Re: Comparing hot dogs to vegetables and natural fruit sugar to HFCS? - edited to delete duplicate info

RE: Your posts to myself and ChrisB1

Good grief - you do like to argue, don't you?

No one is disputing the fact that there are more nitrates in many vegetables than in hot dogs, the point of contention was whether or not hot dogs might somehow be healthier than vegetables, a truly bad and unsupported assumption.

When Chris mentions studies about vegetable and fruit consumption lowering the incidence of cancer such studies are not only plentiful, they ARE scientifically conducted and peer reviewed, the same as are studies I have mentioned.  I have yet to see a scientific peer reviewed study that says eating hot dogs is healthier than eating vegetables and I wager there never will be one.

Since India has always been a country where the diet is mostly vegetables and fruits, how can you possibly connect consumption of vegetables and fruits there to increased diabetes?  Longevity might provide part of the answer; however, it does not explain why diabetes is increasing in all age groups.  The most likely culprit for India's health woes, in addition to its historical poverty and lack of sanitation, is increased pollution and other problems brought on by industrialization and the increased adaption of other unhealthy traits that are characteristic of westernization such as processed and junk foods and a more sedentary lifestyle.

Speaking of peer reviewed scientific studies, there are an abundance of such studies which demonstrate that people who eat an abundance of fruits and vegetarians have lower incidence of diabetes than those who do not.  How does that fit into your fructose paradigm?. 

My statement about man consuming and being nourished by fruits for eons still stands and you cannot refute it, no matter how you try to twist it to suit your argument.  Dating back to early, early man, we have consumed whatever fruits, vegetables, meats, nuts, grains, seeds, tubers and legumes, and any other food items we could hunt, gather or otherwise obtain when and where they have been around - no matter how abundant or scarce they may have been, no matter what the growing season and no matter what the geographic location.  You might wish to double-check your information about the prevalence of eating fruits in centuries and millenia past, as well as your contention that fruits were not preserved in early times.  Man has known how to preserve fruits by drying as well as by honey and sugar dating back to ancient civilizations in Rome, Egypt and Greece.  Fruits were also popular in Europe dating back to at least medieval times, including lemons, citrons, bitter oranges (the sweet type was not introduced until several hundred years later), pomegranates, quinces, and, of course, grapes in the south and apples, pears, plums, and strawberries in the north.  Figs and dates were eaten throughout Europe.  Wine, which is a beverage made from fruit juice, has been consumed year round for ages.  Throughout history man has eaten fruits whenever available and, presumably, doing so has resulted in nourishment.  Thus my original statement.

How exactly does lumping natural fructose in with manufactured fructose in a study somehow make natural fructose equal to high fructose corn syrup?  That is no different than lumping unhealthy sedentary meat eaters who consume processed meats in with meat eaters who consume healthier meats and live healthier lives and then using the study to say that all meats are unhealthy to eat.

You dispute Gerson and demand scientific peer reviewed studies?  Perhaps you would be better served and better listened to at a forum like Science Based Medicine.  Or Quackwatch. They love scientific studies at those places - at least so long as they get to pick and choose only the studies that support their pre-conceptions and agendas.  It looks to me like you might fit right in.

BTW, you have no idea what my education is any more than you evidently have an idea that I was around in supermarkets 50 years ago and know quite well what they had in them.