FRUCTOSE CONVERTS TO FAT

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

Depends on what your goals are.

I suppose it would be a way to achieve dramatic, long lasting, weight loss...

Joanne just pm'd me. She said 17 apples is the limit. These are regular sized apples not those crazy massive ones they have in Japan for example. If you eat 18, you will get fat. If you stick to 17 or under you will be crazy fit and will be able to do KB windmills with the best of them.

Hope that helps.

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


Also, eating 17 regular sized apples would equal about 323g of sugar (based on the USDA entry of red apples at 19g per a 1med/3"dia/182g apple).

So basically anything over 323g of sugar would be bad.

Kind of a duh moment there in my opinion.

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

Eat whatever you want, natural or not, healthy or not. Someone asked what was not natural about aspartame, so I provided an answer.

So there are no dipeptide methyl esters in nature? Just because something is mass produced through chemical synthesis does not mean that the original basis for it wasn't a natural product.

aspartame is a man-made product. Man-made =/= natural. Ever.

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

Eat whatever you want, natural or not, healthy or not. Someone asked what was not natural about aspartame, so I provided an answer.

So there are no dipeptide methyl esters in nature? Just because something is mass produced through chemical synthesis does not mean that the original basis for it wasn't a natural product.

aspartame is a man-made product. Man-made =/= natural. Ever.

Bees make honey and it's considered natural. How come what humans make isn't also considered natural? Why do so many people consider humans and their actions unnatural?

Semantics, I know...

It doesn't really matter what most people consider. Words have definitions. The definition of the word natural is above.

tesing 123 testing....never mind!

If you stick to 17 or under you will be crazy fit and will be able to do KB windmills with the best of them.







I had to look up KB windmills on youtube. Is it just me or is that kind of a useless looking exercise?

Not really. What do you mean by useless?

So, is a pluot natural?

Or more importantly, is the fructose in a pluot special in any discernible way?

*sigh*

This is taking too long. I'll just jump straight to the conclusion I was eventually driving to:

Is there any commercial fruit available today that is still "natural" using that definition? And if not, then how does the fructose in these human-influenced fruits differ from "natural" fructose? If we have created oranges that are twice as sweet as the originals, with a significantly higher fructose content, is this extra fructose the "natural" kind (which is good and for which there are no limits) or the "man-made" kind (which is bad and should be limited to an unknown amount)?

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

Eat whatever you want, natural or not, healthy or not. Someone asked what was not natural about aspartame, so I provided an answer.

So there are no dipeptide methyl esters in nature? Just because something is mass produced through chemical synthesis does not mean that the original basis for it wasn't a natural product.

aspartame is a man-made product. Man-made =/= natural. Ever.

Bees make honey and it's considered natural. How come what humans make isn't also considered natural? Why do so many people consider humans and their actions unnatural?

Semantics, I know...

It doesn't really matter what most people consider. Words have definitions. The definition of the word natural is above.

Words have definitions, yes. Words describe ideas but sometimes ideas would be better conveyed using different words. This is one of those instances.

Well if we want to throw out the dictionary and make up our own language, then sure. Anything can be natural. The sky is the limit.

I'm only suggesting something that happens to words and languages all the time. The world is not static.

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression or semantic drift) is the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.


-- Awful—Originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)". Used originally as a shortening for "full of awe", in contemporary usage the word usually has negative meaning.
-- Demagogue—Originally meant "a popular leader". It is from the Greek dēmagōgós "leader of the people", from dēmos "people" + agōgós "leading, guiding". Now the word has strong connotations of a politician who panders to emotions and prejudice.
-- Egregious—Originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latin egregius "illustrious, select", literally, "standing out from the flock", which is from ex—"out of" + greg—(grex) "flock". Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.
-- Guy—Guy Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 Nov. 1605. The day was made a holiday, Guy Fawkes day, commemorated by parading and burning a ragged, grotesque effigy of Fawkes, known as a Guy. This led to the use of the word guy as a term for any "person of grotesque appearance" and then by the late 1800s—especially in the United States—for "any man", as in, e.g., "Some guy called for you." Over the 20th century, guy has replaced fellow in the U.S., and, under the influence of American popular culture, has been gradually replacing fellow, bloke, chap and other such words throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. In the plural, it can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., "Come on, you guys!" could be directed to a group of men and women).
-- Gay—Originally meant (13th century) "lighthearted", "joyous" or (14th century) "bright and showy", it also came to mean "happy"; it acquired connotations of immorality as early as 1637, either sexual e.g., gay woman "prostitute", gay man "womanizer", gay house "brothel", or otherwise, e.g., gay dog "over-indulgent man" and gay deceiver "deceitful and lecherous". In the United States by 1897 the expression gay cat referred to a hobo, especially a younger hobo in the company of an older one; by 1935, it was used in prison slang for a homosexual boy; and by 1951 and clipped to gay, referred to homosexuals.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change (I don't usually cite from here but this instance was okay)

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

Eat whatever you want, natural or not, healthy or not. Someone asked what was not natural about aspartame, so I provided an answer.

So there are no dipeptide methyl esters in nature? Just because something is mass produced through chemical synthesis does not mean that the original basis for it wasn't a natural product.

aspartame is a man-made product. Man-made =/= natural. Ever.

Bees make honey and it's considered natural. How come what humans make isn't also considered natural? Why do so many people consider humans and their actions unnatural?

Semantics, I know...

It doesn't really matter what most people consider. Words have definitions. The definition of the word natural is above.

Words have definitions, yes. Words describe ideas but sometimes ideas would be better conveyed using different words. This is one of those instances.

Well if we want to throw out the dictionary and make up our own language, then sure. Anything can be natural. The sky is the limit.

I'm only suggesting something that happens to words and languages all the time. The world is not static.

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression or semantic drift) is the evolution of word usage — usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.


-- Awful—Originally meant "inspiring wonder (or fear)". Used originally as a shortening for "full of awe", in contemporary usage the word usually has negative meaning.
-- Demagogue—Originally meant "a popular leader". It is from the Greek dēmagōgós "leader of the people", from dēmos "people" + agōgós "leading, guiding". Now the word has strong connotations of a politician who panders to emotions and prejudice.
-- Egregious—Originally described something that was remarkably good. The word is from the Latin egregius "illustrious, select", literally, "standing out from the flock", which is from ex—"out of" + greg—(grex) "flock". Now it means something that is remarkably bad or flagrant.
-- Guy—Guy Fawkes was the alleged leader of a plot to blow up the English Houses of Parliament on 5 Nov. 1605. The day was made a holiday, Guy Fawkes day, commemorated by parading and burning a ragged, grotesque effigy of Fawkes, known as a Guy. This led to the use of the word guy as a term for any "person of grotesque appearance" and then by the late 1800s—especially in the United States—for "any man", as in, e.g., "Some guy called for you." Over the 20th century, guy has replaced fellow in the U.S., and, under the influence of American popular culture, has been gradually replacing fellow, bloke, chap and other such words throughout the rest of the English-speaking world. In the plural, it can refer to a mixture of genders (e.g., "Come on, you guys!" could be directed to a group of men and women).
-- Gay—Originally meant (13th century) "lighthearted", "joyous" or (14th century) "bright and showy", it also came to mean "happy"; it acquired connotations of immorality as early as 1637, either sexual e.g., gay woman "prostitute", gay man "womanizer", gay house "brothel", or otherwise, e.g., gay dog "over-indulgent man" and gay deceiver "deceitful and lecherous". In the United States by 1897 the expression gay cat referred to a hobo, especially a younger hobo in the company of an older one; by 1935, it was used in prison slang for a homosexual boy; and by 1951 and clipped to gay, referred to homosexuals.

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change (I don't usually cite from here but this instance was okay)

To my knowledge the definition of natural has not changed, but it certainly is misused. Kind of like "healthy". I cringe every time I read a post that says "healthy means to me ..."

I like the dictionary and rules it provides, but I can't stop anyone from ignoring it. But, it is still the answer the questions "what's unnatural about aspartame?" and "why do so many consider man-made is not natural" (both questions paraphrased)

Wittengenstein is not amused

I saw OP's profile pic and got the urge to run from this thread... Dammit, why didn't I???

1nat·u·ral
adjective \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\

: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
: not having any extra substances or chemicals added : not containing anything artificial
: usual or expected

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural

Natural does not equal healthy. In the same vein, artificial does not equal unhealthy.
Here are some natural things, should I eat them? Hemlock, English Yew, lead, arsenic.

Eat whatever you want, natural or not, healthy or not. Someone asked what was not natural about aspartame, so I provided an answer.

So there are no dipeptide methyl esters in nature? Just because something is mass produced through chemical synthesis does not mean that the original basis for it wasn't a natural product.

aspartame is a man-made product. Man-made =/= natural. Ever.

I see. So if nature creates a simple molecule like ethanol (CH3-CH2-OH) then that is natural ethanol. But if humans look at that, figure out its chemical make-up and regenerate it using chemical synthesis to make CH3-CH2-OH then that ethanol is NOT natural.

That would be an example I think of language failing us. Ethanol is ethanol.

Aspartame is created synthetically by chemical steps because its cheaper to do it that way, but methyl-esters of amino acid dipeptides exist naturally as well.

Similar to how human insulin is "natural" and yet any human insulin a diabetic injects into themselves was created from E.coli genetically engineered to produce human insulin, again because its cheaper and more practical to harvest human insulin en mass from GMO bacteria rather than the old method of using pig insulin harvested from huge vats of collected pig blood. Does that mean that that particular human insulin isn't natural?

Language gets confused if you stick hard to definitions rather than look at the purpose of the language. The purpose of referring to something as being natural is to say that it was naturally created, not to say that if humans find out how to recreate it it ceases to be natural.