Is the sugar in skim milk bad for you?

ahamm002

It means he likes making up facts.

I could spend a long time writing an intelligent answer to a stupid question but what's the point? There's a plethora of data demonstrating that sugar is bad for you. If you're too lazy to do even the most basic research, why should I waste my time?

"Sugar is bad for you" - that's the stupid/ignorant claim.
"What does bad for you mean" - that was just my way of trying to get you to think about what you are trying to pass off as "fact". But it went over your head.

Enjoy sugar avoidance and any other handicaps you would like to put upon yourself.

It didn't go over my head, it would just take a lot of time and effort to explain all the different reason why sugar is bad for you. Why bother? You're obviously not thinking about it much yourself.

You're just one of those typical internet trolls who likes to pretend they're smart b/c they pointed out that some statement is only true 95% of the time. Congratuations, there are caveats to everything when it comes to nutrition.

Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you.

ahamm002

Unfortunately, the onus is on you to prove "sugar is not good for you". Good luck with that.

LOL!!!!!

Glucocorticoid

It means he likes making up facts.

I could spend a long time writing an intelligent answer to a stupid question but what's the point? There's a plethora of data demonstrating that sugar is bad for you. If you're too lazy to do even the most basic research, why should I waste my time?

"Sugar is bad for you" - that's the stupid/ignorant claim.
"What does bad for you mean" - that was just my way of trying to get you to think about what you are trying to pass off as "fact". But it went over your head.

Enjoy sugar avoidance and any other handicaps you would like to put upon yourself.

It didn't go over my head, it would just take a lot of time and effort to explain all the different reason why sugar is bad for you. Why bother? You're obviously not thinking about it much yourself.

You're just one of those typical internet trolls who likes to pretend they're smart b/c they pointed out that some statement is only true 95% of the time. Congratuations, there are caveats to everything when it comes to nutrition.

Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you.

It must be nice to just resort to calling other people lazy when they call you out on your BS. You've perfected the system of making dumb claims and not having to back them up, kudos.

taso42

It means he likes making up facts.

I could spend a long time writing an intelligent answer to a stupid question but what's the point? There's a plethora of data demonstrating that sugar is bad for you. If you're too lazy to do even the most basic research, why should I waste my time?

"Sugar is bad for you" - that's the stupid/ignorant claim.
"What does bad for you mean" - that was just my way of trying to get you to think about what you are trying to pass off as "fact". But it went over your head.

Enjoy sugar avoidance and any other handicaps you would like to put upon yourself.

It didn't go over my head, it would just take a lot of time and effort to explain all the different reason why sugar is bad for you. Why bother? You're obviously not thinking about it much yourself.

You're just one of those typical internet trolls who likes to pretend they're smart b/c they pointed out that some statement is only true 95% of the time. Congratuations, there are caveats to everything when it comes to nutrition.

Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you.

I've done my share of trolling, and this is not it. Taking issue with broscience and misinformation is not trolling. Calling individual food items "good for you" or "bad for you" without any context is pretty meaningless.

Jorra

I put sugar on a piece of corn and it started yelling racial slurs at my microwave. The microwave got deeply offended and refused to cook anything. I ended up drinking my sorrows away with an armless guy named Phil.

LMAO!!! If I hadn't looked at the profile pic I would've sworn my husband wrote this.

Sadly, Sidesteal is not your husband.

patebishop

Bump

Sidesteal

It means he likes making up facts.

I could spend a long time writing an intelligent answer to a stupid question but what's the point? There's a plethora of data demonstrating that sugar is bad for you. If you're too lazy to do even the most basic research, why should I waste my time?

Your claim about sugar is entirely void of dosage and context and as such it is not a fact.

AeolianHarp

LOL!!!!!

A few things:

(1) Burden of Proof - It's on you. If you don't know why then google it and learn about it.

(2) "Sugar is bad" - If we are to accept this statement then that means the consumption of it, regardless of dosage or context, should produce negative health effects within an individual. Is 10g of sugar a day bad? Is it bad if someone eats 10 boxes of twinkies in a single day but never has anymore ever again? From this latter example, has this person's health been damaged from a single day? If so, how?

(3) "Sugar is bad" pt.2 - This is broad. What kind of sugars? All monosaccharides? All disaccharides? All of both?

(4) "Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you." - Refer to (1). You made a claim, which should be supported. You can't make a claim then tell someone else to disprove it. That's not how it works. Again, refer to (1). Also, it would be much easier to argue that sugar isn't bad for you once we see the data you have used to make your claim.

(5) "Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you" pt.2 - You're making the assumption here that we would want to establish that sugar is or isn't bad for you. That isn't the case. It's neither because it can be both bad and good but this depends on so many factors that an outright statement would really be erroneous.

(6) "I could spend a long time writing an intelligent answer to a stupid question" and " why should I waste my time?"- Ad hominem and deflecting. Why waste your time arguing things that are unrelated to the topic? With all the time you have spent responding, you could have stated your position and we could be having a meaningful discuss. But guess what? You ARE wasting your time, without a doubt. You're arguing pointless asinine bull**** that has nothing to do with anything. The fact that you rhetorically ask "why should I waste my time?" is ironic because you are actually wasting your time since you have yet to contribute anything that's meaningful in any way.

FitBlitz

LOL!!!!!

A few things:

(1) Burden of Proof - It's on you. If you don't know why then google it and learn about it.

(2) "Sugar is bad" - If we are to accept this statement then that means the consumption of it, regardless of dosage or context, should produce negative health effects within an individual. Is 10g of sugar a day bad? Is it bad if someone eats 10 boxes of twinkies in a single day but never has anymore ever again? From this latter example, has this person's health been damaged from a single day? If so, how?

(3) "Sugar is bad" pt.2 - This is broad. What kind of sugars? All monosaccharides? All disaccharides? All of both?

(4) "Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you." - Refer to (1). You made a claim, which should be supported. You can't make a claim then tell someone else to disprove it. That's not how it works. Again, refer to (1). Also, it would be much easier to argue that sugar isn't bad for you once we see the data you have used to make your claim.

(5) "Now have fun arguing that sugar isn't bad for you" pt.2 - You're making the assumption here that we would want to establish that sugar is or isn't bad for you. That isn't the case. It's neither because it can be both bad and good but this depends on so many factors that an outright statement would really be erroneous.

(6) "I could spend a long time writing an intelligent answer to a stupid question" and " why should I waste my time?"- Ad hominem and deflecting. Why waste your time arguing things that are unrelated to the topic? With all the time you have spent responding, you could have stated your position and we could be having a meaningful discuss. But guess what? You ARE wasting your time, without a doubt. You're arguing pointless asinine bull**** that has nothing to do with anything. The fact that you rhetorically ask "why should I waste my time?" is ironic because you are actually wasting your time since you have yet to contribute anything that's meaningful in any way.

Ooh, ZINGER.

Nicely put, Aeolian.