Recommended Posts

You cannot say that subway is as bad for you as mcdonalds just based on what people are ordering.

Except you can and it is.

For example I go to subway and get a footlong steak and cheese sub. It's not a special order or anything. Based on Subways own nutrition info it's over 1,000 calories, 18 grams of saturated fat and 2,600mg of Sodium. Tasty.

The next day I go to McDonalds and get a Big Mac and fries. According to McDonalds (Canada) this is 890 calories, 12 grams of saturated fat and 1,290mg of sodium.

So which is the better option?

high fructose corn syrup is not worse for you than any other sugar or carb for that matter.
Fructose is among the leading causes of increasing obesity and type-2 diabetes in the United States. This article is a good place to start: Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, and Fructose.

whats worse: your joke or me finding such jokes kinda funny... doh

I maybe should have mentioned the meaning behind my post :D

...but basically, the humor in the South Park episode (the image is from that) about Jared Fogle was the misunderstanding of "aids" - seeing as everyone thought he had the disease, and thus loosing weight that way (if I remember it correctly) but he had "aides" - as in, personal assistants

On topic: http://en.wikipedia....iki/Jared_Fogle

Fructose is among the leading causes of increasing obesity and type-2 diabetes in the United States. This article is a good place to start: Obesity, Type 2 Diabetes, and Fructose.

this data agrees with what I just said. its not the the actual HFCS that increases obesity and type 2 diabetes, its the over consumption because this stuff is dirt cheap and is put in everything to add taste. I totally agree with this.

The idiots that did the research were probably having them load it up with extra meat, cheese and sauces. How dumb can you be to not realize that adding those things also adds calories, carbohydrates, sodium, etc.?

that was the point...

Should be titled "Subway can be just as unhealthy as mcdonalds"......I usually get a 6", which with what I order on it works out to 350 calories, and only 15% of the recommended fat and 20% of the recommended saturated fats for the entire day. Sometimes when I'm feeling really hungry or skip breakfast I will get a 12"....which basically just doubles the values for the 6", but they are still within pretty normal values that I would say are almost always healthier than what I eat when I order at McDonalds, and it's just as filling and tastes a lot better too.

Just because Subway can be as unhealthy as McDonalds doesn't mean it always is. The meals I order at Subway are virtually always healthier than what I order at McDonalds....I suppose I could order a salad at McDonalds but the same could be said for Subway.

this data agrees with what I just said. its not the the actual HFCS that increases obesity and type 2 diabetes, its the over consumption because this stuff is dirt cheap and is put in everything to add taste. I totally agree with this.

You said "high fructose corn syrup is not worse for you than any other sugar or carb". The article shows that fructose is worse than other sugars and calories because of its metabolism and statistical correlation with obesity. It's not just a matter of how much people eat; widespread obesity is not caused by widespread gluttony. It's mainly a matter of what people eat. That they eat too much and don't exercise is largely driven by what they eat in the first place.

You said "high fructose corn syrup is not worse for you than any other sugar or carb".

The article shows that fructose is worse than other sugars and calories because of its metabolism and statistical correlation with obesity.

the article proves NOTHING factual. it shows correlation only ,and even states correlation is not cause. 100% of people who drink water die. does this prove water is bad for you? HFCS is just another sugar. it doesn't do anything different to the body. its not particularly high in calories either.

It's not just a matter of how much people eat;

yes it is. its physics. its the law of conservation of energy. energy cannot be created,nor destroyed. it is only transferred. When you eat, you're shifting energy in your body. if theres too much of it and it isn't used, it gets stored as fat or muscle. It cannot be destroyed. if you don't provide enough energy to your body, where is this energy going to come from? thin air? no,it comes from reserve fat stores. that is how you lose weight.

widespread obesity is not caused by widespread gluttony. It's mainly a matter of what people eat.

you are easily proven wrong. go look at low carb people. these people are eating nothing but fried chicken,mayonaisse, egg yolks, steaks, butter, cheese and losing a ton of weight. I dare you to vist these low carb forums and look at peoples meals.

then go look at low fat diets. these diets are loaded with carbs and sugars,and these people are also losing dozens and hundreds of pounds.

this contradicts everything a lot of people,including you are saying. this is reality.

That they eat too much and don't exercise is largely driven by what they eat in the first place.

that is completely not true. eating too much and not exercising is not caused by what you eat, but the type of lifestyle you lead. if I drink soda, all of a sudden im going to get fat because im going to over eat and not exercise? that is illogical.

the article proves NOTHING factual. it shows correlation only ,and even states correlation is not cause. 100% of people who drink water die. does this prove water is bad for you? HFCS is just another sugar. it doesn't do anything different to the body. its not particularly high in calories either.

First you state to agree with the article, then when I summarize it to you you say it doesn't prove anything. Did you even read it? It clearly shows (and it's not the only one, you can find this information virtually anywhere) that fructose is metabolized differently from other sugars and has a different effect on hormonal regulation of satiety, hunger and energy level. Unlike other sugars, fructose is largely transformed to fat, and does not trigger the satiety response like glucose. It also causes leptin resistance.

you are easily proven wrong. go look at low carb people. these people are eating nothing but fried chicken,mayonaisse, egg yolks, steaks, butter, cheese and losing a ton of weight. I dare you to vist these low carb forums and look at peoples meals.

None of that contains any fructose, so what's your point? I agree that high calorie diets can be healthy; my point is that fructose is not just another harmless source of calories.
then go look at low fat diets. these diets are loaded with carbs and sugars,and these people are also losing dozens and hundreds of pounds.
But these calories and sugars are, again, not fructose. There's no diet based on soft drinks and artificially sweetened sugars.
if I drink soda, all of a sudden im going to get fat because im going to over eat and not exercise? that is illogical.
You're a biological organism, and your will to eat and exercise is governed by hormones; fructose in large amounts (such as in soft drinks) causes hormonal dysfunctions that cause your body to store more energy as fat than it needs to, to feel hungry when you don't need calories, and lazy when you have enough energy to exercise. Yes, fructose is making people fat.

First you state to agree with the article, then when I summarize it to you you say it doesn't prove anything. Did you even read it? It clearly shows (and it's not the only one, you can find this information virtually anywhere) that fructose is metabolized differently from other sugars and has a different effect on hormonal regulation of satiety, hunger and energy level. Unlike other sugars, fructose is largely transformed to fat, and does not trigger the satiety response like glucose. It also causes leptin resistance.

i did not agree that hfcs is worse than sugar metabolically, only that it is consumed in bigger amounts because it is added in big quantities to foods and that may add extra energy consumption.

None of that contains any fructose, so what's your point? I agree that high calorie diets can be healthy; my point is that fructose is not just another harmless source of calories.

these are not high calorie diets. these are low calorie diets with eating purely one type of macronutrient that is deemed "unhealthy", proving that the calorie amount is what determines health,not the actual macronutrient.

But these calories and sugars are, again, not fructose. There's no diet based on soft drinks and artificially sweetened sugars.

these diets incorporate fruits, which have fructose. A Medium sized apple has the same amount of fructose as a can of soda. Low fat diets incorporate plenty of fruits,and people lose a ton of weight and are healthy. Are you telling me fruits now are bad for you? Fruits make you fat? Fruits will give you diabetes? Fruits will give you heart disease and high blood pressure? Fruits cause cancer? That is what you're essentially saying.

You're a biological organism, and your will to eat and exercise is governed by hormones;

Are you serious? It has nothing to do with hormones. Its the lifestyle that determines this. If I am concerned about my looks, I will watch how much I eat,and make sure to hit the gym. If I am an athlete,I am constantly working out and care about my performance. If I have a desk job, I am sitting all day without doing any type of activity. Hormones have zero to do with this. If I wake up early and don't have time to make breakfast,I will pass by a fast food place,and order a large portion of food because its cheap and it should make me full for a while. I will finish work and be exhausted, then don't feel like making food. I will grab a pizza and stuff my face then go to sleep. I don't have time to exercise. I will gain weight. Again,where do hormones come into play?

fructose in large amounts (such as in soft drinks) causes hormonal dysfunctions that cause your body to store more energy as fat than it needs to, to feel hungry when you don't need calories, and lazy when you have enough energy to exercise. Yes, fructose is making people fat.

that is not a fact. its never been proven. its theory based on correlation. It means absolutely zilch. there are a dozen controlled studies that come to the conclusion that there is no difference between consuming sucrose, or hfcs.

by the way, here are comments from a cardiologist about sugar and conversion to fat.

?I presented a lot of science to dispute a number of the assertions that Dr. Lustig has made about sugar and sugar-sweetened beverages,? says Rippe. ?Dr. Lustig maintains that sugars are turned into fat in the liver. And that simply is a misinterpretation of a lot of other people?s work. I pointed that out in detail. I talked to all of the key people whose work he referred to, and he?s just misinterpreting their work. Yes, it is possible, if you give a lot of sugar, or a lot of fructose, to have the liver make a little bit of fat, maybe 1% of what we consume every day. But to maintain that in any appreciable way sugar is turned into fat is simply a misunderstanding of this research. And that is very clear from the viewpoint of the people who have done the research.?

Except you can and it is.

For example I go to subway and get a footlong steak and cheese sub. It's not a special order or anything. Based on Subways own nutrition info it's over 1,000 calories, 18 grams of saturated fat and 2,600mg of Sodium. Tasty.

The next day I go to McDonalds and get a Big Mac and fries. According to McDonalds (Canada) this is 890 calories, 12 grams of saturated fat and 1,290mg of sodium.

So which is the better option?

You can get the veggie delight sub . a footlong has 460 calories in it. That would make subway a lot healthier then mcdonalds.

Also the veggie delight is on their menu.

You can get the veggie delight sub . a footlong has 460 calories in it. That would make subway a lot healthier then mcdonalds.

Also the veggie delight is on their menu.

You can also get a single cheeseburger and a diet coke at McDonalds.

Doesn't change the fact that Subway can be just as healthy or unhealthy as any other fast food depending on what you pick.

I bought 2 types of Cambell's soups, which I like to mix together, for a delicious meal. [and I thought, healthy]

Between the MSG laden Vegetarian Vegetable and the Home-style Chicken Noodle, there is over 2100 mg of sodium ! :|

Way more than many cheaper, fast-food items.

There is way too much salt being dumped into our foods.

these diets incorporate fruits, which have fructose. A Medium sized apple has the same amount of fructose as a can of soda. Low fat diets incorporate plenty of fruits,and people lose a ton of weight and are healthy. Are you telling me fruits now are bad for you? Fruits make you fat? Fruits will give you diabetes? Fruits will give you heart disease and high blood pressure? Fruits cause cancer? That is what you're essentially saying.
Fresh fruits contain fiber which travels quickly through the intestines and triggers satiety, which means it's pretty hard to eat too much fruit, i.e. your body tells you right away you've had enough and you just don't want anymore.
Are you serious? It has nothing to do with hormones. Its the lifestyle that determines this. If I am concerned about my looks, I will watch how much I eat,and make sure to hit the gym. If I am an athlete,I am constantly working out and care about my performance. If I have a desk job, I am sitting all day without doing any type of activity. Hormones have zero to do with this. If I wake up early and don't have time to make breakfast,I will pass by a fast food place,and order a large portion of food because its cheap and it should make me full for a while. I will finish work and be exhausted, then don't feel like making food. I will grab a pizza and stuff my face then go to sleep. I don't have time to exercise. I will gain weight. Again,where do hormones come into play?
Hormones control appetite, energy level, amount of energy converted to fat. That's just a fact. Your example doesn't illustrate why someone would eat too much, simply that they would eat prefabricated, unhealthy food. The human body knows when it needs food and when to stop eating. Even with little activity, a person normally doesn't get obese, she will simply eat less. How come then, people eat too much? How come they don't feel full after eating half that 2000-calorie meal and stop there? How come they feel exhausted even though they have a surplus of calories?

I agree that life choices have a role in this, but it cannot account for such a widespread phenomenon. People have not suddenly become gluttons, and while they are more sedentary than before that shouldn't lead in itself to a massive obesity endemic. We're seeing babies practically born obese. Surely they cannot be blamed for their lifestyle?

There is way too much salt being dumped into our foods.
Yes. It's even worse in Canada; apparently we have saltier taste and food companies appeal to that. :/

At Subway though, aren't most of their sandwiches bigger than your average burger from McDonald's? I've not read into it, mainly because I'm lazy, but did they do like-for-like comparison or was it merely Burgers vs Subs? 'Cus haven't places like McDonald's started to copy Subway's style of wraps / sandwiches / salads? Sure I remember seeing adverts for it, but it's been that long since I've been inside a McDonald's I barely remember what they sell past their long running burgers.

I don't particularly like Subway, I just find it a bit bland and boring. If I'm going to eat out anywhere, it's got to be a lot better than what I can make at home.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
    • If you don’t get lucky with Valve’s Steam Machine reservation system, you can make your own Steam Machine instead. Valve says that “starting with the SteamOS 3.8 release, you can put together your own Steam Machine using whatever PC parts you want.” SteamOS 3.8.10 launched last week with a slew of updates, including “improved compatibility with recent Intel and AMD platforms.” Alongside that improved compatibility, Valve is giving gamers the green light to install SteamOS on their own desktops. In an interview with The Verge, Valve’s Pierre-Loup Griffais said Valve has been “rolling out improvements to [SteamOS] so it’s more compatible with desktop hardware,” including eventual support for Nvidia graphics. Griffais says Valve has “a growing team” working on Nvidia driver support for SteamOS, adding, “We’re collaborating with Nvidia very closely.” While he mentioned that Nvidia support might not come this year, Griffais emphasized that “it’s certainly something that we’re working on in the background.”     Subscription not needed: https://archive.fo/Tssfc Subscription needed: https://www.theverge.com/games/953411/valve-steamos-desktop-nvidia
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      162
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!