SUGAR IS EVERY DAMN WHERE!!!

JustinM86

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

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

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

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

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

Stop eating processed food.

LaLouve_RK

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!





.o0(Proud being Canadian!)

JustinM86

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm new. Tell me how to add you as a friend. I will do it.

kayemme

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

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?