SUGAR IS EVERY DAMN WHERE!!!

12467

Replies

  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    So it's just calories in calories out? It has NOTHING to do with the quality or source of the food you put into your body? By that definition I could be getting all of my calories from McDonalds instead of varied natural sources for my macros... Also, you have a "fruit limit" for the day, and you would reach for a Snickers bar for protein, sugar and fat? Why not just have some whole milk? Might be a bit better choice. I'm most likely just arguing apples and oranges with this though. Just eat McDonalds and take a multi vitamin for all of your macros and your vitamin and mineral requirements. I had no idea caring where my food came from and how it was prepared was a logical fallacy...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knVarZ2Mx0I


    You honestly think that's a viable resource for proving your point? Do we know if that guy is taking steroids, what his exercise routine was like? You can eat just about anything if you're on steroids, and your body will soak it up like a sponge. Would you say that regular beef is the same as grass fed organic free range beef. There are differences. If you continued to eat McDonalds for more than a month I doubt you would be healthier for it. Anyone thinking this is a viable option for their nutrient sources has a pathetic standard for themselves and their health.

    Did you think posting a crappy study on HFCS and rats was a viable resource for proving your point?

    The difference between the information you're providing vs the information I'm providing comes down to responsibility. It's down right irresponsible to try and say the average person can consume McDonalds with little or no consequence. That's absurd. The same goes for the consumption of HFCS. Give me a bunch of foods that contain that sweetner that are good quality food sources. You can't, because the use of HFCS lends itself to processed and refined/crappy foods. Those aren't good for you... The fact that you'd debate the quality of whole foods vs processed garbage like McDonalds or anything sweetened with HFCS is pathetic, and irresponsible. When people are looking at this as information attributing to a sound and complete diet, the last thing they need is someone advocating fast food as being ok to consume on a regular basis.

    Can you point me to where I said fast food was alright to consumer on a regular basis?

    And the fact that you would fear monger is quite pathetic and shows a lack of intelligence. Way to include any dosage or context to consumption of fast food or HFCS that makes it "bad"

    You posted a link to a "documentary" on consuming McDonalds for 30 days straight... Do I have to spell it out for you?
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    Would you say that regular beef is the same as grass fed organic free range beef. There are differences.

    This study basically backs up what I’ve been saying for years: a single fast food meal, within the context of a calorie controlled diet, is not death on a plate. It won’t destroy your diet and it won’t make you immediately turn into a big fat pile of blubber. And, frankly, this can be predicted on basic physiology (in terms of nutrient digestion) alone. It’s just nice to see it verified in a controlled setting.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-to-a-fast-food-meal-compared-with-nutritionally-comparable-meals-of-different-composition-research-review.html

    And to that I say, "no duh". Prolonged consumption over a long period of time poses a greater risk than eating crappy food once or twice a week... It's people that consume it regularly, and in large quantities that reap the consequences. That's common sense.
  • Acg67
    Acg67 Posts: 12,142 Member
    So it's just calories in calories out? It has NOTHING to do with the quality or source of the food you put into your body? By that definition I could be getting all of my calories from McDonalds instead of varied natural sources for my macros... Also, you have a "fruit limit" for the day, and you would reach for a Snickers bar for protein, sugar and fat? Why not just have some whole milk? Might be a bit better choice. I'm most likely just arguing apples and oranges with this though. Just eat McDonalds and take a multi vitamin for all of your macros and your vitamin and mineral requirements. I had no idea caring where my food came from and how it was prepared was a logical fallacy...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knVarZ2Mx0I


    You honestly think that's a viable resource for proving your point? Do we know if that guy is taking steroids, what his exercise routine was like? You can eat just about anything if you're on steroids, and your body will soak it up like a sponge. Would you say that regular beef is the same as grass fed organic free range beef. There are differences. If you continued to eat McDonalds for more than a month I doubt you would be healthier for it. Anyone thinking this is a viable option for their nutrient sources has a pathetic standard for themselves and their health.

    Did you think posting a crappy study on HFCS and rats was a viable resource for proving your point?

    The difference between the information you're providing vs the information I'm providing comes down to responsibility. It's down right irresponsible to try and say the average person can consume McDonalds with little or no consequence. That's absurd. The same goes for the consumption of HFCS. Give me a bunch of foods that contain that sweetner that are good quality food sources. You can't, because the use of HFCS lends itself to processed and refined/crappy foods. Those aren't good for you... The fact that you'd debate the quality of whole foods vs processed garbage like McDonalds or anything sweetened with HFCS is pathetic, and irresponsible. When people are looking at this as information attributing to a sound and complete diet, the last thing they need is someone advocating fast food as being ok to consume on a regular basis.

    Can you point me to where I said fast food was alright to consumer on a regular basis?

    And the fact that you would fear monger is quite pathetic and shows a lack of intelligence. Way to include any dosage or context to consumption of fast food or HFCS that makes it "bad"

    You posted a link to a "documentary" on consuming McDonalds for 30 days straight... Do I have to spell it out for you?

    You do, since that was only a counter to your claim above. You'll notice I never said it was alright or recommended, strong reading comprehension there
  • akaOtherWise
    akaOtherWise Posts: 110 Member
    If you really think that was a serious comment, you need to have your sarcasm meter checked.

    It's harder to determine sarcasm through text than it is in person...especially when more than half of the people on youtube say the exact same thing you said but are 100% serious
  • 916lude
    916lude Posts: 305
    I go over my sugar everday.Almost all of it comes from fruit or coconut water. I'm still losing weight
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    So it's just calories in calories out? It has NOTHING to do with the quality or source of the food you put into your body? By that definition I could be getting all of my calories from McDonalds instead of varied natural sources for my macros... Also, you have a "fruit limit" for the day, and you would reach for a Snickers bar for protein, sugar and fat? Why not just have some whole milk? Might be a bit better choice. I'm most likely just arguing apples and oranges with this though. Just eat McDonalds and take a multi vitamin for all of your macros and your vitamin and mineral requirements. I had no idea caring where my food came from and how it was prepared was a logical fallacy...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knVarZ2Mx0I


    You honestly think that's a viable resource for proving your point? Do we know if that guy is taking steroids, what his exercise routine was like? You can eat just about anything if you're on steroids, and your body will soak it up like a sponge. Would you say that regular beef is the same as grass fed organic free range beef. There are differences. If you continued to eat McDonalds for more than a month I doubt you would be healthier for it. Anyone thinking this is a viable option for their nutrient sources has a pathetic standard for themselves and their health.

    Did you think posting a crappy study on HFCS and rats was a viable resource for proving your point?

    The difference between the information you're providing vs the information I'm providing comes down to responsibility. It's down right irresponsible to try and say the average person can consume McDonalds with little or no consequence. That's absurd. The same goes for the consumption of HFCS. Give me a bunch of foods that contain that sweetner that are good quality food sources. You can't, because the use of HFCS lends itself to processed and refined/crappy foods. Those aren't good for you... The fact that you'd debate the quality of whole foods vs processed garbage like McDonalds or anything sweetened with HFCS is pathetic, and irresponsible. When people are looking at this as information attributing to a sound and complete diet, the last thing they need is someone advocating fast food as being ok to consume on a regular basis.

    Can you point me to where I said fast food was alright to consumer on a regular basis?

    And the fact that you would fear monger is quite pathetic and shows a lack of intelligence. Way to include any dosage or context to consumption of fast food or HFCS that makes it "bad"

    You posted a link to a "documentary" on consuming McDonalds for 30 days straight... Do I have to spell it out for you?

    You do, since that was only a counter to your claim above. You'll notice I never said it was alright or recommended, strong reading comprehension there

    My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks. You didn't say anything about it NOT being ok either. You posted a link, nothing more. Who has the comprehension issues? As far as quantities of consumption for the crappy foods you seem to love, I don't have exact amounts, but again - why don't you list a bunch of foods that contain HFCS that are truly nutritious and conducive to a well rounded, balanced, and healthy diet. Evidently you're of a superior intellect than I am, so please, point my feeble mind in the right direction...
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.
  • wewon
    wewon Posts: 838 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.

    So a healthy balanced diet that takes into account actual nutritional value versus a calorie deficit diet that doesn't is nonsensical?
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.
    That would be the logical fallacies that I kept referring to, guess he hasn't figured that out yet.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.

    So a healthy balanced diet that takes into account actual nutritional value versus a calorie deficit diet that doesn't is nonsensical?
    No, what's nonsensical is it is a completely different topic than his original claim. He's basically trying to defend his original claim by arguing a completely different topic.
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.


    I wouldn't consider it "shifting the goalposts". I'm just thinking in a broader, more health conscious manner than some others here... Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality. Don't like the fact that HFCS sweetened foods aren't good for you? To bad, that's reality. Why bother arguing in favor of something that has no true nutritional benefit? Keep fighting the good fight there, buddy. While you're at it, maybe you could get a job lobbying for Monsanto. Evidently that whole genetic modification thing is way safer and effective than conventional agriculture.
  • wewon
    wewon Posts: 838 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.

    So a healthy balanced diet that takes into account actual nutritional value versus a calorie deficit diet that doesn't is nonsensical?
    No, what's nonsensical is it is a completely different topic than his original claim. He's basically trying to defend his original claim by arguing a completely different topic.

    His argument has stayed pretty consistent especially considering that others are referencing documentarys and posting links out of context, both which open the door to a lot of tangents.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.


    I wouldn't consider it "shifting the goalposts". I'm just thinking in a broader, more health conscious manner than some others here... Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality. Don't like the fact that HFCS sweetened foods aren't good for you? To bad, that's reality. Why bother arguing in favor of something that has no true nutritional benefit? Keep fighting the good fight there, buddy. While you're at it, maybe you could get a job lobbying for Monsanto. Evidently that whole genetic modification thing is way safer and effective than conventional agriculture.

    Genetic modification has been a part of "conventional agriculture" for thousands of years. Cucumbers used to be poisonous to eat, until they figured out how to eliminate the poisons from it. The modern American pig has a completely different protein to fat ratio than it had 200 years ago, due to consistent reengineering over the last 100 years.

    Avocados are all genetically identical, because all the avocado trees have been modified to become the original parent tree, and that was done about 80 years ago.

    And you aren't "thinking broader." You're flat out changing your story.
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

    And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

    On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

    But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.

    So a healthy balanced diet that takes into account actual nutritional value versus a calorie deficit diet that doesn't is nonsensical?
    No, what's nonsensical is it is a completely different topic than his original claim. He's basically trying to defend his original claim by arguing a completely different topic.

    His argument has stayed pretty consistent especially considering that others are referencing documentarys and posting links out of context, both which open the door to a lot of tangents.
    His original argument was that HFCS and regular sugar are processed differently by the body, and have different health effects. That's completely different than saying "foods with HFCS are genetically modified and nutritional wastelands, while natural foods are healthier." Not even close to the same argument.
  • beansprouts
    beansprouts Posts: 410 Member
    Stop eating processed food.
  • LaLouve_RK
    LaLouve_RK Posts: 899 Member
    Where did you learn that pure maple syrup had no sugar in it? 60 millititers containers 54 grams of sugar.

    Pure maple syrup... *drools*.... mmmmmmmmmmm in my cottage....mmmmmmmm*drools* on my eggs.... aaaaaaaah!


    t_drooling_homer_2141-261x300.gif


    .o0(Proud being Canadian!)
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.


    I wouldn't consider it "shifting the goalposts". I'm just thinking in a broader, more health conscious manner than some others here... Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality. Don't like the fact that HFCS sweetened foods aren't good for you? To bad, that's reality. Why bother arguing in favor of something that has no true nutritional benefit? Keep fighting the good fight there, buddy. While you're at it, maybe you could get a job lobbying for Monsanto. Evidently that whole genetic modification thing is way safer and effective than conventional agriculture.

    Genetic modification has been a part of "conventional agriculture" for thousands of years. Cucumbers used to be poisonous to eat, until they figured out how to eliminate the poisons from it. The modern American pig has a completely different protein to fat ratio than it had 200 years ago, due to consistent reengineering over the last 100 years.

    Avocados are all genetically identical, because all the avocado trees have been modified to become the original parent tree, and that was done about 80 years ago.

    And you aren't "thinking broader." You're flat out changing your story.

    It's one thing to cross strains of a plant to form a hybrid, it's another to change the way crops generate new seeds - adding "terminator genes" so the crop isn't able to produce new seeds after one harvest, and doesn't grow again the following harvest (Unless farmers pay for it to be "reactivated"). Among other traits, like increased resistance to insecticides, changing the nutritional value of the crop, ect. Yeah, no potential downside to that at all...

    There's a reason why many other countries throughout the world aren't allowing GMO foods to be brought in. We simply don't have the evidence supporting the true benefit of these foods, and we don't fully grasp the risks involved in their consumption yet.
  • LaLouve_RK
    LaLouve_RK Posts: 899 Member
    You are right, it's everywhere. I would cut out any processed food - stick with veggies, whole grains, and if you need something sweet, try using honey or maple syrup. True maple syrup has no sugar in it.

    Are you positive maple syrup has no sugar in it? Might want to look at that again
    Its fructose that's in fruit not sucrose. That's the difference between sugar from fruit and refined sugars! They are metabolised differently and surplus of each is stored and utilized differently. Sucrose (which breaks down to glucose) is stored as fat!! Fructose remains in the blood stream and is used by mitochondria to form energy!!

    Fruit is fine. There are so many benefits of it. Just watched your refined sugar intake and you should be good. I don't even have sugar in my diary anymore. I started tracking fiber instead and try for 30g a day!!!

    Lol, and sucrose is part glucose and part ?

    Sugar is sugar
    Maple syrup is not without sugar. BUT as a study said, people with diabetes will be managing their sugar level with MS than normal sugar.
    Also maple syrup has his share of manganese, riboflavine, zinc, magnesium, calcium, and potassium to name only those...60 ml of MS has the same as broccoli, tomato or banana....

    From this article: http://www.lapresse.ca/le-soleil/affaires/agro-alimentaire/201003/19/01-4262509-le-sirop-derable-fait-ses-preuves.php
    In french sorry
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    I like how you consistently shift the goalposts and the burden of proof when you are shown how nonsensical your original premise is.

    Well done sir.


    I wouldn't consider it "shifting the goalposts". I'm just thinking in a broader, more health conscious manner than some others here... Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality. Don't like the fact that HFCS sweetened foods aren't good for you? To bad, that's reality. Why bother arguing in favor of something that has no true nutritional benefit? Keep fighting the good fight there, buddy. While you're at it, maybe you could get a job lobbying for Monsanto. Evidently that whole genetic modification thing is way safer and effective than conventional agriculture.

    Genetic modification has been a part of "conventional agriculture" for thousands of years. Cucumbers used to be poisonous to eat, until they figured out how to eliminate the poisons from it. The modern American pig has a completely different protein to fat ratio than it had 200 years ago, due to consistent reengineering over the last 100 years.

    Avocados are all genetically identical, because all the avocado trees have been modified to become the original parent tree, and that was done about 80 years ago.

    And you aren't "thinking broader." You're flat out changing your story.

    It's one thing to cross strains of a plant to form a hybrid, it's another to change the way crops generate new seeds - adding "terminator genes" so the crop isn't able to produce new seeds after one harvest, and doesn't grow again the following harvest (Unless farmers pay for it to be "reactivated"). Among other traits, like increased resistance to insecticides, changing the nutritional value of the crop, ect. Yeah, no potential downside to that at all...


    No potential upsides? Increased nutrient density? Resistance to pests? Ability to grow food in conditions that are unsuitable for regular crops?
    There's a reason why many other countries throughout the world aren't allowing GMO foods to be brought in.

    There is a reason: Ignorance and fear-mongering.
  • SonjaChapman
    SonjaChapman Posts: 11
    I don't count sugar in fruits. Your body processes those different. I try to watch refined sugars.

    I agree with this. Fruit provides a natural and healthy sugar that's easy for your body.
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

    And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

    On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

    But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

    So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    I don't count sugar in fruits. Your body processes those different. I try to watch refined sugars.

    I agree with this. Fruit provides a natural and healthy sugar that's easy for your body.

    Please explain exactly how the sugar in fruit is processed differently (since the chemical structure is identical).

    I'll wait patiently.
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

    And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

    On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

    But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

    So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

    You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:
    The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

    With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

    Also:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    There's a reason why many other countries throughout the world aren't allowing GMO foods to be brought in.
    There is a reason: Ignorance and fear-mongering.

    Yeah, the whole "obesity epidemic" thing we've got going on over here definitely proves that the USA is doing things the right way. Are there potential upsides to GMO crops? Yes, definitely. Are there potential health risks involved with these crops? Yes, definitely. Things evolve. You keep taking antibiotics to combat viruses, the virus CAN evolve to infect you. I'd much rather build up my immunity naturally rather than be reliant on a drug. Not to "Shift the goal posts" again though.

    My point is that there are foods that are truly healthy for people to consume, and there are foods that are not truly healthy for people to consume. Processed and refined foods should not be touted as being equal to natural sources of food. Want to argue Organic VS. Conventional, go right ahead, I don't really care. A conventional apple is still better for me than a Coke sweetened with, yup, you guessed it; HFCS.
  • JustinM86
    JustinM86 Posts: 37
    Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

    And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

    On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

    But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

    So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

    You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:
    The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

    With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

    Also:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

    Now who's "Shifting the goalposts"? Good job, I like what you did there.
  • kayemme
    kayemme Posts: 1,782 Member
    You are right, it's everywhere. I would cut out any processed food - stick with veggies, whole grains, and if you need something sweet, try using honey or maple syrup. True maple syrup has no sugar in it.

    actually, true maple syrup is pure sugar.
  • Braha52
    Braha52 Posts: 2
    I'm new. Tell me how to add you as a friend. I will do it.
  • kayemme
    kayemme Posts: 1,782 Member

    sigh.

    you know what's changed? our activity level. that's the No. 1 reason for the rise in obesity.

    true enough!

    also, though the "technology" of food has changed considerably and there's not a true balance of nutrients from processed foods.
  • LesterBlackstone
    LesterBlackstone Posts: 291 Member
    Call it whatever you want, at the root all the information being given out here, lies reality.

    And the reality is that HCFS is no different than regular sugar, and that organic foods are no more nutritious than non-organic.

    On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-organic-food-more-healthful/

    But that doesn't "feel" right to you so you continue to stick your head in the sand and shift your argument when shown otherwise.

    So you're ok with your produce being doused with insecticides and pesticides? Good for you. The abundant use of antibiotics does pose a real potential issue, but whatever, we'll cross that bridge when we get there, right? My point is not solely rooted in Organic VS. Conventional. Natural VS Processed...There is no contest. Have yourself an Oreo, you should be proud of yourself.

    You realize that organic farming uses insecticides and pesticides too, right? From the article that you didn't bother to read:
    The third issue with organic food is what is not in, or on them – pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. Here, again, we can take the same two approaches as with nutrition: Is there any evidence of a difference between organic and conventional produce, and is there evidence for a health benefit? There seems to be a consensus on the first question. There are lower levels of synthetic pesticides in organic produce and lower levels of hormones and antibiotics in organic meat than in conventionally grown equivalents. But is this safer for health? The review cited above is also relevant to this question, and essentially there is no evidence for greater safety of organic food over conventional food.

    With regard to pesticides, it must also be noted that organic farming, while using methods to minimize pests and the need for pesticides, still uses organic, rather than synthetic, pesticides. For example a rotenone-pyrethrin mixture is commonly used. Such pesticides are not as well studied as synthetic pesticides, often require more applications, and may persist longer in the soil. In fact the use of “natural” pesticides is nothing more than an appeal to the naturalistic fallacy – there really is no evidence for superior safety, and they have not been adequately studied.

    Also:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxE9sYatPAs

    Now who's "Shifting the goalposts"? Good job, I like what you did there.

    Do you even grasp what "shifting the goalposts" means? I doubt it.

    I was directly refuting YOUR claim that organic food is inherently healthier. How, pray tell, does this equate to shifting the goalposts?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories