Sugar and processed food good or bad?

DamePiglet

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

DamePiglet

Neither is better than the other per se.

FTFY. :flowerforyou:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

lindsey1979

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Does that make you the pot or the kettle? I could say the exact same for you, darlin'.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

tennisdude2004

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

DamePiglet

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

I know why: maternal instinct. I got it bad. I try to save people from themselves.

Fullsterkur_woman

If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

Do you mean that if one doesn't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations that one is looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources? Or did you mean Lindsey in particular? Because I don't know that you can necessarily make that claim unless you happen to know her background.

I don't disagree with your general point, I just wanted to remind people to be careful of their assumptions. Just because someone has advanced degrees doesn't mean they haven't ever had to stand in line for government cheese or habitually eat food out of a garbage truck at some point in their life.

Fullsterkur_woman

Neither is better than the other per se.

FTFY. :flowerforyou:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Only 'cause you gave me a Nathan Fillion gif.

DeterminedFee201426

natural sugars from fruits and other natural foods are good for you . processed food is very bad for you and idc what anyone say its True

DamePiglet

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

lindsey1979

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

I know why: maternal instinct. I got it bad. I try to save people from themselves.

That's a very interesting theory. But such lack of respect for boundaries and basic empathy would lead me to think that your maternal instinct has a large narcissistic component.

Fullsterkur_woman

natural sugars from fruits and other natural foods are good for you . processed food is very bad for you and idc what anyone say its True

OK, we call that faith-based nutrition, and lots of us here do not hold to that. I stake my life on scientific evidence, actual and whole.

tennisdude2004

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

Lol

lindsey1979

If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

Do you mean that if one doesn't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations that one is looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources? Or did you mean Lindsey in particular? Because I don't know that you can necessarily make that claim unless you happen to know her background.

I don't disagree with your general point, I just wanted to remind people to be careful of their assumptions. Just because someone has advanced degrees doesn't mean they haven't ever had to stand in line for government cheese or habitually eat food out of a garbage truck at some point in their life.

Thank you, Fullsterkur. I don't want to release any other personal information, as it certainly will only be used to mock and ridicule me by the nastier of posters. But, it certainly was a huge leap to think that just because I have an advanced degree that I came from a background of privilege -- it is a public institution, after all, and I did pay for it myself (or am still paying for it).

DamePiglet

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

Lol

Next time it will be a kitty gif. I know you love 'em.

geebusuk

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

Still waiting for clarification of 'processed' and of 'added sugar', so we all know exactly what is being discussed .

lindsey1979

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

Still waiting for clarification of 'processed' and of 'added sugar', so we all know exactly what is being discussed .

Do you really think there is a big misunderstanding on general principles? Because I see this a lot and there seems to be serious red herrings all over the place.

geebusuk

I was envisioning the type of things you get out of the frozen food aisle as a TV dinner sort of thing. And I believe that many of them have a lot of extra additives -- whether preservatives, other chemicals, added sugar, etc. -- that you wouldn't see in the home cooked equivalent.

I however WAS comparing frozen home cooked meals.

So your problem isn't specifically with it being a pre-packaged meal, nor with being frozen, but the ingriedents - so in the case of the one I bought yesterday that was made from "kitchen cupboard ingredients", you would consider it fine?

Of course, it's quite common for people to add sugar and "other chemicals" to home cooked foods. Plenty of items that can act as a preservative too, so it's probably best to get a better definition of which are bad and why they are bad, just to clarify the issues.

tennisdude2004

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

Lol

Next time it will be a kitty gif. I know you love 'em.

I'm probably the second biggest fan of them - we all know who the biggest is!

lindsey1979

I was envisioning the type of things you get out of the frozen food aisle as a TV dinner sort of thing. And I believe that many of them have a lot of extra additives -- whether preservatives, other chemicals, added sugar, etc. -- that you wouldn't see in the home cooked equivalent.

I however WAS comparing frozen home cooked meals.

So your problem isn't specifically with it being a pre-packaged meal, nor with being frozen, but the ingriedents - so in the case of the one I bought yesterday that was made from "kitchen cupboard ingredients", you would consider it fine?

Of course, it's quite common for people to add sugar and "other chemicals" to home cooked foods. Plenty of items that can act as a preservative too, so it's probably best to get a better definition of which are bad and why they are bad, just to clarify the issues.

I guess that's hard for me to believe -- that there is a sincere misunderstanding in the terms.

DamePiglet

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

I know why: maternal instinct. I got it bad. I try to save people from themselves.

That's a very interesting theory. But such lack of respect for boundaries and basic empathy would lead me to think that your maternal instinct has a large narcissistic component.

Oh. Wow.
This post leads me to think that you are posting out of your pooper again.

geebusuk

Do you really think there is a big misunderstanding on general principles? Because I see this a lot and there seems to be serious red herrings all over the place.

Any time I have questioned people on this, there answers have been incongruent with their own reality - their definitions have excluded things that they use and consider ok and so on.
They end up being so filled with caveats to be effectively useless as a away to define these principals.

Fullsterkur_woman

Of course, it's quite common for people to add sugar and "other chemicals" to home cooked foods. Plenty of items that can act as a preservative too, so it's probably best to get a better definition of which are bad and why they are bad, just to clarify the issues.

Mmmm... homemade mincemeat... preserved with alcohol and sugaaaaah! Ask SpeSHul_SnoflEHk how awful added sugar is in homemade mincemeat.

Fullsterkur_woman

Any time I have questioned people on this, there answers have been incongruent with their own reality - their definitions have excluded things that they use and consider ok and so on.
They end up being so filled with caveats to be effectively useless as a away to define these principals.

lindsey1979

Do you really think there is a big misunderstanding on general principles? Because I see this a lot and there seems to be serious red herrings all over the place.

Any time I have questioned people on this, there answers have been incongruent with their own reality - their definitions have excluded things that they use and consider ok and so on.
They end up being so filled with caveats to be effectively useless as a away to define these principals.

I find that also hard to believe. But, if you say so.

I find that most that ask these sorts of questions are looking to (1) argue for the sake of arguing, (2) obfuscate the issues or (3) looking to insult others/pick fights. They often focus on minor exceptions or bring up completely irrelevant issues in an attempt to prove their point. I've seen many of these discussions and the heart of the matters are pretty darn simple, but some muddy the waters so thoroughly that it appears that the discussion is extremely complex. I have a hard time believing such people are unintentionally obtuse -- otherwise there would be moments of "oh, I see what you're saying" -- and that's almost NEVER the case.

tennisdude2004

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

Still waiting for clarification of 'processed' and of 'added sugar', so we all know exactly what is being discussed .

That's a tough one because it's different things for different people.

My interpretation would be a large portion of junk foods (although junk food can cover a braid spectrum) all of which may not come under added sugar or processed.

DamePiglet

Of course, it's quite common for people to add sugar and "other chemicals" to home cooked foods. Plenty of items that can act as a preservative too, so it's probably best to get a better definition of which are bad and why they are bad, just to clarify the issues.

Mmmm... homemade mincemeat... preserved with alcohol and sugaaaaah! Ask SpeSHul_SnoflEHk how awful added sugar is in homemade mincemeat.

Huh... When I think of SpeSHul_SnoflEHk, "mince" ain't the meat that I think of. :laugh:

Eta: this was not meant as an insult. He'd know that.

Fullsterkur_woman

Of course, it's quite common for people to add sugar and "other chemicals" to home cooked foods. Plenty of items that can act as a preservative too, so it's probably best to get a better definition of which are bad and why they are bad, just to clarify the issues.

Mmmm... homemade mincemeat... preserved with alcohol and sugaaaaah! Ask SpeSHul_SnoflEHk how awful added sugar is in homemade mincemeat.

Huh... When I think of SpeSHul_SnoflEHk, "mince" ain't the meat that I think of. :laugh:

Eta: this was not meant as an insult. He'd know that.

Touché.

Derpes

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Does that make you the pot or the kettle? I could say the exact same for you, darlin'.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

kgeyser

If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

Do you mean that if one doesn't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations that one is looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources? Or did you mean Lindsey in particular? Because I don't know that you can necessarily make that claim unless you happen to know her background.

I don't disagree with your general point, I just wanted to remind people to be careful of their assumptions. Just because someone has advanced degrees doesn't mean they haven't ever had to stand in line for government cheese or habitually eat food out of a garbage truck at some point in their life.

I was speaking to Lindsay in particular, as she only seems to approach the issue from a nutritional standpoint without considering other factors, which someone who doesn't have experience with it would tend to do. She also suggested encouraging people to make better choices when it comes to ingredients, which is a nice idea but disregards the reality of their living situations. It wasn't meant to be an insult, I was simply basing my response on her comments. I would think someone who has experienced this sort of thing would have been able to discern the nuances the issue a bit more, rather than having a laser-like focus on nutrition as the only determining factor of good vs. bad.

I do see what you're saying though, which is why I qualified my statement with "if." I try not to generalize or assume anything about people.

fificrazy

Processed foods are the most easily digestible foods, while sugar provides the most readily available energy. That's why kids have no limit to the amount of sweetness they can handle, for example- their bodies crave sugar because they need that quick accessible energy to grow and support their activity level. It's because of these qualities that both types of food have contributed to our evolution and growth as a species!

That's why the only foods I define as bad are the ones that contain non-food items... like dyes, sand, wax... *shudders*.

What foods have sand and wax?

Look up silicon dioxide in food. That's sand. And wax (and mineral oil, I should add) are often used as stabilizers or to add shine to candy and stuff. I mean, these things don't stop me from eating certain foods nor do I feel guilty about consuming them haha, but if I can find sandless, waxless, dyeless whatever alternatives, I tend to choose them instead.

No wonder I loved the taste of sand on the beach as a kid! Seriously though, silica is a natural, highly prevalent mineral and not something to be afraid of ingesting. Mineral oil (also completely natural) has been used as a laxative for decades and hasn't hurt anyone as far as I know.

So they're not scary or harmful... but they're still not food.

Raw honey comb has wax in it... it's nature's food-grade wax. And it's pretty friggin' awesome.

*yawn*