Recently been Netflix'ing and one of the documentaries it suggested was called The Future of Food (http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html). Worth a watch for anyone interested in the whole organics movement as well as information on genetically engineered foods. I'll agree right off the bat that the whole thing is very one-sided in favor of the non-GMO movement, but it's worth a watch. The whole thing is also free to watch on the website.

I'll agree right off the bat that the whole thing is very one-sided in favor of the non-GMO movementYou say that as though there's another side to it.

The only benefit of GMOs is that they allow the handful of rich old white men running the big biotech businesses to abuse patent law to profit at our expense.

To the rest of us, there is only detriment.

The problem is, biotech business have huge coffers and power in government, whereas there are very few parties with a vested interest in warning us of the dangers of GMOs, and they are typically environmental organizations with limited resources.

So this stuff continues to expand in the United States and other GM-friendly countries.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129010499Genetically Modified Canola 'Escapes' Farm Fields

August 6, 2010

Genetically modified crops are commonplace in fields across the United States, but a new study suggests that some plants have spread into the wild. A survey of North Dakota has turned up hundreds of genetically modified canola plants growing along roads across the state.

The results, presented Friday at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Pittsburgh, show that the vast majority of feral canola plants in the state contain artificial genes that make them resistant to herbicides. Researchers also found two plants that contained traits from multiple genetically modified varieties, suggesting that genetically modified plants are breeding in the wild.This crap is polluting our entire environment and there is no way to undo the damage.

I wonder when Monsanto will sue the state of North Dakota for licensing violations.

Coming from someone who thinks that pharma push vaccines to get rich.

Where do you get your ideas?
I remember "Food of The Gods" when I was a kid,,,

Is that where you get your notions?

Humans have been meddling with plant and animal DNA, long before Mendel lived. And they will long after you are dead.


By the way, there is no such thing as a canola plant.
You know that, right?

It is a rapeseed plant.

Humans have been meddling with plant and animal DNA, long before Mendel lived. And they will long after you are dead.Humans have not been injecting foreign strains of viral DNA into plants until recently.

And the only reason humans (meaning, a small number of old rich white men) are doing it today is that it allows them to patent the plant, charge a license fee for people who grow it, and sue people who don't pay the license fee.

The overwhelming majority of GM crops have simply one attribute grafted onto them: they are resistant to the proprietary herbicide of the manufacturer. Which means you have to pay the license fee, AND buy the manufacturer's herbicide as a package deal, making more money for said old rich white men.

Then there's BT corn, which is engineered to manufacture a pesticide, which does backfire.

But these plants have NO benefit for the consumer, whatsoever.By the way, there is no such thing as a canola plant.
You know that, right?

It is a rapeseed plant.Are you trying to sound smart? Because so far you've been doing a pretty good job of making a fool of yourself.

Please go educate yourself before expressing an opinion, for your own sake.

And yes, we know the Canadians renamed the plant "canola" because rapeseed has the word rape in it. So what?

Coming from someone who thinks that pharma push vaccines to get rich.They do.

But they're angels compared to biotechnology companies.

At least the drug companies make useful products that benefit the consumer, and their products have to undergo some minimum level of safety testing.

A shot which is taken once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

Compared to an expensive drug, much more expensive than the cost of a vaccine shot, taken several times a day for decades.

Vaccines are an in the red endeavor for their producers.

You sound ignorant and conspiratorial.


If you have a problem with the patent laws, fix those.
No one forces you, or anyone, to buy and eat genetically modified food.


I have a serious problem myself with companies using research paid for by taxpayers, who then patent that research. But that is a different topic. The same thing can be said for eyeglass lens coatings to Goretex. Ultimately we pay more for products which were researched and developed under the US tax dollar, then patented, then moved to American consumers at very high dollar values.

Is that a problem? Yes. A fundamental problem which should be fixed.

And is completely separate from the issue of whether people should experiment on the genetics of plants and animals.

And yes, we know the Canadians renamed the plant "canola" because rapeseed has the word rape in it. So what?

I am saying that there is no such thing as a canola plant.

How is stating that truth making a fool of myself?


NPR is just another news agency.
And they, just as the AP, thinks that it completely ok to just change language.

US News and World Reports used to write the word employee, as employe.

AP still uses whom or whomever, for the nominative case. And omits the 'proper' comma.

Just because they own a press does not mean that what they print is correct.

And just to prove a point, "Whom asked you for your opinion". Correct by AP style book.

If you have a problem with the patent laws, fix those.
No one forces you, or anyone, to buy and eat genetically modified food.How am I supposed to "fix" patent laws that are written by people who work for or are paid by the organizations I want to protect myself from?

How is the average consumer supposed to protect himself from GMOs when labeling isn't even required in the United States, so you don't know whether you're eating them unless you buy organic?

And even if I buy all organic and avoid GMOs, how do I keep them from polluting my environment?

A shot which is taken once, maybe twice in a lifetime.

Compared to an expensive drug, much more expensive than the cost of a vaccine shot, taken several times a day for decades.

Vaccines are an in the red endeavor for their producers.

You sound ignorant and conspiratorial.Two words: swine flu.

Yeah, they'd much rather sell you an expensive pill that you need to take 3 times a day for the rest of your life.

But a seasonal vaccine sold on scare tactics can rake in some good money too.

I don't want to derail this thread though, because as I said, despite their problems drug companies are angels compared to biotech.

Like I said before.

Just because you dismiss Swine Flu as just another hogwash...

Does not mean that it was.

I knew several people who died of it.
I know several people who contracted it, and survived. You probably don't know people in either group. Indicated by your previous statement that anyone who had the flu last year had Swine Flu. (which is completely absolutely false).

I will give you that prior to the vaccine being produced that a lot of things were unknown.

What was mostly unknown, at the time, was that those who lived through the 70s Swine Flu(the Chinese version) epidemic still retained systemic immunity.

Another unknown was the seasonal flu vaccine tertiary immunity. That is to say, that those who opted for the regular seasonal flu vaccine had a greater degree of immunity, due to that vaccine, than those who took neither.

That was an unknown, until this Mexican Swine Flu run its course.

The majority(if not all) of those who died of this Swine Flu were young, and unvaccinated. They did not have the immunity of 70s Swine Flu, nor vaccinated from the seasonal, or the H1N1 vaccine.

If you knew what you were talking about, none of this would be new to you.

How am I supposed to "fix" patent laws that are written by people who work for or are paid by the organizations I want to protect myself from?

How is the average consumer supposed to protect himself from GMOs when labeling isn't even required in the United States, so you don't know whether you're eating them unless you buy organic?

And even if I buy all organic and avoid GMOs, how do I keep them from polluting my environment?

But your biggest problem with genetically modified plants and animals appears to be your disagreement with the patent process. Or how much an enterprise makes off of a patent.

If you have a problem with patent law fix that. There is plenty of fixing to be made. Patents are just laws. Laws are just opinions backed by force.

Change the laws! You live in a Democracy, you have the same power to change patent law as you do to make(or change) law regarding GMOs. It is the same power.

Labeling is an FDA issue. Change the FDA, make new laws to fix labeling.

Even as a Libertarian, such as I, I do believe that the FDA's most ultimate directive is labeling, or requiring labeling.

I just don't see how a genetically modified tomato(or whatever) affects you negatively, such that you should be able to prevent other people from buying one. Well, except a 1970s B movie, called Food Of The Gods.

But your biggest problem with genetically modified plants and animals appears to be your disagreement with the patent process. Or how much an enterprise makes off of a patent.No, my biggest problem is that huge companies are allowed to tinker with my environment and the food supply of entire nations on a large scale in irreversible and possibly unsafe ways, with no oversight, no testing for safety to humans or the environment, and no requirement to warn me or anyone else.

essed up patent law may provide the financial motivation, but it is not, in and of itself, the danger.Change the laws! You live in a Democracy, you have the same power to change patent law as you do to make(or change) law regarding GMOs. It is the same power.It is precisely because I live in a democracy that I can't change the law.

In a democracy, even if I have a smart opinion, in order for it to become a law I have to convince 150 million other stupid, ignorant, uneducated people to adopt that opinion.

And I don't have billions of dollars to run ads to appeal to these people's emotions.Even as a Libertarian, such as I, I do believe that the FDA's most ultimate directive is labeling, or requiring labeling.The FDA is practically run by biotech businesses, with a long history of company executives being placed in key oversight roles.

For example, this guy (http://www.grist.org/article/2009-07-08-monsanto-FDA-taylor/) was recently appointed as a senior advisor. He was a former executive at and lobbyist for Monsanto.

If you Google "Monsanto FDA revolving door" you'll see this isn't an isolated incident. They even have one of their own on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas.

onsanto and other GMO manufacturers use their positions in government to ensure that labeling will never be required. Because they know that if it ever is, people will stop buying their products, which is exactly what happened in some countries in Europe when labeling was required.

The whole GMO industry thrives on the ignorance of the consumer, and they aren't going to allow anything to upset that ignorance.I just don't see how a genetically modified tomato(or whatever) affects you negatively, such that you should be able to prevent other people from buying one. Well, except a 1970s B movie, called Food Of The Gods.Because Fyyr, GMOs not only contaminate the food supply, they contaminate the environment.

They cross with plants in surrounding fields and spread, contaminating other crops and wild plants. There is no way to contain them.

And because no safety testing was ever required, there is no way to predict whether injecting viral DNA into plants could have adverse consequences for the food supply or the environment.

And although the organic label is, for the moment, safe from GMOs outside of incidental contamination, there is otherwise no way to tell how much of the food you're eating comes from GMOs.

Experiments should be run in the laboratory, not in the wild.

Which viruses(DNA) do you say they are using?


Typically viruses don't have DNA themselves. Viral DNA as you say is usually not viral DNA at all.

Gene therapy and genetics use viruses to inject DNA or RNA into cells, because that is what viruses do best(or second best). Essentially, certain viruses can be used as sub microscopic syringes.

So, which exact viruses are you talking about?

there is otherwise no way to tell how much of the food you're eating comes from GMOs.


So they have a patent for a product.
But sell it to you disguised as a non patented natural product.
At the same price of the cheaper natural product.

Is that what you are saying?

The first GMOs I bought were McGregors Tomatoes.
There were fantastic.

Now, you can't even find them.
It's much easier to just buy on the vine tomatoes, which does the same thing cheaper.

But eating those first genetically engineered tomatoes did leave me with one side effect. I have two penises now. It is so hard to find normal hot chicks who like to be DPd by one guy. Kinda freaks them out.

So they have a patent for a product.
But sell it to you disguised as a non patented natural product.
At the same price of the cheaper natural product.

Is that what you are saying?No, that is not what I am saying at all.

Which viruses(DNA) do you say they are using?How do you think they actually accomplish the genetic engineering?

One common way is to use a virus, with a modified genome, as a carrier, to infect the target species.

You said they are injecting virus DNA.

Which viruses and what viral DNA was my question

You said they are injecting virus DNA.

Which viruses and what viral DNA was my questionI think those are trade secrets.

It is then likely that you don't know what your talking about, and just use the term 'viral DNA' to make it sound scary.

It is then likely that you don't know what your talking about, and just use the term 'viral DNA' to make it sound scary.And this is coming from the guy who compares genetic engineering to natural crossing of plants.

Educate yourself Fyyr, then maybe you can hold an intelligent discussion on this topic.

On the use of viruses to inject the DNA, here's a page about it:

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2000/7/00.07.02.x.html#dInsertion of a desired gene requires not only a vector for insertion, usually a viral gene, but also a marker gene for antibiotic resistance. One other problem is that each gene inserted into another organism needs an activator gene. The host organism is very unlikely to furnish this activator, so one is usually provided with the inserted gene. Virus activator genes have evolved to overcome host cell indifference to an added gene. These virus genes are very powerful activators, and are normally what is used to activate an inserted gene (Steinbrecher, 1999). There are also some bacterial activators used. We do not know the long-term effects of using these microbial genes in genetic engineering. If they are passed to other organisms there may be problems that we cannot imagine at the present time.

(post deleted)Nm

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=transgenic-fish-go-largeTransgenic fish go large
Approval expected for genetically modified salmon.

A genetically modified animal is on the brink of making an appearance on US dinner tables for the first time. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to approve a genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon that grows twice as fast as wild Atlantics, reaching market weight in a year and a half instead of three. Approval could come as soon as next week.

The fish contains a single copy of a DNA sequence that includes code for a Chinook salmon growth hormone and regulatory sequences derived from Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout. Whereas Atlantic salmon normally stop growing in the winter, the GM fish produces growth hormones throughout the year. Developer AquaBounty Technologies, based in Waltham, Massachusetts, has spent more than a decade shepherding the fish towards approval in a new regulatory landscape. In 2009, the FDA decided to classify GM traits in animals as veterinary drugs. Some have criticized this decision, as it allows companies to shield some details of their product from public view as proprietary information (see Nature doi:10.1038/news.2008.1120 ; 2010).This is what happens when you essentially let the industry police itself.

"Veterinary drugs," that's what the official government position on genetic engineering is.

And of course, probably nothing is going to be labeled, it's just going to quietly appear on your supermarket shelves.

It's funny how people will be all up in arms about cloned meat, which is just a copy of an existing animal, but they are perfectly OK with eating some mutated laboratory animal that has never existed and has never undergone any serious safety testing with respect to humans or the environment.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/a-new-name-for-high-fructose-corn-syrup/A New Name for High-Fructose Corn Syrup

Would high-fructose corn syrup, by any other name, have sweeter appeal?

The Corn Refiners Association, which represents firms that make the syrup, has been trying to improve the image of the much maligned sweetener with ad campaigns promoting it as a natural ingredient made from corn. Now, the group has petitioned the United States Food and Drug Administration to start calling the ingredient “corn sugar,” arguing that a name change is the only way to clear up consumer confusion about the product.

“Clearly the name is confusing consumers,” said Audrae Erickson, president of the Washington-based group, in an interview. “Research shows that ‘corn sugar’ better communicates the amount of calories, the level of fructose and the sweetness in this ingredient.”On the subject of the ethics of the food industry...

What do you do when one of your primary ingredients is exposed as a key contributor to an ongoing health epidemic?

Just rename it so that people won't know it's there!

It is corn sugar.

Sugar is sugar.

Your body turns all sugars(all carbohydrates for that matter) wherever they come from into glucose. It does not care which plant it comes from.

Lactose is the only sugar that anyone really has a problem with. That's milk sugar.

A gram of corn sugar. A gram of cane sugar. A gram of beet sugar. A gram of apple sugar are all going to create the same number of calories. HFCS is no more related by itself to obesity than the over consumption of any other sugar.

You can have a slice of the most organic most chemical free most GMO free whole wheat slice of bread, gram for gram of CHO(non dietary), is going to have the same calories as a gram of HFCS.

Coke is now selling at least Coke and Mountain Dew as "throwback"s.

Using sucrose instead of fructose.

I have tried the Mountain Dew throwback. And I do think that it tastes better(sweeter) than HFCS Mountain Dew.

Given the same price and availability I would choose the sucrose MD.

Gram for gram, they have the same calories.
I just don't understand HFCS nutball arguments, they are just scientifically stupid arguments.

For whatever unscientific or unfounded reason these nutballs have produced negative propaganda about Fructose. Fructose is sugar. If corn producers want to seek an escape from those nutjob lies by calling corn sugar corn sugar, have at it, go for it.

A gram of corn sugar. A gram of cane sugar. A gram of beet sugar. A gram of apple sugar are all going to create the same number of calories. HFCS is no more related by itself to obesity than the over consumption of any other sugar.That's not necessarily true.

Refine cane/beet sugar is almost all sucrose, composed of glucose and fructose bonded together.

But the HFCS used in drinks is 55% fructose.

Fructose is metabolized directly by the liver without insulin (which is why diabetic products often use it, and why bodybuilders don't). Once the liver replenishes its glycogen the rest is converted to fat.

Some studies on rats say that excess fructose is more likely to lead to obesity. Also, if you look at total U.S. sugar consumption rates versus the proportion of sucrose and HFCS, you'll see that obesity rises as soon as HFCS does, and continues to rise even when total consumption peaks and goes down.

Fructose is also a lot sweeter and can therefore lead to overconsumption.

Of course the corn/beverage industry claims that HFCS is safe, etc., because it's nice having the taxpayers pay for your supplies. But they haven't convinced people so now they're trying to hide the same substance under a different name.

The fact that "corn sugar" is technically accurate is besides the point. It's designed to confuse the consumer into buying a product they otherwise wouldn't buy.

How do you do it?

Do you really believe it or is this some kind of game? Like liars poker or something.

I don't get it.

I don't get it.That much is obvious.

But read some of the studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219526

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20424937

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815021

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19282820

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051594

No one is suggesting that replacing HFCS with sucrose is going to make the obesity epidemic go away.

But a significant number of studies (some of which I linked for you above) show that HFCS is making things worse.

I mean, by your reasoning, a fat is a fat, since they each have about 9 calories per gram, so it shouldn't matter whether I eat 100g of trans fat margarine or 100g of olive oil. Right?

So, then you really do believe it.

It's not some devils advocate kind of debate exercise?

Does it matter?

Either you have a scientific answer, or you're just preaching from your bible.

So far I've seen mostly the latter.

Fructose is metabolized directly by the liver without insulin (which is why diabetic products often use it, and why bodybuilders don't). Once the liver replenishes its glycogen the rest is converted to fat.
Fructose and galactose are converted to glucose by the liver.

Insulin is required for glucose to be used by cells. Fructose is converted to glucose by the liver. The liver(and muscle cells) converts some glucose to glycogen(with limited storage). Glucose can be used for energy by cells, converted to glycogen by the liver or muscle cells, or converted to fat using that pathway. Glycogen is stored in the liver and muscles.

Conversion of glucose into fat is energy expensive. The process of converting dietary fat to body fat is much less energy expensive, and will take place first. Most body fat comes from dietary fat.

Diabetics know that fructose will result in high blood glucose levels. So called diabetic products use non dietary sweeteners, and "diabetic sweeteners" are usually sugar alcohols, not fructose. Repeat, fructose is not recommended for diabetics, it will result in very high blood glucose levels.

I don't care what bodybuilders do, they do all kinds of things which are unhealthy. But runner energy gels are primarily fructose, some contain glucose, and some contain hfcs(I went to a runner store yesterday and did a survey of energy drinks, gels, beans, etc). (I also went to Whole Foods Co-Op, and was not surprised about all the soft drinks proclaiming that they were HFCS free. That was not the only difference, all the people who were at Fleet Feet were bathed, btw.)

The conversion of sugar and starches to fat by cells, requires that the fructose(and galactose) is converted to glucose(and starches first converted to glucose). Fructose itself is not converted to fat.

Acute high blood sugar levels can result in DKA or HHNK(now sometimes called HONK), both which can be fatal. High levels of sugar intake, including fructose, by a diabetic can kill them. Recommending diabetics to consume fructose is irresponsible.

Just to add.

I was not surprised by the lack of hygiene of Whole Foods Co-Op customers either.

Additionally,,,
Apple juice is mostly fructose, after water. There is more fructose in most fruit juices ounce for ounce than in Coke. Naturally.

A typical ounce of apple juice contains 3g of sugar, mostly(70%) fructose. That is 2.1g of fructose.
A typical ounce of Coke contains 3.25g sugar, only 55% of which is fructose. That is 1.79g of fructose.

If as Tudamorf has said, then HFCS sweetened soft drinks are actually healthier for you than most fruit juices(and at least apple juice). Because they have less fructose than fruit juices.

Additionally on top of that.
As Tudamorf stated, HFCS consumption has leveled off, and actually has declined. Yet obesity has continued upward.
This corresponds with a total increase of caloric intake, not just carbohydrates, but of proteins and fats especially.
People eating in cars, increased portion sizes of meals, increased numbers of meals per day without regard to caloric intake, increase in sedentary lifestyles, are all causes to the corresponding increase in obesity.

In 1983 the very first Dodge Caravan was introduced to consumers. And with it the very first in-car cup holder. Virtually all American cars, trucks, and suvs now manufactured have cup holders. This is not an unimportant fact contributing to American obesity. If one were to compare a graph of relative numbers of autos with cup holders verses consumption of HFCS, looking for a correlation,,,the cup holder graph matches the increase of obesity better than that of HFCS consumption.

Insulin is required for glucose to be used by cells. Fructose is converted to glucose by the liver. The liver(and muscle cells) converts some glucose to glycogen(with limited storage). Glucose can be used for energy by cells, converted to glycogen by the liver or muscle cells, or converted to fat using that pathway. Glycogen is stored in the liver and muscles.How much though?

I just did a search and the first article that came up was a Wikipedia entry on fructose metabolism, which confirms everything I have previously read on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Fructose_metabolismFructose and galactose are phosphorylated in the liver by fructokinase (Km= 0.5 mM) and galactokinase (Km = 0.8 mM). By contrast, glucose tends to pass through the liver (Km of hepatic glucokinase = 10 mM) and can be metabolised anywhere in the body. Uptake of fructose by the liver is not regulated by insulin.

Once liver glycogen is replenished, the intermediates of fructose metabolism are primarily directed toward triglyceride synthesis.

Carbons from dietary fructose are found in both the free fatty acid and glycerol moieties of plasma triglycerides. High fructose consumption can lead to excess pyruvate production, causing a buildup of Krebs cycle intermediates. Accumulated citrate can be transported from the mitochondria into the cytosol of hepatocytes, converted to acetyl CoA by citrate lyase and directed toward fatty acid synthesis.I know that fructose has a much lower glycemic index (around 20) compared to glucose (at a reference value of 100). How do you explain that if, as you claim, they raise blood sugar levels equally?I don't care what bodybuilders do, they do all kinds of things which are unhealthy. But runner energy gels are primarily fructose, some contain glucose, and some contain hfcs(I went to a runner store yesterday and did a survey of energy drinks, gels, beans, etc).I don't know what extreme endurance runners use -- now THAT is a very unhealthy sport -- but I can tell you if you try to replenish muscle glycogen after a heavy workout with fructose you're going to feel like crap, because it just doesn't work.Fructose itself is not converted to fat.What happens then to the excess glucose, after glycogen has already been replenished?

I was not surprised by the lack of hygiene of Whole Foods Co-Op customers either.If you're talking about the supermarket, it's not a co-op but a publicly traded corporation. I never shop there.Additionally,,,
Apple juice is mostly fructose, after water. There is more fructose in most fruit juices ounce for ounce than in Coke. Naturally.Of course. In terms of causing obesity, many fruit juices are worse for you than soft drinks are.

Although they might contain some nutritional value compared to soft drinks, they are essentially concentrated sugar.

I never drink any form of fruit juice; it's far too sweet for me to tolerate anyway.

The best drink is water.As Tudamorf stated, HFCS consumption has leveled off, and actually has declined. Yet obesity has continued upward.
This corresponds with a total increase of caloric intake, not just carbohydrates, but of proteins and fats especially.
People eating in cars, increased portion sizes of meals, increased numbers of meals per day without regard to caloric intake, increase in sedentary lifestyles, are all causes to the corresponding increase in obesity.No doubt.

I don't think anyone disputes that the core issue is that people are stuffing their faces all day with garbage and sitting in chairs pushing buttons all day instead of exercising.

But that doesn't mean all the minor variables, especially ones you are actually likely to change, are unimportant.

Why do you continue to argue that fructose is turned directly to fat?

Even laypeople know that fruit juice fruit and honey will spike a diabetics blood sugar.

Fructose is an isomer of glucose. It's just one molecule off. It takes about 15 to 30 Minutes to see the peak. Glucose will spike almost immediately.

The conversion of fructose to glucose takes place in the liver.

When blood glucose reaches about 180mg per deciliter it will not be resorbed by the nephrons and will spill into the urine. Depending on kidney function.

Don't take my word for it. Just ask one of your diabetic friends.

If insulin is released in a healthy person or injected by a diabetic the glucose will be able to enter cells.

Re: How much though?

The liver stores about 600 calories of glucogen.
The muscles about 1200 calories.

Why do you continue to argue that fructose is turned directly to fat?Who said anything about directly?

I said that once liver glycogen is replenished, your body will store the remaining energy as fat, through lipogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipogenesis). Unlike glucose, which (using insulin) can also replenish muscle glycogen.

I don't think your numbers for glycogen storage are correct, but even assuming for the sake of argument that they are, they confirm that muscles can store more glycogen than the liver can.

Furthermore, if you eat 2,000 extra calories of sugar a day, that energy is not going to come out in your urine, it's going to inflate your spare tire.

Do you seriously dispute that?

You're right. Grams. Not calories.

I'll let you research that further. It's a small amount relatively, and most Americans don't tap into it. Athletic people do. Low carb dieters will. Hypoglycemic conditions.

Sugar calories not used for energy, and not wasted, will convert to fat. No argument there.