCS.</p><p>In any case, I think people need to realize that <em>neither</em> table sugar nor HFCS is "good"--they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature, and they are purely empty Calories. Avoid them both and eat whole foods as much as you can--and, of course, get some exercise. (If only you could put <em>that</em> into the US healthcare bill!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody know of research that compares this to regular corn syrup ( i.e. , that which has not been " treated " to convert some of the glucose into fructose to bring the sweetness to table-sugar levels ) ?
I 'm just curious if it 's corn syrup in general or if there 's something peculiar to HFCS.In any case , I think people need to realize that neither table sugar nor HFCS is " good " --they 're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature , and they are purely empty Calories .
Avoid them both and eat whole foods as much as you can--and , of course , get some exercise .
( If only you could put that into the US healthcare bill !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody know of research that compares this to regular corn syrup (i.e., that which has not been "treated" to convert some of the glucose into fructose to bring the sweetness to table-sugar levels)?
I'm just curious if it's corn syrup in general or if there's something peculiar to HFCS.In any case, I think people need to realize that neither table sugar nor HFCS is "good"--they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature, and they are purely empty Calories.
Avoid them both and eat whole foods as much as you can--and, of course, get some exercise.
(If only you could put that into the US healthcare bill!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472</id>
	<title>give me more of that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269428580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cane sugar is far more efficient to produce than corn sweetener but is primarily produced in tropical and subtropical regions outside of the United States .  The agribusiness lobby in in the United States pays off politicians to restrict imports, driving up the price of sugar within the the U.S. to above that of corn syrup.  Without import restrictions on sugar, all those products you buy which are sweetened with corn syrup would be sweetened with sugar instead.  And cost less.</p><p>You can blame the agribusiness lobby and the protectionist whores in the U.S. congress for this situation.   It is a clear-cut case of government power expended to benefit he corrupt few at the expense of the many.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cane sugar is far more efficient to produce than corn sweetener but is primarily produced in tropical and subtropical regions outside of the United States .
The agribusiness lobby in in the United States pays off politicians to restrict imports , driving up the price of sugar within the the U.S. to above that of corn syrup .
Without import restrictions on sugar , all those products you buy which are sweetened with corn syrup would be sweetened with sugar instead .
And cost less.You can blame the agribusiness lobby and the protectionist whores in the U.S. congress for this situation .
It is a clear-cut case of government power expended to benefit he corrupt few at the expense of the many .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cane sugar is far more efficient to produce than corn sweetener but is primarily produced in tropical and subtropical regions outside of the United States .
The agribusiness lobby in in the United States pays off politicians to restrict imports, driving up the price of sugar within the the U.S. to above that of corn syrup.
Without import restrictions on sugar, all those products you buy which are sweetened with corn syrup would be sweetened with sugar instead.
And cost less.You can blame the agribusiness lobby and the protectionist whores in the U.S. congress for this situation.
It is a clear-cut case of government power expended to benefit he corrupt few at the expense of the many.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607164</id>
	<title>Re:give me more of that</title>
	<author>Ocyris</author>
	<datestamp>1269449880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are you advocating free trade capitalism?!? Blasphemy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you advocating free trade capitalism ? ! ?
Blasphemy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you advocating free trade capitalism?!?
Blasphemy!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605262</id>
	<title>Re:i mentioned this before</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269433140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else did you mention before? I can say the sky is blue and then go off on a rant about how the moon landings were faked by the notorious fascist communist Obama and people will think I'm a lunatic too.</p><p>Suggesting that HFCS has a role in obesity isn't exactly a risky posting strategy on Slashot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else did you mention before ?
I can say the sky is blue and then go off on a rant about how the moon landings were faked by the notorious fascist communist Obama and people will think I 'm a lunatic too.Suggesting that HFCS has a role in obesity is n't exactly a risky posting strategy on Slashot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else did you mention before?
I can say the sky is blue and then go off on a rant about how the moon landings were faked by the notorious fascist communist Obama and people will think I'm a lunatic too.Suggesting that HFCS has a role in obesity isn't exactly a risky posting strategy on Slashot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605574</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1269435240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Are you a long distance runner? I'm guessing no, so just drink water.</p></div><p>There are plenty of outdoor activities that require so much liquid to stay adequately hydrated that you can drink yourself into an electrolyte imbalance. Ever chug water while mowing the lawn or chopping wood or skateboarding or riding your bike? You're secreting loads of salt while ingested pure water; keep it up for long and it can get ugly.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>t's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time. It's free and there's no sugar or chemicals.</p></div><p>Does your tap run dark matter or something? All the water I've ever drank contained at least one common compound.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you a long distance runner ?
I 'm guessing no , so just drink water.There are plenty of outdoor activities that require so much liquid to stay adequately hydrated that you can drink yourself into an electrolyte imbalance .
Ever chug water while mowing the lawn or chopping wood or skateboarding or riding your bike ?
You 're secreting loads of salt while ingested pure water ; keep it up for long and it can get ugly.t 's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time .
It 's free and there 's no sugar or chemicals.Does your tap run dark matter or something ?
All the water I 've ever drank contained at least one common compound .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you a long distance runner?
I'm guessing no, so just drink water.There are plenty of outdoor activities that require so much liquid to stay adequately hydrated that you can drink yourself into an electrolyte imbalance.
Ever chug water while mowing the lawn or chopping wood or skateboarding or riding your bike?
You're secreting loads of salt while ingested pure water; keep it up for long and it can get ugly.t's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time.
It's free and there's no sugar or chemicals.Does your tap run dark matter or something?
All the water I've ever drank contained at least one common compound.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611694</id>
	<title>Re:give me more of that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269535680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine how much better of places like Haiti would be without our import restrictions on cane sugar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine how much better of places like Haiti would be without our import restrictions on cane sugar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine how much better of places like Haiti would be without our import restrictions on cane sugar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607486</id>
	<title>Re:To hell with CORN</title>
	<author>SoupIsGoodFood\_42</author>
	<datestamp>1269456060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to be a fan of Dr. Pepper as a kid, on the very rare occasion I could get it. People have been importing it more these days so it's easy to get, but I don't like it anymore. Perhaps it always had HFCS in it and I didn't notice it as much as a kid. I notice it now, though. I've yet to find anyone who imports the cane sugar version in Wellington.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to be a fan of Dr. Pepper as a kid , on the very rare occasion I could get it .
People have been importing it more these days so it 's easy to get , but I do n't like it anymore .
Perhaps it always had HFCS in it and I did n't notice it as much as a kid .
I notice it now , though .
I 've yet to find anyone who imports the cane sugar version in Wellington .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to be a fan of Dr. Pepper as a kid, on the very rare occasion I could get it.
People have been importing it more these days so it's easy to get, but I don't like it anymore.
Perhaps it always had HFCS in it and I didn't notice it as much as a kid.
I notice it now, though.
I've yet to find anyone who imports the cane sugar version in Wellington.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607804</id>
	<title>Thanks guys...</title>
	<author>HellYeahAutomaton</author>
	<datestamp>1269548880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now that you know what the real demon is, can we get our trans fats back?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now that you know what the real demon is , can we get our trans fats back ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now that you know what the real demon is, can we get our trans fats back?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606918</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269447240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.  I am a PhD chemist with both chemistry and biology training and was becoming freaked out at how many people misunderstand how sugars are metabolized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
I am a PhD chemist with both chemistry and biology training and was becoming freaked out at how many people misunderstand how sugars are metabolized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
I am a PhD chemist with both chemistry and biology training and was becoming freaked out at how many people misunderstand how sugars are metabolized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605846</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1269437520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I live in Phoenix, and the tap water here isn't "nigh undrinkable", it's complete poison.</p><p>However, there's lots of vending machines all over, especially in front of supermarkets, which dispense reverse-osmosis filtered water for $1.00-$1.25 per 5 gallons.  I have several 5-gallon bottles, and fill them regularly from these machines.  It tastes great, and is much healthier than drinking tap water which has been known to contain various <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/1116taintedwater16-on.html" title="azcentral.com">toxic chemicals.  I also use it for cooking.</a> [azcentral.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in Phoenix , and the tap water here is n't " nigh undrinkable " , it 's complete poison.However , there 's lots of vending machines all over , especially in front of supermarkets , which dispense reverse-osmosis filtered water for $ 1.00- $ 1.25 per 5 gallons .
I have several 5-gallon bottles , and fill them regularly from these machines .
It tastes great , and is much healthier than drinking tap water which has been known to contain various toxic chemicals .
I also use it for cooking .
[ azcentral.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in Phoenix, and the tap water here isn't "nigh undrinkable", it's complete poison.However, there's lots of vending machines all over, especially in front of supermarkets, which dispense reverse-osmosis filtered water for $1.00-$1.25 per 5 gallons.
I have several 5-gallon bottles, and fill them regularly from these machines.
It tastes great, and is much healthier than drinking tap water which has been known to contain various toxic chemicals.
I also use it for cooking.
[azcentral.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</id>
	<title>Gatorade switching...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269427740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrup, but over the past several months have begun phasing in a sucrose/dextrose blend.  I've actually begun switching from Powerade to Gatorade because of this, even though it's 15\% or so more expensive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrup , but over the past several months have begun phasing in a sucrose/dextrose blend .
I 've actually begun switching from Powerade to Gatorade because of this , even though it 's 15 \ % or so more expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrup, but over the past several months have begun phasing in a sucrose/dextrose blend.
I've actually begun switching from Powerade to Gatorade because of this, even though it's 15\% or so more expensive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605186</id>
	<title>Re:Gatorade switching...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269432660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i know...why not stop drinking that shit entirely. Save yourself some money and your internal organs some grief.</p><p>Jesus!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i know...why not stop drinking that shit entirely .
Save yourself some money and your internal organs some grief.Jesus !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i know...why not stop drinking that shit entirely.
Save yourself some money and your internal organs some grief.Jesus!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604888</id>
	<title>How do you balance the energy budget?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disclaimer: I am a physicist, not a biologist.</p><p>

HFCS is fructose and glucose. Table sugar is sucrose. Sucrose is decomposed into glucose and fructose by an enzymatic reaction in the small intestine. This study purports that ingesting equal-energy amounts of one set of molecules versus the other allows accrual in the body of a larger amount of energy (i.e. fat). The addition of the step decomposing sucrose into fructose and glucose is somehow dissipating a large amount of energy.</p><p>

Where is all that extra energy going? Are we just excreting extra sucrose? Does the body somehow need to spend energy producing more sucrase when you ingest sucrose? Does the mere presence of sucrose trigger some other energy-expending mechanism that we don't understand? WTF is going on in there?</p><p>

TFA postulates that the 42-55 HFCS glucose-fructose ratio might be to blame. That would be trivial to test with a 50-50 HFCS concoction. If slightly rejiggering the ratio of sugars in HFCS could radically reduce obesity, it would be a huge health breakthrough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disclaimer : I am a physicist , not a biologist .
HFCS is fructose and glucose .
Table sugar is sucrose .
Sucrose is decomposed into glucose and fructose by an enzymatic reaction in the small intestine .
This study purports that ingesting equal-energy amounts of one set of molecules versus the other allows accrual in the body of a larger amount of energy ( i.e .
fat ) . The addition of the step decomposing sucrose into fructose and glucose is somehow dissipating a large amount of energy .
Where is all that extra energy going ?
Are we just excreting extra sucrose ?
Does the body somehow need to spend energy producing more sucrase when you ingest sucrose ?
Does the mere presence of sucrose trigger some other energy-expending mechanism that we do n't understand ?
WTF is going on in there ?
TFA postulates that the 42-55 HFCS glucose-fructose ratio might be to blame .
That would be trivial to test with a 50-50 HFCS concoction .
If slightly rejiggering the ratio of sugars in HFCS could radically reduce obesity , it would be a huge health breakthrough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disclaimer: I am a physicist, not a biologist.
HFCS is fructose and glucose.
Table sugar is sucrose.
Sucrose is decomposed into glucose and fructose by an enzymatic reaction in the small intestine.
This study purports that ingesting equal-energy amounts of one set of molecules versus the other allows accrual in the body of a larger amount of energy (i.e.
fat). The addition of the step decomposing sucrose into fructose and glucose is somehow dissipating a large amount of energy.
Where is all that extra energy going?
Are we just excreting extra sucrose?
Does the body somehow need to spend energy producing more sucrase when you ingest sucrose?
Does the mere presence of sucrose trigger some other energy-expending mechanism that we don't understand?
WTF is going on in there?
TFA postulates that the 42-55 HFCS glucose-fructose ratio might be to blame.
That would be trivial to test with a 50-50 HFCS concoction.
If slightly rejiggering the ratio of sugars in HFCS could radically reduce obesity, it would be a huge health breakthrough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605354</id>
	<title>This is an important study</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1269433740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While most people here are characterizing this as "well duh!" or otherwise obvious, these sorts of studies have to be conducted over and over again by as many accredited parties as possible.  We will not be able to make the case for the FDA to ban or restrict the use and distribution of this crap without overwhelming evidence.  IT CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS.  We all know it.  The FDA knows it.  It is now presently very obvious.  It has to become EMBARASSINGLY obvious before they will stop taking money from the food producers and do the right thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While most people here are characterizing this as " well duh !
" or otherwise obvious , these sorts of studies have to be conducted over and over again by as many accredited parties as possible .
We will not be able to make the case for the FDA to ban or restrict the use and distribution of this crap without overwhelming evidence .
IT CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS .
We all know it .
The FDA knows it .
It is now presently very obvious .
It has to become EMBARASSINGLY obvious before they will stop taking money from the food producers and do the right thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While most people here are characterizing this as "well duh!
" or otherwise obvious, these sorts of studies have to be conducted over and over again by as many accredited parties as possible.
We will not be able to make the case for the FDA to ban or restrict the use and distribution of this crap without overwhelming evidence.
IT CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS.
We all know it.
The FDA knows it.
It is now presently very obvious.
It has to become EMBARASSINGLY obvious before they will stop taking money from the food producers and do the right thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154</id>
	<title>Interesting</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269427260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>So soft drinks and sweet foods are worse for you in the USA than other places where they are more likely to be sweetened with cane or beet sugar? Did the sugar cane industry have anything to do with the research?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So soft drinks and sweet foods are worse for you in the USA than other places where they are more likely to be sweetened with cane or beet sugar ?
Did the sugar cane industry have anything to do with the research ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So soft drinks and sweet foods are worse for you in the USA than other places where they are more likely to be sweetened with cane or beet sugar?
Did the sugar cane industry have anything to do with the research?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604542</id>
	<title>ArsTechnica Claims Research Findings Dubious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269428940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The guys at ArsTechinca say that a review of the actual publication shows much more questionable results, with contradictory findings between different groups (12hr and 24hr access to HFCS)and variations between repeated tests cycles.  HFCS might be bad, but this research is apparently not the smoking gun. Try not to drink a gallon of softdrinks a day and you'll probably be just fine.</p><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>Also, some doctors are over hyping the evidence.</p><p><a href="http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/" title="alanaragonblog.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/</a> [alanaragonblog.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The guys at ArsTechinca say that a review of the actual publication shows much more questionable results , with contradictory findings between different groups ( 12hr and 24hr access to HFCS ) and variations between repeated tests cycles .
HFCS might be bad , but this research is apparently not the smoking gun .
Try not to drink a gallon of softdrinks a day and you 'll probably be just fine.http : //arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars [ arstechnica.com ] Also , some doctors are over hyping the evidence.http : //www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ [ alanaragonblog.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guys at ArsTechinca say that a review of the actual publication shows much more questionable results, with contradictory findings between different groups (12hr and 24hr access to HFCS)and variations between repeated tests cycles.
HFCS might be bad, but this research is apparently not the smoking gun.
Try not to drink a gallon of softdrinks a day and you'll probably be just fine.http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars [arstechnica.com]Also, some doctors are over hyping the evidence.http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ [alanaragonblog.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604922</id>
	<title>Re:Gatorade switching...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269431100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrup</i></p><p>Which ones? The last time I looked, about 2 months ago, every single gatorade option I checked was HFCS amongst the other crap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrupWhich ones ?
The last time I looked , about 2 months ago , every single gatorade option I checked was HFCS amongst the other crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gatorade in the past has had high fructose corn syrupWhich ones?
The last time I looked, about 2 months ago, every single gatorade option I checked was HFCS amongst the other crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31608890</id>
	<title>No shit, Sherlock?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269522420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The faster the energy is released into the blood stream, the more of it is simply too much for the cells to use in those minutes, before it has to be quickly removed from the blood or it will destroy the vessels. So it gets moved into the fat.</p><p>And HFCS is the king of speed, when it comes to this. So the rest is completely and utterly obvious.</p><p>And on top of that, to do all this, the process needs B-vitamins. Which is included with wholemeal. Which until the 20th century was the prime source of those vitamins for humans. But it&rsquo;s not included in those pure-sugar products. So the process depletes your body&rsquo;s reserves.<br>Unfortunately, that&rsquo;s also needed for your brain to think! So essentially it also makes you stupid as fuck to eat such pure carbohydrates.<br>And you wondered where all those fat idiots came from...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The faster the energy is released into the blood stream , the more of it is simply too much for the cells to use in those minutes , before it has to be quickly removed from the blood or it will destroy the vessels .
So it gets moved into the fat.And HFCS is the king of speed , when it comes to this .
So the rest is completely and utterly obvious.And on top of that , to do all this , the process needs B-vitamins .
Which is included with wholemeal .
Which until the 20th century was the prime source of those vitamins for humans .
But it    s not included in those pure-sugar products .
So the process depletes your body    s reserves.Unfortunately , that    s also needed for your brain to think !
So essentially it also makes you stupid as fuck to eat such pure carbohydrates.And you wondered where all those fat idiots came from... ; ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The faster the energy is released into the blood stream, the more of it is simply too much for the cells to use in those minutes, before it has to be quickly removed from the blood or it will destroy the vessels.
So it gets moved into the fat.And HFCS is the king of speed, when it comes to this.
So the rest is completely and utterly obvious.And on top of that, to do all this, the process needs B-vitamins.
Which is included with wholemeal.
Which until the 20th century was the prime source of those vitamins for humans.
But it’s not included in those pure-sugar products.
So the process depletes your body’s reserves.Unfortunately, that’s also needed for your brain to think!
So essentially it also makes you stupid as fuck to eat such pure carbohydrates.And you wondered where all those fat idiots came from... ;))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604878</id>
	<title>To hell with CORN</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can we please, for fucks sake, end corn subsidies and terminate sugarcane tarrifs?  Soda tasted better when actual sugar was in it anyway.</p><p>I'm sick of corn.  Everything we eat has corn in it.  Corn corn corn corn corn.  Iowa and Nebraska farmers could learn to grow something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can we please , for fucks sake , end corn subsidies and terminate sugarcane tarrifs ?
Soda tasted better when actual sugar was in it anyway.I 'm sick of corn .
Everything we eat has corn in it .
Corn corn corn corn corn .
Iowa and Nebraska farmers could learn to grow something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can we please, for fucks sake, end corn subsidies and terminate sugarcane tarrifs?
Soda tasted better when actual sugar was in it anyway.I'm sick of corn.
Everything we eat has corn in it.
Corn corn corn corn corn.
Iowa and Nebraska farmers could learn to grow something else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605410</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269434160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, high fructose corn syrup and fructose are two different animals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , high fructose corn syrup and fructose are two different animals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, high fructose corn syrup and fructose are two different animals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607548</id>
	<title>Re:give me more of that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269456900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protectionism is standard practice in American politics.  The government is used for the express purpose of protecting trade and industry.  For example, patents and copyrights.  Those are protectionist.  So are tariffs.  So are tax breaks and tax incentives.</p><p>You're never going to get rid of that aspect of American politics because it's how the system is designed.  America's federal highway system creates millions of jobs in road crews, construction crews, architects, planners, and so on.  The government could just build freeways using soldiers from the Army, but it doesn't because that deprives people of their chance to earn a living.</p><p>Corporations take too much advantage of this and milk the state like a cow that gives buckets of warm cash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protectionism is standard practice in American politics .
The government is used for the express purpose of protecting trade and industry .
For example , patents and copyrights .
Those are protectionist .
So are tariffs .
So are tax breaks and tax incentives.You 're never going to get rid of that aspect of American politics because it 's how the system is designed .
America 's federal highway system creates millions of jobs in road crews , construction crews , architects , planners , and so on .
The government could just build freeways using soldiers from the Army , but it does n't because that deprives people of their chance to earn a living.Corporations take too much advantage of this and milk the state like a cow that gives buckets of warm cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protectionism is standard practice in American politics.
The government is used for the express purpose of protecting trade and industry.
For example, patents and copyrights.
Those are protectionist.
So are tariffs.
So are tax breaks and tax incentives.You're never going to get rid of that aspect of American politics because it's how the system is designed.
America's federal highway system creates millions of jobs in road crews, construction crews, architects, planners, and so on.
The government could just build freeways using soldiers from the Army, but it doesn't because that deprives people of their chance to earn a living.Corporations take too much advantage of this and milk the state like a cow that gives buckets of warm cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605878</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269437700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To whomever modded me down for "being wrong" you should watch this lecture by a college professor.  It's called "Sugar - The Bitter Truth" and is about how sugar causes obesity using the same mechanism as HFCS.</p><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Oh an by the way, mod points are not meant to be used to say "I disagree" or otherwise punish other users.  Read the fraaking FAQ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To whomever modded me down for " being wrong " you should watch this lecture by a college professor .
It 's called " Sugar - The Bitter Truth " and is about how sugar causes obesity using the same mechanism as HFCS.http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = dBnniua6-oM [ youtube.com ] Oh an by the way , mod points are not meant to be used to say " I disagree " or otherwise punish other users .
Read the fraaking FAQ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To whomever modded me down for "being wrong" you should watch this lecture by a college professor.
It's called "Sugar - The Bitter Truth" and is about how sugar causes obesity using the same mechanism as HFCS.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]Oh an by the way, mod points are not meant to be used to say "I disagree" or otherwise punish other users.
Read the fraaking FAQ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604224</id>
	<title>Don't forget correlation is not causation!</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1269427560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What, no "correlation is not causation" tag? I thought this was Slashdot's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What , no " correlation is not causation " tag ?
I thought this was Slashdot 's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What, no "correlation is not causation" tag?
I thought this was Slashdot's response to question the validity of any and all scientific research reported here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607064</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269448620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In sufficiently large amounts and over enough time, I wonder if the drop in energy expended (when fructose is diffused by the GLUT-5 protein) means less calories burnt by the body and therefore weight gain?</p><p>Sufficiently large amounts of time is going to be months to a year - but it all adds up.</p><p>Two things happened around the same time: children played less outside when video games entered the market and the food they take in changed too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In sufficiently large amounts and over enough time , I wonder if the drop in energy expended ( when fructose is diffused by the GLUT-5 protein ) means less calories burnt by the body and therefore weight gain ? Sufficiently large amounts of time is going to be months to a year - but it all adds up.Two things happened around the same time : children played less outside when video games entered the market and the food they take in changed too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In sufficiently large amounts and over enough time, I wonder if the drop in energy expended (when fructose is diffused by the GLUT-5 protein) means less calories burnt by the body and therefore weight gain?Sufficiently large amounts of time is going to be months to a year - but it all adds up.Two things happened around the same time: children played less outside when video games entered the market and the food they take in changed too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605518</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1269434880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Water is a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Water is a chemical , dihydrogen monoxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Water is a chemical, dihydrogen monoxide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038</id>
	<title>HFC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269426780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is because HFC is absorbed by the body in the same way that beer and alcohol is.  In the liver.  HFC also suppresses the satiety (hunger) signal so people tend to eat more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is because HFC is absorbed by the body in the same way that beer and alcohol is .
In the liver .
HFC also suppresses the satiety ( hunger ) signal so people tend to eat more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is because HFC is absorbed by the body in the same way that beer and alcohol is.
In the liver.
HFC also suppresses the satiety (hunger) signal so people tend to eat more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606412</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticical: Study Results are inconclusive</title>
	<author>penguinchris</author>
	<datestamp>1269441780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's great, and avoiding HFCS helps toward that goal (apparently) - HFCS blocks you from feeling full, so you eat more. If that's true and is really a big effect, then all that would be required to get caloric intakes to a reasonable level would be removing HFCS.</p><p>That's no longer micromanagement, but a single large change that could (partially) solve the overlying issue, which is consuming too many calories as you say.</p><p>Obesity is a bigger problem in the US than in most other places, and the US is also the place where it's basically impossible to avoid HFCS. Americans as a whole eat too much... correlation is not causation, but if it's shown that HFCS makes you feel less full so you eat more, then that *is* causation and is way beyond "micromanagement".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's great , and avoiding HFCS helps toward that goal ( apparently ) - HFCS blocks you from feeling full , so you eat more .
If that 's true and is really a big effect , then all that would be required to get caloric intakes to a reasonable level would be removing HFCS.That 's no longer micromanagement , but a single large change that could ( partially ) solve the overlying issue , which is consuming too many calories as you say.Obesity is a bigger problem in the US than in most other places , and the US is also the place where it 's basically impossible to avoid HFCS .
Americans as a whole eat too much... correlation is not causation , but if it 's shown that HFCS makes you feel less full so you eat more , then that * is * causation and is way beyond " micromanagement " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's great, and avoiding HFCS helps toward that goal (apparently) - HFCS blocks you from feeling full, so you eat more.
If that's true and is really a big effect, then all that would be required to get caloric intakes to a reasonable level would be removing HFCS.That's no longer micromanagement, but a single large change that could (partially) solve the overlying issue, which is consuming too many calories as you say.Obesity is a bigger problem in the US than in most other places, and the US is also the place where it's basically impossible to avoid HFCS.
Americans as a whole eat too much... correlation is not causation, but if it's shown that HFCS makes you feel less full so you eat more, then that *is* causation and is way beyond "micromanagement".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604214</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1269427560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>probably not.  the reason you're more likely to get stuff with hfcs here is because the sugar industry lobbies for increased tariffs on import sugar in order to artificially inflate the price, coupled with subsidies for farmers.  i was once at a luncheon event in dc for a congressman from iowa, and across from me at the table was a sugar lobbyist.  wonder what he wanted... hmmm...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>probably not .
the reason you 're more likely to get stuff with hfcs here is because the sugar industry lobbies for increased tariffs on import sugar in order to artificially inflate the price , coupled with subsidies for farmers .
i was once at a luncheon event in dc for a congressman from iowa , and across from me at the table was a sugar lobbyist .
wonder what he wanted... hmmm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>probably not.
the reason you're more likely to get stuff with hfcs here is because the sugar industry lobbies for increased tariffs on import sugar in order to artificially inflate the price, coupled with subsidies for farmers.
i was once at a luncheon event in dc for a congressman from iowa, and across from me at the table was a sugar lobbyist.
wonder what he wanted... hmmm...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607394</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1269454440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. Drink water all the time and fruit juice becomes a treat to have once in a while. Though unfortunately the water choices here are either expensive bottled, with whatever crap the plastic leeches, or city water, with fluoride added. I suppose there's reverse osmosis, but I don't have the money to install such a system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Drink water all the time and fruit juice becomes a treat to have once in a while .
Though unfortunately the water choices here are either expensive bottled , with whatever crap the plastic leeches , or city water , with fluoride added .
I suppose there 's reverse osmosis , but I do n't have the money to install such a system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Drink water all the time and fruit juice becomes a treat to have once in a while.
Though unfortunately the water choices here are either expensive bottled, with whatever crap the plastic leeches, or city water, with fluoride added.
I suppose there's reverse osmosis, but I don't have the money to install such a system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204</id>
	<title>Skepticical:  Study Results are inconclusive</title>
	<author>axjms</author>
	<datestamp>1269427500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arstechnica.com covered this same study the other day.  Their writeup is better than mine would be so why don't you read their article? <a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars" title="arstechnica.com">http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars</a> [arstechnica.com]</p><p>The abridged version of the abridged version is that this study does not conclusively prove much of anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arstechnica.com covered this same study the other day .
Their writeup is better than mine would be so why do n't you read their article ?
http : //arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars [ arstechnica.com ] The abridged version of the abridged version is that this study does not conclusively prove much of anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arstechnica.com covered this same study the other day.
Their writeup is better than mine would be so why don't you read their article?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars [arstechnica.com]The abridged version of the abridged version is that this study does not conclusively prove much of anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604976</id>
	<title>I have my own study</title>
	<author>future assassin</author>
	<datestamp>1269431400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I quit drinking Coke and other pop's for about 4 months. It was hard as hell as I missed how comforting a bottle of Cooke felt in my hand. When ever I was stressed out all I had to do was to go for a soda and my stress level was reduced by half. Four months later "just" by not drinking any pop I lost 10+ lb's of weight. My gut also reduced in size.</p><p>Now I'm back on the pop program and feeling as bloated as ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I quit drinking Coke and other pop 's for about 4 months .
It was hard as hell as I missed how comforting a bottle of Cooke felt in my hand .
When ever I was stressed out all I had to do was to go for a soda and my stress level was reduced by half .
Four months later " just " by not drinking any pop I lost 10 + lb 's of weight .
My gut also reduced in size.Now I 'm back on the pop program and feeling as bloated as ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I quit drinking Coke and other pop's for about 4 months.
It was hard as hell as I missed how comforting a bottle of Cooke felt in my hand.
When ever I was stressed out all I had to do was to go for a soda and my stress level was reduced by half.
Four months later "just" by not drinking any pop I lost 10+ lb's of weight.
My gut also reduced in size.Now I'm back on the pop program and feeling as bloated as ever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606702</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269444960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see what you are saying, but...  Where do you find this "Free" &amp; Chemical free water you speak of?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see what you are saying , but... Where do you find this " Free " &amp; Chemical free water you speak of ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see what you are saying, but...  Where do you find this "Free" &amp; Chemical free water you speak of?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</id>
	<title>water switching...</title>
	<author>city</author>
	<datestamp>1269431220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really you're going to split hairs on this? Are you a long distance runner? I'm guessing no, so just drink water. It's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time. It's free and there's no sugar or chemicals.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really you 're going to split hairs on this ?
Are you a long distance runner ?
I 'm guessing no , so just drink water .
It 's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time .
It 's free and there 's no sugar or chemicals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really you're going to split hairs on this?
Are you a long distance runner?
I'm guessing no, so just drink water.
It's really not that hard to just jump cold turkey and drink water all the time.
It's free and there's no sugar or chemicals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609788</id>
	<title>Re:Its the subsidies that are the problem</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1269528000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not against all farm subsidies. I'm against them when they support big agribusinesses and factory farms growing livestock in unsanitary and inhumane conditions. <br>
Let's subsidize small, family farm operations, especially if they grow "organically" and rotate their crops annually, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not against all farm subsidies .
I 'm against them when they support big agribusinesses and factory farms growing livestock in unsanitary and inhumane conditions .
Let 's subsidize small , family farm operations , especially if they grow " organically " and rotate their crops annually , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not against all farm subsidies.
I'm against them when they support big agribusinesses and factory farms growing livestock in unsanitary and inhumane conditions.
Let's subsidize small, family farm operations, especially if they grow "organically" and rotate their crops annually, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605872</id>
	<title>Re:How does this compare to regular corn syrup?</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1269437640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature</i></p><p>You've obviously never eaten Agave syrup.  It's naturally occurring, it's sweeter than table sugar, and it has a very low glycemic index.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in natureYou 've obviously never eaten Agave syrup .
It 's naturally occurring , it 's sweeter than table sugar , and it has a very low glycemic index .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in natureYou've obviously never eaten Agave syrup.
It's naturally occurring, it's sweeter than table sugar, and it has a very low glycemic index.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604876</id>
	<title>Re:Its the subsidies that are the problem</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1269430800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Trouble is that will never get through the US Senate, for 2 reasons:<br>1. Any senator from any primarily agricultural state (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, etc) who voted for it would be voted out immediately, because a large percentage of their constituents depend on that subsidy to make ends meet.<br>2. Those same senators would be giving up big bucks in campaign contributions from Archer Daniels Midland.</p><p>The brilliance (if you're an evil bastard working at ADM) of the way the corn subsidy works is that it's really a subsidy to ADM (by keeping the price of corn artificially low, which dramatically cuts their costs), but looks like a subsidy to family farmers (because they get the checks). Think of it this way: if the big corn distributors could farm their own corn more cheaply than they could buy it from the independent farmers, they would do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trouble is that will never get through the US Senate , for 2 reasons : 1 .
Any senator from any primarily agricultural state ( Iowa , Kansas , Nebraska , etc ) who voted for it would be voted out immediately , because a large percentage of their constituents depend on that subsidy to make ends meet.2 .
Those same senators would be giving up big bucks in campaign contributions from Archer Daniels Midland.The brilliance ( if you 're an evil bastard working at ADM ) of the way the corn subsidy works is that it 's really a subsidy to ADM ( by keeping the price of corn artificially low , which dramatically cuts their costs ) , but looks like a subsidy to family farmers ( because they get the checks ) .
Think of it this way : if the big corn distributors could farm their own corn more cheaply than they could buy it from the independent farmers , they would do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trouble is that will never get through the US Senate, for 2 reasons:1.
Any senator from any primarily agricultural state (Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, etc) who voted for it would be voted out immediately, because a large percentage of their constituents depend on that subsidy to make ends meet.2.
Those same senators would be giving up big bucks in campaign contributions from Archer Daniels Midland.The brilliance (if you're an evil bastard working at ADM) of the way the corn subsidy works is that it's really a subsidy to ADM (by keeping the price of corn artificially low, which dramatically cuts their costs), but looks like a subsidy to family farmers (because they get the checks).
Think of it this way: if the big corn distributors could farm their own corn more cheaply than they could buy it from the independent farmers, they would do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604438</id>
	<title>And people wonder why they charge so much</title>
	<author>JasonStevens</author>
	<datestamp>1269428460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>for imported softdrinks that contain cane sugar.

Because HFC SUCKS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>for imported softdrinks that contain cane sugar .
Because HFC SUCKS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>for imported softdrinks that contain cane sugar.
Because HFC SUCKS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611232</id>
	<title>Re:an ex-fat geek: how i finally lost weight</title>
	<author>dasunt</author>
	<datestamp>1269534300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>yes, its sort of the atkins diet, or the caveman diet: its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives, its what our biochemistry is idealized for, pre-agricultural revolution

all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates. the pounds melt right off</p></div></blockquote><p>
Quick question.  Were digging sticks put in the archeological record by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order to test our faith in Atkins?
</p><p>
Or were our ancestors smart enough to realize that roots and tubers were a good source of calories?
</p><p>
I think you're focusing too much on the \_hunting\_ side of hunter-gatherers.
</p><p>
PS:  I'm also pretty sure that the food the hunters got tended to be a lot lower fat than our modern factory-farmed animals.  Many of our modern farm animals put on weight at an amazing rate, and have no exercise.  Some of the most common breeds used in factory farms can't physically breed any more, that's how far removed from nature they are.  Heck, some of the modern breeds are physically unable to survive without climate control.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , its sort of the atkins diet , or the caveman diet : its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives , its what our biochemistry is idealized for , pre-agricultural revolution all it means is you eat fat and protein , and no carbohydrates .
the pounds melt right off Quick question .
Were digging sticks put in the archeological record by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order to test our faith in Atkins ?
Or were our ancestors smart enough to realize that roots and tubers were a good source of calories ?
I think you 're focusing too much on the \ _hunting \ _ side of hunter-gatherers .
PS : I 'm also pretty sure that the food the hunters got tended to be a lot lower fat than our modern factory-farmed animals .
Many of our modern farm animals put on weight at an amazing rate , and have no exercise .
Some of the most common breeds used in factory farms ca n't physically breed any more , that 's how far removed from nature they are .
Heck , some of the modern breeds are physically unable to survive without climate control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, its sort of the atkins diet, or the caveman diet: its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives, its what our biochemistry is idealized for, pre-agricultural revolution

all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates.
the pounds melt right off
Quick question.
Were digging sticks put in the archeological record by the Flying Spaghetti Monster in order to test our faith in Atkins?
Or were our ancestors smart enough to realize that roots and tubers were a good source of calories?
I think you're focusing too much on the \_hunting\_ side of hunter-gatherers.
PS:  I'm also pretty sure that the food the hunters got tended to be a lot lower fat than our modern factory-farmed animals.
Many of our modern farm animals put on weight at an amazing rate, and have no exercise.
Some of the most common breeds used in factory farms can't physically breed any more, that's how far removed from nature they are.
Heck, some of the modern breeds are physically unable to survive without climate control.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604236</id>
	<title>WHAT!? Cheaper isn't healthier? noooooo</title>
	<author>Orga</author>
	<datestamp>1269427620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You want cheap, you got cheap.


Angus beef is also low quality beef. Suckers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want cheap , you got cheap .
Angus beef is also low quality beef .
Suckers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want cheap, you got cheap.
Angus beef is also low quality beef.
Suckers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>tpjunkie</author>
	<datestamp>1269429120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am a (stressed out) med student studying for a GI physiology exam.

Sugars must be broken down in the small intestine to monosaccharides to be absorbed, so sucrose becomes glucose and fructose, lactose (if you're not lactose intolerant) breaks down to glucose and galactose. Glucose and galactose are absorbed via co-transport with sodium via transport proteins. This requires a standing Na+ gradient in the cell, maintained by the Na-K pump, which requires the expenditure of energy. Fructose on the other hand enters the cell by simple facilitated diffusion through the GLUT-5 protein, meaning its transport out of the intestinal lumen requires no energy expenditure.

Biochemically it it can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a ( stressed out ) med student studying for a GI physiology exam .
Sugars must be broken down in the small intestine to monosaccharides to be absorbed , so sucrose becomes glucose and fructose , lactose ( if you 're not lactose intolerant ) breaks down to glucose and galactose .
Glucose and galactose are absorbed via co-transport with sodium via transport proteins .
This requires a standing Na + gradient in the cell , maintained by the Na-K pump , which requires the expenditure of energy .
Fructose on the other hand enters the cell by simple facilitated diffusion through the GLUT-5 protein , meaning its transport out of the intestinal lumen requires no energy expenditure .
Biochemically it it can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a (stressed out) med student studying for a GI physiology exam.
Sugars must be broken down in the small intestine to monosaccharides to be absorbed, so sucrose becomes glucose and fructose, lactose (if you're not lactose intolerant) breaks down to glucose and galactose.
Glucose and galactose are absorbed via co-transport with sodium via transport proteins.
This requires a standing Na+ gradient in the cell, maintained by the Na-K pump, which requires the expenditure of energy.
Fructose on the other hand enters the cell by simple facilitated diffusion through the GLUT-5 protein, meaning its transport out of the intestinal lumen requires no energy expenditure.
Biochemically it it can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606566</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>ftobin</author>
	<datestamp>1269443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your presupposition that only long distance runners can have benefit from such a drink is faulty, and you have no knowledge of my lifestyle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your presupposition that only long distance runners can have benefit from such a drink is faulty , and you have no knowledge of my lifestyle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your presupposition that only long distance runners can have benefit from such a drink is faulty, and you have no knowledge of my lifestyle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605348</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269433740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes both are metabolized by the liver directly from Fructose/Alcohol to Fatty Acids.  It isn't exactly the same mechanism, since alchol requires some extra steps, but still leads to fat stomach or fat butt.</p><p>SUGAR also breaksdown into fructose and metabolizes by the liver into fatty acids.  So sugar is no better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes both are metabolized by the liver directly from Fructose/Alcohol to Fatty Acids .
It is n't exactly the same mechanism , since alchol requires some extra steps , but still leads to fat stomach or fat butt.SUGAR also breaksdown into fructose and metabolizes by the liver into fatty acids .
So sugar is no better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes both are metabolized by the liver directly from Fructose/Alcohol to Fatty Acids.
It isn't exactly the same mechanism, since alchol requires some extra steps, but still leads to fat stomach or fat butt.SUGAR also breaksdown into fructose and metabolizes by the liver into fatty acids.
So sugar is no better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604036</id>
	<title>In humans too...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269426720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Duh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Duh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Duh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31616854</id>
	<title>Re:an ex-fat geek: how i finally lost weight</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1269508860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates. the pounds melt right off</p></div></blockquote><p>Bull.  There have been innumerable studies on the various diets through the years.  High protein has not performed any better than low-fat, or Mediterranean diets.  And the studies where it was even competitive, and where they used large quantities of non-animal protein, to avoid the saturated fat.</p><p>The only diet that has ever worked is the physics diet.  If you eat a bit less, you will begin to lose weight.  No exceptions.  Everything else is fraud or superstition.  At best, limiting yourself to one type of food just means there are less foods you will eat, and therefore, will eat less.</p><p>Exercise won't do it, unless you run marathons, the increase in calories burned while exercising, versus at rest, is minimal.  And as usual, studies find those who exercise may just be less active during the rest of the day, averaging out the amount of energy burned over-all.  Studies show those who exercise are more healthy, and I certainly wouldn't discourage it, but don't expect to lose an ounce by exercise.</p><p>Of note, however, is that a low-carb diet will, over time, slow brain growth...  You're denying it nutrients it thrives on, and so reduced growth is the result.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>all it means is you eat fat and protein , and no carbohydrates .
the pounds melt right offBull .
There have been innumerable studies on the various diets through the years .
High protein has not performed any better than low-fat , or Mediterranean diets .
And the studies where it was even competitive , and where they used large quantities of non-animal protein , to avoid the saturated fat.The only diet that has ever worked is the physics diet .
If you eat a bit less , you will begin to lose weight .
No exceptions .
Everything else is fraud or superstition .
At best , limiting yourself to one type of food just means there are less foods you will eat , and therefore , will eat less.Exercise wo n't do it , unless you run marathons , the increase in calories burned while exercising , versus at rest , is minimal .
And as usual , studies find those who exercise may just be less active during the rest of the day , averaging out the amount of energy burned over-all .
Studies show those who exercise are more healthy , and I certainly would n't discourage it , but do n't expect to lose an ounce by exercise.Of note , however , is that a low-carb diet will , over time , slow brain growth... You 're denying it nutrients it thrives on , and so reduced growth is the result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates.
the pounds melt right offBull.
There have been innumerable studies on the various diets through the years.
High protein has not performed any better than low-fat, or Mediterranean diets.
And the studies where it was even competitive, and where they used large quantities of non-animal protein, to avoid the saturated fat.The only diet that has ever worked is the physics diet.
If you eat a bit less, you will begin to lose weight.
No exceptions.
Everything else is fraud or superstition.
At best, limiting yourself to one type of food just means there are less foods you will eat, and therefore, will eat less.Exercise won't do it, unless you run marathons, the increase in calories burned while exercising, versus at rest, is minimal.
And as usual, studies find those who exercise may just be less active during the rest of the day, averaging out the amount of energy burned over-all.
Studies show those who exercise are more healthy, and I certainly wouldn't discourage it, but don't expect to lose an ounce by exercise.Of note, however, is that a low-carb diet will, over time, slow brain growth...  You're denying it nutrients it thrives on, and so reduced growth is the result.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212</id>
	<title>i mentioned this before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269427500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>in a comment a few months ago and everyone dismissed me as a lunatic, now here is some more newer scientific documentation and evidence backing it up, HFCS is bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a comment a few months ago and everyone dismissed me as a lunatic , now here is some more newer scientific documentation and evidence backing it up , HFCS is bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a comment a few months ago and everyone dismissed me as a lunatic, now here is some more newer scientific documentation and evidence backing it up, HFCS is bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605338</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>thzinc</author>
	<datestamp>1269433680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so sure about your "no chemicals" claim, but that's probably because I live in the City of Los Angeles, and tap water is nigh undrinkable. I did an abrupt switch from soda/coffee to water, but I had to get a water filter in order to tolerate the taste.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so sure about your " no chemicals " claim , but that 's probably because I live in the City of Los Angeles , and tap water is nigh undrinkable .
I did an abrupt switch from soda/coffee to water , but I had to get a water filter in order to tolerate the taste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so sure about your "no chemicals" claim, but that's probably because I live in the City of Los Angeles, and tap water is nigh undrinkable.
I did an abrupt switch from soda/coffee to water, but I had to get a water filter in order to tolerate the taste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607702</id>
	<title>Re:In humans too...</title>
	<author>Tenareth</author>
	<datestamp>1269459720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spend an hour doing research.  Yes, it ends up the same, but sugar requires the body to WORK to get those calories (net calories is lower).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spend an hour doing research .
Yes , it ends up the same , but sugar requires the body to WORK to get those calories ( net calories is lower ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spend an hour doing research.
Yes, it ends up the same, but sugar requires the body to WORK to get those calories (net calories is lower).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604216</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Mindcontrolled</author>
	<datestamp>1269427560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Other way round - the corn lobby pushed HFCS over sucrose in the US. The metabolic differences between the two are long known from impartial studies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other way round - the corn lobby pushed HFCS over sucrose in the US .
The metabolic differences between the two are long known from impartial studies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other way round - the corn lobby pushed HFCS over sucrose in the US.
The metabolic differences between the two are long known from impartial studies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150</id>
	<title>Its the subsidies that are the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269427260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Stop giving our tax money to farmers to over-grow corn and lower the price to the point where corn syrup is cheaper then sugar. Problem solved.<br> <br>This would also solve the hemorrhagic ecoli problem in cattle farms by making grass cheaper then corn husks for feed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop giving our tax money to farmers to over-grow corn and lower the price to the point where corn syrup is cheaper then sugar .
Problem solved .
This would also solve the hemorrhagic ecoli problem in cattle farms by making grass cheaper then corn husks for feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop giving our tax money to farmers to over-grow corn and lower the price to the point where corn syrup is cheaper then sugar.
Problem solved.
This would also solve the hemorrhagic ecoli problem in cattle farms by making grass cheaper then corn husks for feed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607764</id>
	<title>Doesn't Add Up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269547440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Australia, its practically impossible to find a product containing HFCS. Sugar is so cheap here that George Bush insisted it be specifically excluded it from the so called "Free Trade Agreement" we signed with America a few years ago (seems US Republicans believe "free trade" means trade highly regulated through excessive taxation).</p><p>Obesity rates in Australia are higher than in US, following a similar trend over the past 30 years. This is about as close as you can get to definitive proof that correlation does not imply causation with respect to HFCS consumption and obesity. It is increasing consumption of products containing either sugar (Australian version) or HFCS (US version) that is increasing obesity rates. Substituting sugar for HFCS appears to, if anything, make you a tiny bit fatter.</p><p>Even though sugar doesn't help people stay thin, the obese are still at a big advantage here thanks to universal "socialist" health care. Coincidentally we also have a functioning capitalist economy which now consistently yields higher average wages than those in the US. If the quality of this study and most of the comments on here are anything to go by, America really is a country in decline. Maybe you should try some of our "socialist" university education.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Australia , its practically impossible to find a product containing HFCS .
Sugar is so cheap here that George Bush insisted it be specifically excluded it from the so called " Free Trade Agreement " we signed with America a few years ago ( seems US Republicans believe " free trade " means trade highly regulated through excessive taxation ) .Obesity rates in Australia are higher than in US , following a similar trend over the past 30 years .
This is about as close as you can get to definitive proof that correlation does not imply causation with respect to HFCS consumption and obesity .
It is increasing consumption of products containing either sugar ( Australian version ) or HFCS ( US version ) that is increasing obesity rates .
Substituting sugar for HFCS appears to , if anything , make you a tiny bit fatter.Even though sugar does n't help people stay thin , the obese are still at a big advantage here thanks to universal " socialist " health care .
Coincidentally we also have a functioning capitalist economy which now consistently yields higher average wages than those in the US .
If the quality of this study and most of the comments on here are anything to go by , America really is a country in decline .
Maybe you should try some of our " socialist " university education .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Australia, its practically impossible to find a product containing HFCS.
Sugar is so cheap here that George Bush insisted it be specifically excluded it from the so called "Free Trade Agreement" we signed with America a few years ago (seems US Republicans believe "free trade" means trade highly regulated through excessive taxation).Obesity rates in Australia are higher than in US, following a similar trend over the past 30 years.
This is about as close as you can get to definitive proof that correlation does not imply causation with respect to HFCS consumption and obesity.
It is increasing consumption of products containing either sugar (Australian version) or HFCS (US version) that is increasing obesity rates.
Substituting sugar for HFCS appears to, if anything, make you a tiny bit fatter.Even though sugar doesn't help people stay thin, the obese are still at a big advantage here thanks to universal "socialist" health care.
Coincidentally we also have a functioning capitalist economy which now consistently yields higher average wages than those in the US.
If the quality of this study and most of the comments on here are anything to go by, America really is a country in decline.
Maybe you should try some of our "socialist" university education.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605926</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>kd5zex</author>
	<datestamp>1269437940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... or chemicals.</p></div><p>Well, umm...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... or chemicals.Well , umm.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... or chemicals.Well, umm...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605318</id>
	<title>Re:In humans too...</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1269433560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I don't understand is why people demonize High Fructose Corn Syrup.  It has the same number of calories as Sugar.  It breaks-down in the body the same way (fructose and glucose).  There's no real difference.</p><p>Therefore you should demonize both.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I do n't understand is why people demonize High Fructose Corn Syrup .
It has the same number of calories as Sugar .
It breaks-down in the body the same way ( fructose and glucose ) .
There 's no real difference.Therefore you should demonize both .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I don't understand is why people demonize High Fructose Corn Syrup.
It has the same number of calories as Sugar.
It breaks-down in the body the same way (fructose and glucose).
There's no real difference.Therefore you should demonize both.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604838</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticical: Study Results are inconclusive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269430440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm more in the "let's all get our caloric intake to a reasonable level before we start bothering with this kind of diatary micromanagement" camp.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more in the " let 's all get our caloric intake to a reasonable level before we start bothering with this kind of diatary micromanagement " camp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more in the "let's all get our caloric intake to a reasonable level before we start bothering with this kind of diatary micromanagement" camp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604500</id>
	<title>Of course it's not the fat - it's the carbs</title>
	<author>hsthompson69</author>
	<datestamp>1269428760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you've got two things in both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup -&gt; glucose and fructose.  The ratio in high fructose corn syrup is slightly more fructose.</p><p>There are two things that happen when you eat this poison.  #1) the glucose raises insulin levels, which cause fat cells to stop releasing fat back into the bloodstream.  #2) the fructose heads to the liver, where it causes the liver to package up more fat to move into the fat cells.  The combination of stopping up the bathtub, and putting more water in, makes fat cells fatter and fatter.</p><p>Frankly, there probably isn't that much difference between a sucrose diet and a high fructose corn syrup diet.  It looks like they found some signal in the noise, but the real killer is carbohydrates.  Cut the carbs, and your fat cells stop behaving in a destructive manner (draining your body of calories and storing them away while the rest of your body starves).</p><p>Google for "gary taubes berkeley" for a very informative lecture on the subject.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 've got two things in both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup - &gt; glucose and fructose .
The ratio in high fructose corn syrup is slightly more fructose.There are two things that happen when you eat this poison .
# 1 ) the glucose raises insulin levels , which cause fat cells to stop releasing fat back into the bloodstream .
# 2 ) the fructose heads to the liver , where it causes the liver to package up more fat to move into the fat cells .
The combination of stopping up the bathtub , and putting more water in , makes fat cells fatter and fatter.Frankly , there probably is n't that much difference between a sucrose diet and a high fructose corn syrup diet .
It looks like they found some signal in the noise , but the real killer is carbohydrates .
Cut the carbs , and your fat cells stop behaving in a destructive manner ( draining your body of calories and storing them away while the rest of your body starves ) .Google for " gary taubes berkeley " for a very informative lecture on the subject .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you've got two things in both sucrose and high fructose corn syrup -&gt; glucose and fructose.
The ratio in high fructose corn syrup is slightly more fructose.There are two things that happen when you eat this poison.
#1) the glucose raises insulin levels, which cause fat cells to stop releasing fat back into the bloodstream.
#2) the fructose heads to the liver, where it causes the liver to package up more fat to move into the fat cells.
The combination of stopping up the bathtub, and putting more water in, makes fat cells fatter and fatter.Frankly, there probably isn't that much difference between a sucrose diet and a high fructose corn syrup diet.
It looks like they found some signal in the noise, but the real killer is carbohydrates.
Cut the carbs, and your fat cells stop behaving in a destructive manner (draining your body of calories and storing them away while the rest of your body starves).Google for "gary taubes berkeley" for a very informative lecture on the subject.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609558</id>
	<title>The hidden news in this study</title>
	<author>francisstp</author>
	<datestamp>1269526980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>come from this part : "Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, <b>even when their overall caloric intake was the same</b> (my emphasis).</p><p>While the study was not designed to test that hypothesis, it provides evidence that weight change is affected by factors other than caloric intake, at least in rats. This study is thus a serious blow to the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" paradigm of obesity research.</p><p> Seems like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Diet\_Delusion" title="wikipedia.org"> Gary Taubes </a> [wikipedia.org] was right all along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>come from this part : " Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar , even when their overall caloric intake was the same ( my emphasis ) .While the study was not designed to test that hypothesis , it provides evidence that weight change is affected by factors other than caloric intake , at least in rats .
This study is thus a serious blow to the " a calorie is a calorie is a calorie " paradigm of obesity research .
Seems like Gary Taubes [ wikipedia.org ] was right all along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>come from this part : "Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same (my emphasis).While the study was not designed to test that hypothesis, it provides evidence that weight change is affected by factors other than caloric intake, at least in rats.
This study is thus a serious blow to the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" paradigm of obesity research.
Seems like  Gary Taubes  [wikipedia.org] was right all along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604490</id>
	<title>Lecture about fructose</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269428640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM</a> [youtube.com]

Just watched this yesterday.

Fructose is proper bad for you, unless you eat plenty of fiber with it(hint: you don't).
Sucrose isn't much better for that matter.</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = dBnniua6-oM [ youtube.com ] Just watched this yesterday .
Fructose is proper bad for you , unless you eat plenty of fiber with it ( hint : you do n't ) .
Sucrose is n't much better for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]

Just watched this yesterday.
Fructose is proper bad for you, unless you eat plenty of fiber with it(hint: you don't).
Sucrose isn't much better for that matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604412</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269428400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Switch the rats to diet soda. Now were is my grant money?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Switch the rats to diet soda .
Now were is my grant money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Switch the rats to diet soda.
Now were is my grant money?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>durrr</author>
	<datestamp>1269428100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually because fructose bypasses a regulatory step in the carbohydrate metabolism, i can't fill in the specifics, as i failed that part of biochem, but some part of it apparently got stuck. It's seemingly rather old news in the field of biochemistry though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually because fructose bypasses a regulatory step in the carbohydrate metabolism , i ca n't fill in the specifics , as i failed that part of biochem , but some part of it apparently got stuck .
It 's seemingly rather old news in the field of biochemistry though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually because fructose bypasses a regulatory step in the carbohydrate metabolism, i can't fill in the specifics, as i failed that part of biochem, but some part of it apparently got stuck.
It's seemingly rather old news in the field of biochemistry though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605672</id>
	<title>Actual paper does not support that conclusion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269435960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The data in the <a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?jj5henyrhxx" title="mediafire.com">actual paper</a> [mediafire.com] doesn't support the conclusion in the title of the Slashdot story.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The data in the actual paper [ mediafire.com ] does n't support the conclusion in the title of the Slashdot story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The data in the actual paper [mediafire.com] doesn't support the conclusion in the title of the Slashdot story.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606008</id>
	<title>Re:Its the subsidies that are the problem</title>
	<author>newdsfornerds</author>
	<datestamp>1269438540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen brother. The corn subsidy needs to die. HFCS needs to be reclassified by the FDA.
How they ever classified it as "natural" I'll never know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen brother .
The corn subsidy needs to die .
HFCS needs to be reclassified by the FDA .
How they ever classified it as " natural " I 'll never know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen brother.
The corn subsidy needs to die.
HFCS needs to be reclassified by the FDA.
How they ever classified it as "natural" I'll never know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609478</id>
	<title>Re:an ex-fat geek: how i finally lost weight</title>
	<author>uNPro</author>
	<datestamp>1269526560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haha, so you say this is the caveman diet at the start of your post, and then you talk about all the supplements you need at the end. Where do your cavemen get their supplements? Oh <a href="http://www.77canadapharmacy.com/Flintstones.php" title="77canadapharmacy.com" rel="nofollow">wait</a> [77canadapharmacy.com]... damn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , so you say this is the caveman diet at the start of your post , and then you talk about all the supplements you need at the end .
Where do your cavemen get their supplements ?
Oh wait [ 77canadapharmacy.com ] ... damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, so you say this is the caveman diet at the start of your post, and then you talk about all the supplements you need at the end.
Where do your cavemen get their supplements?
Oh wait [77canadapharmacy.com]... damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604346</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269428100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean?  Are you saying that beer and alcohol trigger the same kind of weight gain that HFC does?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean ?
Are you saying that beer and alcohol trigger the same kind of weight gain that HFC does ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean?
Are you saying that beer and alcohol trigger the same kind of weight gain that HFC does?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606020</id>
	<title>Another problem with the study</title>
	<author>NotSoHeavyD3</author>
	<datestamp>1269438540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Generally speaking soft drinks are acidic. The thing is acids catalyze the conversion of succrose into a fructose/glucose mixture.(Basically turning it into the same thing as HFCS.) So the first question to ask is by the time you drink that soft drink sweetened with sugar did reaction of sucrose + H2O-&gt;fructose + glucose already reach equilibrium. (Because if it did then there is no difference between drink a soda sweetened either way since in both cases you're drinking a glucose fructose mixture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Generally speaking soft drinks are acidic .
The thing is acids catalyze the conversion of succrose into a fructose/glucose mixture .
( Basically turning it into the same thing as HFCS .
) So the first question to ask is by the time you drink that soft drink sweetened with sugar did reaction of sucrose + H2O- &gt; fructose + glucose already reach equilibrium .
( Because if it did then there is no difference between drink a soda sweetened either way since in both cases you 're drinking a glucose fructose mixture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generally speaking soft drinks are acidic.
The thing is acids catalyze the conversion of succrose into a fructose/glucose mixture.
(Basically turning it into the same thing as HFCS.
) So the first question to ask is by the time you drink that soft drink sweetened with sugar did reaction of sucrose + H2O-&gt;fructose + glucose already reach equilibrium.
(Because if it did then there is no difference between drink a soda sweetened either way since in both cases you're drinking a glucose fructose mixture.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31612118</id>
	<title>Re:an ex-fat geek: how i finally lost weight</title>
	<author>pavera</author>
	<datestamp>1269536880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My problem with the whole "no carb" diet (I've tried it, I simply can't do it), is the way it adversely effects my brain function.  Your brain runs on carbs.  When I am in ketosis I have a headache and I seriously completely lose high mental function.  Abstractions, math, programming (what I do for a living) all become nearly impossible for me to do.  Tried a Ketosis diet about 2 months ago, for about 3 weeks I stayed on it, and just got done refactoring the code I wrote during that time.... Wow, that was bad code.  Say eating a normal diet I estimate that I have a stack depth of probably 8-10 layers.  So in code, I can be conscious of a whole lot, I can think way up a class hierarchy, understand how a change here is going to effect several aspects of code, etc.... When I'm on a ketosis diet, I probably have a stack depth of 2.  Making connections, abstracting things away appropriately becomes almost impossible when you can only consciously deal with your immediate surroundings. And I make a whole lot more errors of the type "I changed X and if effected A, B, and C that I hadn't even thought about".</p><p>All in all, I'll stick with some carbs.  potatoes, whole grain bread, and pasta are my main sources of carbs, and I really try not to eat them in excess... but some carbs are necessary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem with the whole " no carb " diet ( I 've tried it , I simply ca n't do it ) , is the way it adversely effects my brain function .
Your brain runs on carbs .
When I am in ketosis I have a headache and I seriously completely lose high mental function .
Abstractions , math , programming ( what I do for a living ) all become nearly impossible for me to do .
Tried a Ketosis diet about 2 months ago , for about 3 weeks I stayed on it , and just got done refactoring the code I wrote during that time.... Wow , that was bad code .
Say eating a normal diet I estimate that I have a stack depth of probably 8-10 layers .
So in code , I can be conscious of a whole lot , I can think way up a class hierarchy , understand how a change here is going to effect several aspects of code , etc.... When I 'm on a ketosis diet , I probably have a stack depth of 2 .
Making connections , abstracting things away appropriately becomes almost impossible when you can only consciously deal with your immediate surroundings .
And I make a whole lot more errors of the type " I changed X and if effected A , B , and C that I had n't even thought about " .All in all , I 'll stick with some carbs .
potatoes , whole grain bread , and pasta are my main sources of carbs , and I really try not to eat them in excess... but some carbs are necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem with the whole "no carb" diet (I've tried it, I simply can't do it), is the way it adversely effects my brain function.
Your brain runs on carbs.
When I am in ketosis I have a headache and I seriously completely lose high mental function.
Abstractions, math, programming (what I do for a living) all become nearly impossible for me to do.
Tried a Ketosis diet about 2 months ago, for about 3 weeks I stayed on it, and just got done refactoring the code I wrote during that time.... Wow, that was bad code.
Say eating a normal diet I estimate that I have a stack depth of probably 8-10 layers.
So in code, I can be conscious of a whole lot, I can think way up a class hierarchy, understand how a change here is going to effect several aspects of code, etc.... When I'm on a ketosis diet, I probably have a stack depth of 2.
Making connections, abstracting things away appropriately becomes almost impossible when you can only consciously deal with your immediate surroundings.
And I make a whole lot more errors of the type "I changed X and if effected A, B, and C that I hadn't even thought about".All in all, I'll stick with some carbs.
potatoes, whole grain bread, and pasta are my main sources of carbs, and I really try not to eat them in excess... but some carbs are necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604846</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticical: Study Results are inconclusive</title>
	<author>Anynomous Coward</author>
	<datestamp>1269430500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars</i>
<br> <br>
Don't you love how the extension in the url fits ?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars Do n't you love how the extension in the url fits ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/03/does-high-fructose-corn-syrup-make-you-fatter.ars
 
Don't you love how the extension in the url fits ?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607664</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1269458820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***Biochemically it it can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.***</p><p>Ahem<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... I'm about 80\% sure that's wrong.  Glucose is metabolised by any cell in the body.  Fructose is handled in the liver and only the liver.  Only a fraction of it is converted to Glucose.  The rest of it ends up as fatty acids.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose\_metabolism" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose\_metabolism</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>I have a degree in Chemistry BTW from a reputable university (probably a mistake on their part), but that was five decades ago and I've never done chemistry since then.  Fructose metabolism is right at the limit of my understanding and it's possible that I have this wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * Biochemically it it can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose .
* * * Ahem ... I 'm about 80 \ % sure that 's wrong .
Glucose is metabolised by any cell in the body .
Fructose is handled in the liver and only the liver .
Only a fraction of it is converted to Glucose .
The rest of it ends up as fatty acids .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose # Fructose \ _metabolism [ wikipedia.org ] I have a degree in Chemistry BTW from a reputable university ( probably a mistake on their part ) , but that was five decades ago and I 've never done chemistry since then .
Fructose metabolism is right at the limit of my understanding and it 's possible that I have this wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***Biochemically it it can enter the glycolytic cycle and is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.
***Ahem ... I'm about 80\% sure that's wrong.
Glucose is metabolised by any cell in the body.
Fructose is handled in the liver and only the liver.
Only a fraction of it is converted to Glucose.
The rest of it ends up as fatty acids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose\_metabolism [wikipedia.org]I have a degree in Chemistry BTW from a reputable university (probably a mistake on their part), but that was five decades ago and I've never done chemistry since then.
Fructose metabolism is right at the limit of my understanding and it's possible that I have this wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605466</id>
	<title>Re:I have my own study</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1269434580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext> 2-3 servings of soda a day is considered normal in an American diet.


Knowing that 1 lb of body fat is worth about 3500 calories and a can of soda is about 200...<br>
400 calories removed daily for 120 days would net you 13 lbs of weight loss on paper.(Assuming your calorie intake/burning was neutral at the time) <br> <br>
13 lbs is pretty close to your 10 so could make two assumptions. either 2 sodas a day is an accurate estimate of your prior habits, or you were on a path to weight gain prior to kicking the soda habit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>2-3 servings of soda a day is considered normal in an American diet .
Knowing that 1 lb of body fat is worth about 3500 calories and a can of soda is about 200.. . 400 calories removed daily for 120 days would net you 13 lbs of weight loss on paper .
( Assuming your calorie intake/burning was neutral at the time ) 13 lbs is pretty close to your 10 so could make two assumptions .
either 2 sodas a day is an accurate estimate of your prior habits , or you were on a path to weight gain prior to kicking the soda habit : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 2-3 servings of soda a day is considered normal in an American diet.
Knowing that 1 lb of body fat is worth about 3500 calories and a can of soda is about 200...
400 calories removed daily for 120 days would net you 13 lbs of weight loss on paper.
(Assuming your calorie intake/burning was neutral at the time)  
13 lbs is pretty close to your 10 so could make two assumptions.
either 2 sodas a day is an accurate estimate of your prior habits, or you were on a path to weight gain prior to kicking the soda habit :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604976</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606596</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1269443760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am a (stressed out) med student studying for a GI physiology exam.</p></div><p>Maybe you need some strong cola?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a ( stressed out ) med student studying for a GI physiology exam.Maybe you need some strong cola ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a (stressed out) med student studying for a GI physiology exam.Maybe you need some strong cola?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604458</id>
	<title>FOOLS! Drink the refreshing beverage . . .</title>
	<author>StefanJ</author>
	<datestamp>1269428520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>. . . that nature INTENDED you to drink.</p><p><i> <b>Coffee.</b> </i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
that nature INTENDED you to drink .
Coffee .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.
. .
that nature INTENDED you to drink.
Coffee. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605364</id>
	<title>Re:Gatorade switching...</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1269433800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>interesting way to get past this problem is to by the gatorade \_mix\_ which uses sucrose.<br>that's why I've been doing ever since gatorade switched to hfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>interesting way to get past this problem is to by the gatorade \ _mix \ _ which uses sucrose.that 's why I 've been doing ever since gatorade switched to hfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>interesting way to get past this problem is to by the gatorade \_mix\_ which uses sucrose.that's why I've been doing ever since gatorade switched to hfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522</id>
	<title>an ex-fat geek: how i finally lost weight</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1269434880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ketosis</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>yes, its sort of the atkins diet, or the caveman diet: its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives, its what our biochemistry is idealized for, pre-agricultural revolution</p><p>all it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates. the pounds melt right off</p><p>it forces your body to manufacture ketones from fat, and use that to power the krebs cycle (where you get your energy from), and to go into gluconogenesis (sugar from proteins)</p><p>eat ALL YOU WANT: eggs and bacon, butter on everything, fish, chicken, cheese, nuts. eat fistfuls of macadamia nuts all day. even hard liquor (no sugar). but absolutely NO sugar or carbs, no rice, no bread, no milk, nothing sweet or starchy at all, period</p><p>you won't be hungry, but the monotony of the diet will leave you hating fat and protein, and just the thought of popcorn will turn you into a craven vampire</p><p>so what you do is carb cycle: you give yourself a break, say on weekends, where you get to pig out on sweets. trust me: ketosis during the week will more than make up for your indulging on weekends. it will also take you out of danger from the vague stresses you are putting on your body (see negatives below)</p><p>funny thing: i felt more lethargic, but slept with less quality, when eating carbs again. this diet, for whatever its worth, really makes you realize that high carb diets are not what homo sapiens is optimized for. our biochemistry has not yet caught up with our recent (evolutionarily speaking) agricultural revolution</p><p>i also have tinnitus, and i noticed that without sugar, the ringing in my ears was lessened, then, when i ate sugar, it came roaring back. they also use the ketosis diet to control people prone to seizures, so high ketones and no sugar seems to have a neurological impact. i would be interested in a study showing if the kind of inflammation which is alzheimer's is due to high carb diets: that's wild ass speculation on my part. i did read of a woman who put her alzheimer's husband on a ketosis diet of palm oil, and his symptoms got better (google it). again: THIS IS WILD ASS CONJECTURE, but a potentially interesting line of thought, the connection between carbs and inflammation in various disease systems</p><p>drink tons of coffee, it seems to help with hunger. but it has to be BLACK: no sugar, no milk. also drink a lot of pepsi max/ coke zero: the sweetener in those is actually a tiny protein. drink gallons of the stuff, it will fill your stomach</p><p>important: get your vitamins. since you're not getting many veggies (low carb veggies like broccoli and lettuce is pretty much ok, but you're missing out on wonderful foods like blueberries with this diet), you need supplements</p><p>negatives:</p><p>ketosis makes your blood slightly acidic (its not ketoacidosis, that's far worse, like with anorexics, who don't eat at all), which means you will be leaching calcium and magnesium, and stressing your kidneys and weakening your bones (this is all happening on a minor basis, relax). take calcium citrate supplements. paradoxically, eating more calcium will help you avoid kidney stones (the most common kind of kidney stone is caused by oxalate, and calcium inhibits oxalate absorption from the intestines), and the citrate helps in ketosis for... some reason i forgot. potassium and magnesium citrate supplements are good to, i forgot exactly why</p><p>your breath will stink: you're exhaling acetone through your lungs while in ketosis. but remember, chicks don't like fat guys, and your diet is not permanent, so just avoid breathing on chicks for awhile while on your diet</p><p>if these negatives scare you, think about the diabetes and heart disease you are giving yourself with your carb addiction: far more dangerous than a temporary diet which will make you a healthy weight</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ketosishttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis [ wikipedia.org ] yes , its sort of the atkins diet , or the caveman diet : its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives , its what our biochemistry is idealized for , pre-agricultural revolutionall it means is you eat fat and protein , and no carbohydrates .
the pounds melt right offit forces your body to manufacture ketones from fat , and use that to power the krebs cycle ( where you get your energy from ) , and to go into gluconogenesis ( sugar from proteins ) eat ALL YOU WANT : eggs and bacon , butter on everything , fish , chicken , cheese , nuts .
eat fistfuls of macadamia nuts all day .
even hard liquor ( no sugar ) .
but absolutely NO sugar or carbs , no rice , no bread , no milk , nothing sweet or starchy at all , periodyou wo n't be hungry , but the monotony of the diet will leave you hating fat and protein , and just the thought of popcorn will turn you into a craven vampireso what you do is carb cycle : you give yourself a break , say on weekends , where you get to pig out on sweets .
trust me : ketosis during the week will more than make up for your indulging on weekends .
it will also take you out of danger from the vague stresses you are putting on your body ( see negatives below ) funny thing : i felt more lethargic , but slept with less quality , when eating carbs again .
this diet , for whatever its worth , really makes you realize that high carb diets are not what homo sapiens is optimized for .
our biochemistry has not yet caught up with our recent ( evolutionarily speaking ) agricultural revolutioni also have tinnitus , and i noticed that without sugar , the ringing in my ears was lessened , then , when i ate sugar , it came roaring back .
they also use the ketosis diet to control people prone to seizures , so high ketones and no sugar seems to have a neurological impact .
i would be interested in a study showing if the kind of inflammation which is alzheimer 's is due to high carb diets : that 's wild ass speculation on my part .
i did read of a woman who put her alzheimer 's husband on a ketosis diet of palm oil , and his symptoms got better ( google it ) .
again : THIS IS WILD ASS CONJECTURE , but a potentially interesting line of thought , the connection between carbs and inflammation in various disease systemsdrink tons of coffee , it seems to help with hunger .
but it has to be BLACK : no sugar , no milk .
also drink a lot of pepsi max/ coke zero : the sweetener in those is actually a tiny protein .
drink gallons of the stuff , it will fill your stomachimportant : get your vitamins .
since you 're not getting many veggies ( low carb veggies like broccoli and lettuce is pretty much ok , but you 're missing out on wonderful foods like blueberries with this diet ) , you need supplementsnegatives : ketosis makes your blood slightly acidic ( its not ketoacidosis , that 's far worse , like with anorexics , who do n't eat at all ) , which means you will be leaching calcium and magnesium , and stressing your kidneys and weakening your bones ( this is all happening on a minor basis , relax ) .
take calcium citrate supplements .
paradoxically , eating more calcium will help you avoid kidney stones ( the most common kind of kidney stone is caused by oxalate , and calcium inhibits oxalate absorption from the intestines ) , and the citrate helps in ketosis for... some reason i forgot .
potassium and magnesium citrate supplements are good to , i forgot exactly whyyour breath will stink : you 're exhaling acetone through your lungs while in ketosis .
but remember , chicks do n't like fat guys , and your diet is not permanent , so just avoid breathing on chicks for awhile while on your dietif these negatives scare you , think about the diabetes and heart disease you are giving yourself with your carb addiction : far more dangerous than a temporary diet which will make you a healthy weight</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ketosishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis [wikipedia.org]yes, its sort of the atkins diet, or the caveman diet: its how our caveman ancestors spent pretty much their entire lives, its what our biochemistry is idealized for, pre-agricultural revolutionall it means is you eat fat and protein, and no carbohydrates.
the pounds melt right offit forces your body to manufacture ketones from fat, and use that to power the krebs cycle (where you get your energy from), and to go into gluconogenesis (sugar from proteins)eat ALL YOU WANT: eggs and bacon, butter on everything, fish, chicken, cheese, nuts.
eat fistfuls of macadamia nuts all day.
even hard liquor (no sugar).
but absolutely NO sugar or carbs, no rice, no bread, no milk, nothing sweet or starchy at all, periodyou won't be hungry, but the monotony of the diet will leave you hating fat and protein, and just the thought of popcorn will turn you into a craven vampireso what you do is carb cycle: you give yourself a break, say on weekends, where you get to pig out on sweets.
trust me: ketosis during the week will more than make up for your indulging on weekends.
it will also take you out of danger from the vague stresses you are putting on your body (see negatives below)funny thing: i felt more lethargic, but slept with less quality, when eating carbs again.
this diet, for whatever its worth, really makes you realize that high carb diets are not what homo sapiens is optimized for.
our biochemistry has not yet caught up with our recent (evolutionarily speaking) agricultural revolutioni also have tinnitus, and i noticed that without sugar, the ringing in my ears was lessened, then, when i ate sugar, it came roaring back.
they also use the ketosis diet to control people prone to seizures, so high ketones and no sugar seems to have a neurological impact.
i would be interested in a study showing if the kind of inflammation which is alzheimer's is due to high carb diets: that's wild ass speculation on my part.
i did read of a woman who put her alzheimer's husband on a ketosis diet of palm oil, and his symptoms got better (google it).
again: THIS IS WILD ASS CONJECTURE, but a potentially interesting line of thought, the connection between carbs and inflammation in various disease systemsdrink tons of coffee, it seems to help with hunger.
but it has to be BLACK: no sugar, no milk.
also drink a lot of pepsi max/ coke zero: the sweetener in those is actually a tiny protein.
drink gallons of the stuff, it will fill your stomachimportant: get your vitamins.
since you're not getting many veggies (low carb veggies like broccoli and lettuce is pretty much ok, but you're missing out on wonderful foods like blueberries with this diet), you need supplementsnegatives:ketosis makes your blood slightly acidic (its not ketoacidosis, that's far worse, like with anorexics, who don't eat at all), which means you will be leaching calcium and magnesium, and stressing your kidneys and weakening your bones (this is all happening on a minor basis, relax).
take calcium citrate supplements.
paradoxically, eating more calcium will help you avoid kidney stones (the most common kind of kidney stone is caused by oxalate, and calcium inhibits oxalate absorption from the intestines), and the citrate helps in ketosis for... some reason i forgot.
potassium and magnesium citrate supplements are good to, i forgot exactly whyyour breath will stink: you're exhaling acetone through your lungs while in ketosis.
but remember, chicks don't like fat guys, and your diet is not permanent, so just avoid breathing on chicks for awhile while on your dietif these negatives scare you, think about the diabetes and heart disease you are giving yourself with your carb addiction: far more dangerous than a temporary diet which will make you a healthy weight</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604042</id>
	<title>Queue . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269426780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Queue Corn Lobby response in 3 . . . 2. . . . 1 . . . .</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Queue Corn Lobby response in 3 .
. .
2. .
. .
1 .
. .
.</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Queue Corn Lobby response in 3 .
. .
2. .
. .
1 .
. .
.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605590</id>
	<title>It causes a stronger insulin response,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269435360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>which is the hormone responsible for stopping the body's lipolysis, telling it to store fat instead of burning it, in order to collect and burn the sugar in the blood. Let's repeat that: more insulin = more fat gain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>which is the hormone responsible for stopping the body 's lipolysis , telling it to store fat instead of burning it , in order to collect and burn the sugar in the blood .
Let 's repeat that : more insulin = more fat gain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which is the hormone responsible for stopping the body's lipolysis, telling it to store fat instead of burning it, in order to collect and burn the sugar in the blood.
Let's repeat that: more insulin = more fat gain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31616248</id>
	<title>Re:FOOLS! Drink the refreshing beverage . . .</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269550020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BEER! Liquid bread!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BEER !
Liquid bread !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BEER!
Liquid bread!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607732</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>Tenareth</author>
	<datestamp>1269460140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nope, simple facts.  The worst part is that it is a basic logic debate, the only reason HFCS is used in the USA (and almost nowhere else) is that we lobby for corn farmers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , simple facts .
The worst part is that it is a basic logic debate , the only reason HFCS is used in the USA ( and almost nowhere else ) is that we lobby for corn farmers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, simple facts.
The worst part is that it is a basic logic debate, the only reason HFCS is used in the USA (and almost nowhere else) is that we lobby for corn farmers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604390</id>
	<title>Original article?</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1269428280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does anyone have a mirror of this article?  My institution doesn't subscribe and I'd really like to get a look at it.</p><p>My main question is this: They allowed rats free access to either HFCS or Sucrose water.  Rats with HFCS got fatter than sucrose rats.  Does this represent a difference in consumption by the rats?  Or are they consuming the same amount of sugar either way, and HFCS just causes more obesity.</p><p>Given that sucrose is just glucose and fructose (the components of HFCS) linked by a water molecule, I would strongly doubt the second case. The first case is a pretty trivial result.  But without reading their actual methods, who really knows?  I couldn't find a preprint on the authors site, and google scholar is no help either.  Any help?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone have a mirror of this article ?
My institution does n't subscribe and I 'd really like to get a look at it.My main question is this : They allowed rats free access to either HFCS or Sucrose water .
Rats with HFCS got fatter than sucrose rats .
Does this represent a difference in consumption by the rats ?
Or are they consuming the same amount of sugar either way , and HFCS just causes more obesity.Given that sucrose is just glucose and fructose ( the components of HFCS ) linked by a water molecule , I would strongly doubt the second case .
The first case is a pretty trivial result .
But without reading their actual methods , who really knows ?
I could n't find a preprint on the authors site , and google scholar is no help either .
Any help ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone have a mirror of this article?
My institution doesn't subscribe and I'd really like to get a look at it.My main question is this: They allowed rats free access to either HFCS or Sucrose water.
Rats with HFCS got fatter than sucrose rats.
Does this represent a difference in consumption by the rats?
Or are they consuming the same amount of sugar either way, and HFCS just causes more obesity.Given that sucrose is just glucose and fructose (the components of HFCS) linked by a water molecule, I would strongly doubt the second case.
The first case is a pretty trivial result.
But without reading their actual methods, who really knows?
I couldn't find a preprint on the authors site, and google scholar is no help either.
Any help?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605144</id>
	<title>Where's the biochemists?</title>
	<author>russotto</author>
	<datestamp>1269432360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that on a study that is basically about biochemistry, you'd think Princeton could have found a biochemistry researcher to run it.  Instead, they have a psychology professor.  WTF?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that on a study that is basically about biochemistry , you 'd think Princeton could have found a biochemistry researcher to run it .
Instead , they have a psychology professor .
WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that on a study that is basically about biochemistry, you'd think Princeton could have found a biochemistry researcher to run it.
Instead, they have a psychology professor.
WTF?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604322</id>
	<title>Re:Skepticical: Study Results are inconclusive</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1269427980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's two articles I didn't read on the same thread!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's two articles I did n't read on the same thread !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's two articles I didn't read on the same thread!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604168</id>
	<title>Don't eat sugar!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269427320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a great video explaining this I found a while ago.</p><p>Sugar: The Bitter Truth<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM</a> [youtube.com]</p><p>Bottom line: don't eat sugar, specifically fructose.  It's turned directly into VLDL in your liver.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a great video explaining this I found a while ago.Sugar : The Bitter Truthhttp : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = dBnniua6-oM [ youtube.com ] Bottom line : do n't eat sugar , specifically fructose .
It 's turned directly into VLDL in your liver .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a great video explaining this I found a while ago.Sugar: The Bitter Truthhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM [youtube.com]Bottom line: don't eat sugar, specifically fructose.
It's turned directly into VLDL in your liver.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604728</id>
	<title>If you want to rehydrate, why not drink water?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269429840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's worked for tens of thousands of years, with no weight gain, and it actually rehydrates you, instead of causing insulin shock from too much sugar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worked for tens of thousands of years , with no weight gain , and it actually rehydrates you , instead of causing insulin shock from too much sugar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worked for tens of thousands of years, with no weight gain, and it actually rehydrates you, instead of causing insulin shock from too much sugar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605774</id>
	<title>Re:i mentioned this before</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1269437040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not unusual.  Slashdotters will call you a lunatic for all kinds of things.  Suggest that Linux is naturally more resistant to viruses than Windows (and not because of marketshare) and tons of Slashdotters will call you an idiot.  Express a negative opinion of Windows, and Slashdotters will call you names.  Say that the iPod is better than the Zune and hordes of Slashdotters will call you a lunatic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not unusual .
Slashdotters will call you a lunatic for all kinds of things .
Suggest that Linux is naturally more resistant to viruses than Windows ( and not because of marketshare ) and tons of Slashdotters will call you an idiot .
Express a negative opinion of Windows , and Slashdotters will call you names .
Say that the iPod is better than the Zune and hordes of Slashdotters will call you a lunatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not unusual.
Slashdotters will call you a lunatic for all kinds of things.
Suggest that Linux is naturally more resistant to viruses than Windows (and not because of marketshare) and tons of Slashdotters will call you an idiot.
Express a negative opinion of Windows, and Slashdotters will call you names.
Say that the iPod is better than the Zune and hordes of Slashdotters will call you a lunatic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604344</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1269428040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The sugar industry had something to do with the problem.  Specifically, pushing for import quotas in the early 80s that increased the price. As a result, manufacturers switched to corn syrup and the candy industry moved to Canada and Mexico.  The jobs lost from the candy industry most likely outnumber the jobs saved by the import quotas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The sugar industry had something to do with the problem .
Specifically , pushing for import quotas in the early 80s that increased the price .
As a result , manufacturers switched to corn syrup and the candy industry moved to Canada and Mexico .
The jobs lost from the candy industry most likely outnumber the jobs saved by the import quotas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The sugar industry had something to do with the problem.
Specifically, pushing for import quotas in the early 80s that increased the price.
As a result, manufacturers switched to corn syrup and the candy industry moved to Canada and Mexico.
The jobs lost from the candy industry most likely outnumber the jobs saved by the import quotas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611594</id>
	<title>It's not nice to fool Mother Nature</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1269535380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See this is what happens when uneducated morons (read: the government) come up with "consensus" that something is bad for you and they have the solution.  Sugar BAD!  You MUST use HFCS instead.  Oops, our bad.  Saturated fat BAD!  Use transfat instead.  Ooops, our bad.  How long will it be before we discover that Sea Salt (or whatever they plan to replace regular salt with) is bad for you?</p><p>I heard Alton Brown say that the reason hot sauce is so popular is that as we age our taste buds sort of wear out.  But people have been aging since the year one so that theory is bunk, IMHO.  If you have parents in their 80s, ask them what food was like 30, 40, 50 years ago and they'll tell you things like "Pork used to be really delicious."  Now it's like chewing on a mouse pad because everyone decided that fat pigs were bad for you.  Technically, you might argue that "Fat Pig" is no longer an insult.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See this is what happens when uneducated morons ( read : the government ) come up with " consensus " that something is bad for you and they have the solution .
Sugar BAD !
You MUST use HFCS instead .
Oops , our bad .
Saturated fat BAD !
Use transfat instead .
Ooops , our bad .
How long will it be before we discover that Sea Salt ( or whatever they plan to replace regular salt with ) is bad for you ? I heard Alton Brown say that the reason hot sauce is so popular is that as we age our taste buds sort of wear out .
But people have been aging since the year one so that theory is bunk , IMHO .
If you have parents in their 80s , ask them what food was like 30 , 40 , 50 years ago and they 'll tell you things like " Pork used to be really delicious .
" Now it 's like chewing on a mouse pad because everyone decided that fat pigs were bad for you .
Technically , you might argue that " Fat Pig " is no longer an insult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See this is what happens when uneducated morons (read: the government) come up with "consensus" that something is bad for you and they have the solution.
Sugar BAD!
You MUST use HFCS instead.
Oops, our bad.
Saturated fat BAD!
Use transfat instead.
Ooops, our bad.
How long will it be before we discover that Sea Salt (or whatever they plan to replace regular salt with) is bad for you?I heard Alton Brown say that the reason hot sauce is so popular is that as we age our taste buds sort of wear out.
But people have been aging since the year one so that theory is bunk, IMHO.
If you have parents in their 80s, ask them what food was like 30, 40, 50 years ago and they'll tell you things like "Pork used to be really delicious.
"  Now it's like chewing on a mouse pad because everyone decided that fat pigs were bad for you.
Technically, you might argue that "Fat Pig" is no longer an insult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605824</id>
	<title>Re:HFC</title>
	<author>Moryath</author>
	<datestamp>1269437400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>galactose</i></p><p>So what are you saying? That lactose is like the Silver Surfer of food sources, bringing with it great peril and warning?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>Personally, what I found most interesting about the study is that they tested with normal soda-levels of table sugar, but the HFCS-water they fed the rats had only HALF the saturation of your average soda pop... and yet they STILL found that the rats were making little pigs of themselves.</p><p><i>Biochemically<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.</i></p><p>I don't think it is the biochemical absorption that matters in the equation. I believe the point was being made that there is an effect, unstudied, in how either the imbalance or the fact that the HFCS sugar comes "pre-separated" and thus causes a failure in the normal saitety reflex.</p><p>When I think about reading the labels on various foods and seeing how HFCS is practically fucking everywhere except for freshly picked fruits/veg and freshly chopped meats straight from the butcher (seriously, have you noticed there is even HFCS in prepackaged DELI MEATS and canned vegetables???), it scares the crap out of me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>galactoseSo what are you saying ?
That lactose is like the Silver Surfer of food sources , bringing with it great peril and warning ?
; ) Personally , what I found most interesting about the study is that they tested with normal soda-levels of table sugar , but the HFCS-water they fed the rats had only HALF the saturation of your average soda pop... and yet they STILL found that the rats were making little pigs of themselves.Biochemically ... is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.I do n't think it is the biochemical absorption that matters in the equation .
I believe the point was being made that there is an effect , unstudied , in how either the imbalance or the fact that the HFCS sugar comes " pre-separated " and thus causes a failure in the normal saitety reflex.When I think about reading the labels on various foods and seeing how HFCS is practically fucking everywhere except for freshly picked fruits/veg and freshly chopped meats straight from the butcher ( seriously , have you noticed there is even HFCS in prepackaged DELI MEATS and canned vegetables ? ? ?
) , it scares the crap out of me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>galactoseSo what are you saying?
That lactose is like the Silver Surfer of food sources, bringing with it great peril and warning?
;)Personally, what I found most interesting about the study is that they tested with normal soda-levels of table sugar, but the HFCS-water they fed the rats had only HALF the saturation of your average soda pop... and yet they STILL found that the rats were making little pigs of themselves.Biochemically ... is rapidly metabolized in much the same way as glucose.I don't think it is the biochemical absorption that matters in the equation.
I believe the point was being made that there is an effect, unstudied, in how either the imbalance or the fact that the HFCS sugar comes "pre-separated" and thus causes a failure in the normal saitety reflex.When I think about reading the labels on various foods and seeing how HFCS is practically fucking everywhere except for freshly picked fruits/veg and freshly chopped meats straight from the butcher (seriously, have you noticed there is even HFCS in prepackaged DELI MEATS and canned vegetables???
), it scares the crap out of me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605586</id>
	<title>Re:How does this compare to regular corn syrup?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269435300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in nature</p></div><p>I take it you've never chewed on sugar cane or had honey or maple syrup?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they 're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in natureI take it you 've never chewed on sugar cane or had honey or maple syrup ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they're both concentrations of sweetness far greater than those found anywhere in natureI take it you've never chewed on sugar cane or had honey or maple syrup?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604296</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605274</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget correlation is not causation!</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269433260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm so sad you're currently modded interesting instead of funny.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm so sad you 're currently modded interesting instead of funny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm so sad you're currently modded interesting instead of funny.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606838</id>
	<title>They should ban rats</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269446340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They spread disease, like the plague. And now they are eating our HFCS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They spread disease , like the plague .
And now they are eating our HFCS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They spread disease, like the plague.
And now they are eating our HFCS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606482</id>
	<title>Re:In humans too...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269442380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It has the same number of calories as Sugar. It breaks-down in the body the same way (fructose and glucose). There's no real difference.</i></p><p>With carbohydrates, it's all in the timing--the slower they are delivered, the better.  HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides, which can be absorbed directly, so anything you consume goes directly into the bloodstream.  Sucrose needs to be broken down first, and that can only happen at a limited rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has the same number of calories as Sugar .
It breaks-down in the body the same way ( fructose and glucose ) .
There 's no real difference.With carbohydrates , it 's all in the timing--the slower they are delivered , the better .
HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides , which can be absorbed directly , so anything you consume goes directly into the bloodstream .
Sucrose needs to be broken down first , and that can only happen at a limited rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has the same number of calories as Sugar.
It breaks-down in the body the same way (fructose and glucose).
There's no real difference.With carbohydrates, it's all in the timing--the slower they are delivered, the better.
HFCS is a mixture of monosaccharides, which can be absorbed directly, so anything you consume goes directly into the bloodstream.
Sucrose needs to be broken down first, and that can only happen at a limited rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605740</id>
	<title>Re:Gatorade switching...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269436620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you are an endurance athlete that actually needs to replace electrolytes, there is no reason to be drinking 'sports' beverages and even if you are such an athlete, you are much better off consuming something with a 4:1 carbohydrate to protein ratio such as Endurox. Gatorade and Powerade are basically sugar water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are an endurance athlete that actually needs to replace electrolytes , there is no reason to be drinking 'sports ' beverages and even if you are such an athlete , you are much better off consuming something with a 4 : 1 carbohydrate to protein ratio such as Endurox .
Gatorade and Powerade are basically sugar water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are an endurance athlete that actually needs to replace electrolytes, there is no reason to be drinking 'sports' beverages and even if you are such an athlete, you are much better off consuming something with a 4:1 carbohydrate to protein ratio such as Endurox.
Gatorade and Powerade are basically sugar water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607044</id>
	<title>Re:water switching...</title>
	<author>Larryish</author>
	<datestamp>1269448440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't read all the responses to your post, so this may be modded redundant...</p><p>But, NO CHEMICALS IN WATER?</p><p>Perhaps you do not live in the U.S. or the U.K., or do not drink anything produced in the U.S.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't read all the responses to your post , so this may be modded redundant...But , NO CHEMICALS IN WATER ? Perhaps you do not live in the U.S. or the U.K. , or do not drink anything produced in the U.S .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't read all the responses to your post, so this may be modded redundant...But, NO CHEMICALS IN WATER?Perhaps you do not live in the U.S. or the U.K., or do not drink anything produced in the U.S.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605552</id>
	<title>Re:FOOLS! Drink the refreshing beverage . . .</title>
	<author>schnablebg</author>
	<datestamp>1269435060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I sweeten my coffee with HFCS, you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I sweeten my coffee with HFCS , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I sweeten my coffee with HFCS, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604458</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605008</id>
	<title>Re:i mentioned this before</title>
	<author>PachmanP</author>
	<datestamp>1269431580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in a comment a few months ago and everyone dismissed me as a lunatic, now here is some more newer scientific documentation and evidence backing it up, HFCS is bad</p></div><p>Doesn't mean you're not a lunatic. A broken clock is right twice a day.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a comment a few months ago and everyone dismissed me as a lunatic , now here is some more newer scientific documentation and evidence backing it up , HFCS is badDoes n't mean you 're not a lunatic .
A broken clock is right twice a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a comment a few months ago and everyone dismissed me as a lunatic, now here is some more newer scientific documentation and evidence backing it up, HFCS is badDoesn't mean you're not a lunatic.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31615828</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget correlation is not causation!</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1269548580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><ol> <li>a has been seen to be correlated with b</li><li>b always follows a</li><li>therefore b does not cause a</li><li>there is a high probability of causation, that a causes b</li><li>b always follows a in every tested tested instance</li><li>causation</li></ol><p>Correlation does not imply causation, but causation always implys correlation. If I set you on fire, there is a correlation between me setting you on fire and your burning to death. Yeah, you could have died of natural causes while engulfed in flames, but I think Occam's razor would take care of that logical inconsistancy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a has been seen to be correlated with bb always follows atherefore b does not cause athere is a high probability of causation , that a causes bb always follows a in every tested tested instancecausationCorrelation does not imply causation , but causation always implys correlation .
If I set you on fire , there is a correlation between me setting you on fire and your burning to death .
Yeah , you could have died of natural causes while engulfed in flames , but I think Occam 's razor would take care of that logical inconsistancy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a has been seen to be correlated with bb always follows atherefore b does not cause athere is a high probability of causation, that a causes bb always follows a in every tested tested instancecausationCorrelation does not imply causation, but causation always implys correlation.
If I set you on fire, there is a correlation between me setting you on fire and your burning to death.
Yeah, you could have died of natural causes while engulfed in flames, but I think Occam's razor would take care of that logical inconsistancy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606560</id>
	<title>Re:Interesting</title>
	<author>scdeimos</author>
	<datestamp>1269443340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You'd probably be surprised where corn syrup pops-up. Besides soft drinks:<ul>
<li>Vanilla, hazelnut, etc. coffee flavourings are usually based on corn syrup. How was your hazelnut latte this morning?</li><li>The "maple syrup" that you're putting on your pancakes (especially at Macca's) is more likely "maple-flavoured corn syrup".</li><li>A lot of "staple foods" like bread often contain sugar, and that's often corn-based because it's cheaper than cane sugar.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'd probably be surprised where corn syrup pops-up .
Besides soft drinks : Vanilla , hazelnut , etc .
coffee flavourings are usually based on corn syrup .
How was your hazelnut latte this morning ? The " maple syrup " that you 're putting on your pancakes ( especially at Macca 's ) is more likely " maple-flavoured corn syrup " .A lot of " staple foods " like bread often contain sugar , and that 's often corn-based because it 's cheaper than cane sugar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'd probably be surprised where corn syrup pops-up.
Besides soft drinks:
Vanilla, hazelnut, etc.
coffee flavourings are usually based on corn syrup.
How was your hazelnut latte this morning?The "maple syrup" that you're putting on your pancakes (especially at Macca's) is more likely "maple-flavoured corn syrup".A lot of "staple foods" like bread often contain sugar, and that's often corn-based because it's cheaper than cane sugar.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604320</id>
	<title>Re:Its the subsidies that are the problem</title>
	<author>Cidolfas</author>
	<datestamp>1269427980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Don't forget to remove sugar tariffs that allow domestic corn producers to maintain a monopoly on the US sweetener market!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget to remove sugar tariffs that allow domestic corn producers to maintain a monopoly on the US sweetener market !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget to remove sugar tariffs that allow domestic corn producers to maintain a monopoly on the US sweetener market!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606482
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609478
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604036
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31616248
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31612118
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605262
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605586
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607664
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607732
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605518
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605552
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31615828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605926
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605410
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604346
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606596
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604728
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31616854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605186
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607164
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604344
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605872
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_24_2122231_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606702
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604838
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607732
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604214
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604412
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604472
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606566
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605926
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605518
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31608890
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604042
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605262
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605774
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31612118
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31616854
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31611232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31609478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604036
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607702
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604236
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604356
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604582
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606668
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607664
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31607064
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606596
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31606918
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605824
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605410
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604346
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605672
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605144
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31615828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_24_2122231.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31604458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31605552
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_24_2122231.31616248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
