Fat Kids........

[Grislygus]

Waidaminute, according to Google whiskey and scotch are only 82 calories a "jigger"

I assume 'jigger' is stupid fuckguage for "shot", so two 2/3 full glasses comes out to be... fuck it, math sucks

[Tadao]

If only there was a diet pill that a dr. could prescribe to me that would make me as skinny as a meth addict.

[RaNkeri]

Originally Posted by Colonel Flagg

Speaking of "doctorin'" - how's med school? You are still in med school, right?

Yes, and everything's fine


I actually posted the exact same thing earlier, but coolie promptly ignored it.

[Chojin]

1g of alcohol = 7kcal
1 ounce = 28.3495231 grams
shot = 1.5 oz

1 shot = 42.5g
1 shot of PURE ALCOHOL (200 proof) = ~300 calories
1 shot of 1 proof alcohol = 1.5 calories

Multiply 1.5 by the proof of your liquor to get the calorie content of a shot (prior to any sweeteners).

Originally Posted by Tadao

If only there was a diet pill that a dr. could prescribe to me that would make me as skinny as a meth addict.

The diet I was on could easily do that if you ignore the exercise component.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Esuohlim

Well it's just that alcohol is considered a toxin that the human body does not need to function so I'm just wondering what your opinion is on it

Like I said before,

People don't use alcohol to brush there teeth nor is it added to the municipal water supply. Sodium Fluoride is.

Originally Posted by Chojin

But if I understand what you're saying, it's that harmful stuff likes to live in fat. Okay? It doesn't increase fat, though.

I'm just stating that unnatural chemicals added to food find their way to fat deposits because they are difficult to digest and the body has no use for them. They can also interfere with the normal digestion process making it inefficient.

This quote is from the original article on page 1 of this thread:

"This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain," lead researcher Kimber Stanhope said. "We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose."

The effect seems to occur because fructose is not broken down in the digestive system like other sugars are. Instead, it moves directly into the liver, where it interferes with that organ's ability to process fat.

Originally Posted by Chojin

No. Fat is not always equatable to poor health.

I understand that. We all need some fat in our bodies. That's understood. Hence why I stated that word for word in my last response. I'm saying that obese people who have been eating junk artificial chemical ridden food are unhealthy and they are obese because they eat too much high calorie food AND they are eating foods laced with these chemicals.

Originally Posted by Chojin

I didn't defend MSG, I just said that it's pretty natural as additives go. Your argument was originally that synthetics were unhealthy and therefore fattening. MSG isn't really a synthetic.

See, it's either synthetic or its organic. You can't have both. The junk they use in our food that has been studied in laboratories to make rats obese and double their appetites are synthetic. It's added to most food and its under numerous names.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Everything but the last sentence: Who cares?
The last sentence: why would it make someone 'put on masses amounts of weight' any more than any other sweetener?

Who cares?

You can't compare the two substances. Sugar and HFCS are extremely different substances and have very different effects on the body. Hence the article I posted in the beginning.

Originally Posted by Chojin

How? HFCS is no more to blame for fatness than any other kind of sugar (replace your mountain dew habit with "mountain dew throwback" and let me know how much weight you lose), and MSG doesn't make people fat. HFCS and MSG may be unhealthy, but as we've already established, poisons are not necessarily fattening. They aren't even usually fattening.

It's scientifically proven that people who eat diets high in HFCS, MSG, and other additives weigh more and are less healthy then people who don't eat these substances.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Because synthetics are simply non-organic breakdowns of whole sources.

They are called synthetics for a reason. They are chemicals put together in a lab to mimic the natural chemicals.

Even if they taste the same or have no taste at all the body still has to take different steps to break down these synthetic chemicals. Like I said with HFCS. The body is acknowledges organic sugar cane with its 50 % glucose / fructose structure. If you change that structure the body has added pressure put on its organs.

These synthetics are not safe. They never have been. They are just cheaper substitutes for real ingredients. They are dangerous and they lead to obesity and other degenerative ailments.


Articles:

Study Finds High-Fructose Corn Syrup Contains Mercury

Almost half of tested samples of commercial high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) contained mercury, which was also found in nearly a third of 55 popular brand-name food and beverage products where HFCS is the first- or second-highest labeled ingredient, according to two new U.S. studies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...012601831.html

High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Diabetes

Roughly $40 billion in federal subsidies are going to pay corn growers, so that corn syrup is able to replace cane sugar. corn syrup has been singled out by many health experts as one of the chief culprits of rising obesity, because corn syrup does not turn off appetite. Since the advent of corn syrup, consumption of all sweeteners has soared, as have people's weights. According to a 2004 study reported in the American journal of Clinical Nutrition, the rise of Type-2 diabetes since 1980 has closely paralleled the increased use of sweeteners, particularly corn syrup.
- There Is a Cure for Diabetes: The Tree of Life 21-Day+ Program by Gabriel Cousens
- Available on Amazon.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/026468_su...orn_syrup.html

Surprise Ingredients in Fast Food

The seasoned beef, carne asada steak, spicy shredded chicken, and even the rice all include autolyzed yeast extract (hidden MSG). Disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate are flavor enhancers used in synergy with MSG [7,8]. Therefore, menu items with disodium inosinate and/or disodium guanylate also contain MSG. This includes the avocado ranch dressing, southwest chicken, citrus salsa, creamy jalapeno sauce, creamy lime sauce, lime seasoned red strips, pepper jack sauce, and seasoned rice.

http://www.naturalnews.com/022194.html

The link between monosodium glutamate (MSG) and obesity

But how does MSG cause obesity? Like aspartame, MSG is an excitotoxin, a substance that overexcites neurons to the point of cell damage and, eventually, cell death. Humans lack a blood-brain barrier in the hypothalamus, which allows excitotoxins to enter the brain and cause damage, according to Dr. Russell L. Blaylock in his book Excitotoxins. According to animal studies, MSG creates a lesion in the hypothalamus that correlates with abnormal development, including obesity, short stature and sexual reproduction problems.

http://www.naturalnews.com/009379.html

Consuming Common Food Additive MSG Increases Risk of Weight Gain

http://www.naturalnews.com/025353_MSG_food_brain.html

Consumption of soft drinks and high-fructose corn syrup linked to obesity and diabetes

http://www.naturalnews.com/003002.html

[Chojin]

Okay, no, that is not how you use articles. When you link to an article, you do so after paraphrasing it when you're making your point. The way you did it, you didn't even cite anything and I'd have to read all of that shit to tell you that it doesn't support your conclusions (aka what I already know).

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

I'm just stating that unnatural chemicals added to food find their way to fat deposits because they are difficult to digest and the body has no use for them. They can also interfere with the normal digestion process making it inefficient.

If your body can't digest it, it passes it. How inefficient does it make the digestion process? My money says "not enough to actually matter".

"This is the first evidence we have that fructose increases diabetes and heart disease independently from causing simple weight gain," lead researcher Kimber Stanhope said. "We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose."

The effect seems to occur because fructose is not broken down in the digestive system like other sugars are. Instead, it moves directly into the liver, where it interferes with that organ's ability to process fat.

This is funny because it doesn't support your point. To paraphase part 1: all sugar makes you fat, HFCS is just also kinda poisonous. Okay. They agree with me here that HFCS doesn't make people any more fat than other sweeteners do. Part 2: what happens to improperly processed fat? Does it somehow become SUPER FAT and double in size? Apply critical thinking here.

I understand that. We all need some fat in our bodies. That's understood. Hence why I stated that word for word in my last response. I'm saying that obese people who have been eating junk artificial chemical ridden food are unhealthy and they are obese because they eat too much high calorie food AND they are eating foods laced with these chemicals.

Your most recent point was that anything that is unhealthy is also fattening. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's how you wrote it. The cause for obesity is 99% high calorie food and maybe, maybe 1% due to Dr. Robotnik's evil chemicals. The entire reason there's so much literature on the subject in the mass media is that people want to believe that something other than themselves is to blame. You are propagating that myth with this nonsense.

See, it's either synthetic or its organic. You can't have both. The junk they use in our food that has been studied in laboratories to make rats obese and double their appetites are synthetic. It's added to most food and its under numerous names.

You are confusing cause and effect. Very likely, the rats became obese because the MSG increased their appetite and they therefore increased their calorie intake. This is very different from MSG directly making them fat.

You can't compare the two substances. Sugar and HFCS are extremely different substances and have very different effects on the body. Hence the article I posted in the beginning.

You can compare the two substances because they have the same effects on the body and have the same exact nutritional content. HFCS just also has some purported side effects, none of which are convincingly related to obesity. The negative side effects of HFCS are tremendously irrelevant when compared to the negative direct effects of all sugars.

It's scientifically proven that people who eat diets high in HFCS, MSG, and other additives weigh more and are less healthy then people who don't eat these substances.

You are again confusing cause and effect. People with diets high in HFCS and MSG are already eating calorie-dense garbage. The foods that don't contain those things are lesser in scope. By eating HFCS and MSG, we know that those people are eating junk foods, since those are the only foods that contain that crap. We do not know the same things about people who do not eat HFCS and MSG. This does not imply that HFCS and MSG are to blame. If you cut HFCS and MSG out of your diet, you are also cutting a lot of garbage out that incidentally contains that crap.

Again, the calorie content of a 20oz mountain dew (with HFCS) and a 20oz mountain dew throwback (without HFCS) is the EXACT SAME. Are you seriously suggesting that someone would gain less weight when drinking the throwback?

They are called synthetics for a reason. They are chemicals put together in a lab to mimic the natural chemicals.

Even if they taste the same or have no taste at all the body still has to take different steps to break down these synthetic chemicals. Like I said with HFCS. The body is acknowledges organic sugar cane with its 50 % glucose / fructose structure. If you change that structure the body has added pressure put on its organs.

Define "pressure on the organs". I'm beginning to think that you're just regurgitating language you read in some womens' fitness magazine.

These synthetics are not safe. They never have been. They are just cheaper substitutes for real ingredients.

They're safe enough to pass FDA standards, which means that any poisons they contain are trace enough to not matter.

They are dangerous and they lead to obesity and other degenerative ailments.

This is misleading. A cherry-flavored bullet is also dangerous to the head, but it isn't the cherry that does it.

[kahljorn]

They're safe enough to pass FDA standards, which means that any poisons they contain are trace enough to not matter.

but the FDA IS ON IT MAAAN

[The Leader]

Coolie, those are all from the same website that claimed that medical doctors will lose their licenses if they recommend a patient take a vitamin.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

If your body can't digest it, it passes it. How inefficient does it make the digestion process? My money says "not enough to actually matter".

Your body absorbed a lot of materials. There is no one in your GI tract that is saying picking out which material is good or not. Most of what you eat gets into your body and if your body doesn't recognize it or doesn't use it, it goes into fat deposits and festers.

Originally Posted by Chojin

This is funny because it doesn't support your point. To paraphase part 1: all sugar makes you fat, HFAC is just also kinda poisonous. Okay.

Originally Posted by Chojin

They agree with me here that HFAC doesn't make people any more fat than other sweeteners do. Part 2: what happens to improperly processed fat?

Participants in the fructose group, however, showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.

"We didn't see any of these changes in the people eating glucose."

fructose is not broken down in the digestive system like other sugars are. Instead, it moves directly into the liver, where it interferes with that organ's ability to process fat.

High-Fructose Corn Syrup and Diabetes

corn syrup has been singled out by many health experts as one of the chief culprits of rising obesity, because corn syrup does not turn off appetite. Since the advent of corn syrup, consumption of all sweeteners has soared, as have people's weights. According to a 2004 study reported in the American journal of Clinical Nutrition, the rise of Type-2 diabetes since 1980 has closely paralleled the increased use of sweeteners, particularly corn syrup.
- There Is a Cure for Diabetes: The Tree of Life 21-Day+ Program by Gabriel Cousens
- Available on Amazon.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/026468_su...orn_syrup.html

Originally Posted by Chojin

Your most recent point was that anything that is unhealthy is also fattening.

No,

I said that obese people aren't healthy.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Very likely, the rats became obese because the MSG increased their appetite and they therefore increased their calorie intake. This is very different from MSG directly making them fat.

No,

So right here we have a laboratory study that says the food additive (that shouldn't be in the food in the first place) induces obesity AND ALSO has been shown to increase appetite.

Either way you cut it, it still causes obesity.

MSG-Induced Obesity

MSG is injected into laboratory rats to induce obesity.


It also has been shown to increase appetite in male rats and to induce obesity in female rats and chickens. Scientists in Spain have recently concluded that MSG when given to mice increase appetite by as much as 40%.

http://www.msgtruth.org/obesity.htm

Originally Posted by Chojin

You can compare the two substances because they have the same effects on the body and have the same exact nutritional content

There is a quote above that counters your statement. They do not have the same effect on the body nor do they have the same structure and they certainly do not have the same nutritional content.

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFAC just also has some purported side effects, none of which are convincingly related to obesity. The negative side effects of HFAC are tremendously irrelevant when compared to the negative direct effects of all sugars.

One more time for good measure.

fructose is not broken down in the digestive system like other sugars are. Instead, it moves directly into the liver, where it interferes with that organ's ability to process fat.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Again, the calorie content of a 20oz mountain dew (with HFAC) and a 20oz mountain dew throwback (without HFAC) is the EXACT SAME. Are you seriously suggesting that someone would gain less weight when drinking the throwback?

Yes,

Because it doesn't contain HFCS that cannot be broken down and interes with the livers ability to process fat. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this.

HFCS, as you stated, has dangerous side effect and induces obesity much like other food additives.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Define "pressure on the organs".

Re-read the quotes

Originally Posted by Chojin

They're safe enough to pass FDA standards, which means that any poisons they contain are trace enough to not matter

People who believe what the FDA says usually die and their families have to sue for damages.

VIOXX anyone?

[Chojin]

The FDA is actually pretty strict on what they do and do not allow people to eat, because they err on the side of people being morons (which is completely understandable). When you hear shit like "OMFG THE FDA ALLOWS 21 RAT TURDS PER BOX OF CEREAL" or some shit, it's either bogus or the rat shit in question isn't enough to really be bad for you. Also, rat turds are delicious.

This is why I have to order my ephedra/caffeine stacks from the internet for tons of money instead of just buying them from the convenience store for peanuts like I used to--fatties were like "INCREASE MY METABOLISM? SOLD" and then ate a bunch of pills that increase heart rate when they already had high blood pressure. Frankly, if anything should be added to our drinking water, it's the E/C stack. We'd have far fewer whiny fatties around.

o i see you just posted, will rspnd in a sec

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

The FDA is actually pretty strict on what they do and do not allow people to eat,

FDA sets 'safe' levels for melamine in baby formula

After first saying that they could not determine a threshold for the safe amount of certain toxic chemicals in infant formula, Food and Drug Administration officials said Friday that trace amounts are safe.

"Amounts of the industrial chemical melamine or the melamine-like compound called cyanuric acid that are below 1.0 ppm [1,000 parts per billion] do not raise public health concerns," said Stephen Sundlof, the FDA's director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

When it became known in September that thousands of babies in China had been sickened by tainted infant formula, the FDA ordered the testing of U.S.-manufactured infant-formula products.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/28/inf...mula.melamine/

I'm glad I can sleep soundly at night knowing the FDA is protecting me.

[Chojin]

Most of what you eat gets into your body and if your body doesn't recognize it or doesn't use it, it goes into fat deposits and festers.

No, it generally gets removed. Eat a handful of rocks and let me know how many end up in your heart instead of the toilet.

Participants in the fructose group, however, showed an increase of fat cells around major organs including their hearts and livers, and also underwent metabolic changes that are precursors to heart disease and diabetes.

This just says that the fat is redistributed to problem areas. I still don't believe it, but it doesn't support your claim that it adds additional fat as compared to sugar. Since we're playing the repeating game, I'll go ahead and repeat that calories are the entire cause of fat gain and loss. You cannot get magic fat from 0-calorie chemicals. The shit has to come from somewhere. Source: law of conservation of mass.

corn syrup has been singled out by many health experts as one of the chief culprits of rising obesity, because corn syrup does not turn off appetite

Okay again right fucking here, your quote is trying to help me explain something to you. An increase in appetite causes people to eat more calories, which causes them to get more fat. THIS VERY QUOTE RIGHT HERE does not say that HFCS makes people fat. It says that it makes people hungry. Do you not appreciate the difference? If you would like to make the point that HFCS makes people hungry, be my guest, but it does not make them fat by itself.

No,

I said that obese people aren't healthy.

No, you said this:

This says that you don't understand the difference between unhealthy and fattening things, given that fat isn't inherently unhealthy.

It also has been shown to increase appetite in male rats and to induce obesity in female rats and chickens.

Define 'induce' as it's used in this study. My guess? It made them hungrier. Which is redundant.

There is a quote above that counters your statement. They do not have the same effect on the body nor do they have the same structure and they certainly do not have the same nutritional content.

Mountain Dew

kcal 290
carbs 77
sugars 77

Mountain Dew Throwback

kcal 280
carbs 73
sugars 73

Source: http://pepsiproductfacts.com/infobyproduct.php?brand_fam_id=1049&brand_id=1000&product=Mountain+Dew+Throwback

my bad, it's off by 10 whole calories. due to a rebalancing of the formula to make it taste the same.

HFCS is a sugar. It just is. In every way that matters, your body uses it the same way it uses any other sugar. This is also why gatorade works for athletes and doesn't kill them immediately.

fructose is not broken down in the digestive system like other sugars are. Instead, it moves directly into the liver, where it interferes with that organ's ability to process fat.

This does not mean that it isn't broken down in the digestive system AT ALL, it just means that it isn't broken down the same exact way. Again, it's close enough to not matter at all. The way this is worded implies that HFCS somehow dodges your stomach entirely, which is moronic. I guess you are excused for having a moronic understanding of nutrition if you believe that.

Re-read the quotes

Read the quotes to begin with.

I'm glad I can sleep soundly at night knowing the FDA is protecting me.

I don't understand what you're implying here. We don't have perfect knowledge, so we have to adjust our understanding of things as new information is tested and proven. The FDA, being run by human beings, is no exception; and they very much err on the side of caution.

So far, you have conclusively proven that certain chemicals make barnyard animals hungry and that you have a flawed grasp of English.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

No, it generally gets removed. Eat a handful of rocks and let me know how many end up in your heart instead of the toilet.

People don't eat rocks.

Originally Posted by Chojin

This just says that the fat is redistributed to problem areas. I still don't believe it

Why don't you believe it? It's right out in the open. Your not going to concede the argument to me, all you will be doing is acknowledging reality.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Okay again right fucking here, your quote is trying to help me explain something to you. An increase in appetite causes people to eat more calories, which causes them to get more fat. THIS VERY QUOTE RIGHT HERE does not say that HFCS makes people fat. It says that it makes people hungry. Do you not appreciate the difference? If you would like to make the point that HFCS makes people hungry, be my guest, but it does not make them fat by itself.

That's just one change that occurs in a myriad of other negative effects.

Originally Posted by Chojin

No, you said this

I assumed we are talking about obesity. Fat = Obesity. Since that's what the thread is about. Obesity and the causes, which are proven to be HFCS, food additives, and GMO's.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Define 'induce' as it's used in this study. My guess? It made them hungrier. Which is redundant.

Induce meaning makes them retain more fat AND increases there appetite. There are numerous negative consequences to these addtives and synthetic ingredients. We have to take all of them into account. As you state previous "HFAC is just also kinda poisonous. Okay."

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS is a sugar. It just is. In every way that matters, your body uses it the same way it uses any other sugar.

I think I've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that HFCS isn't used by the body in the same way as organic cane sugar.

And as you saw on your mountain dew chart.....HFCS has more calories and they add up.

Originally Posted by Chojin

This does not mean that it isn't broken down in the digestive system AT ALL, it just means that it isn't broken down the same exact way. Again, it's close enough to not matter at all.

Yes,

It's broken down in a different way. An ineffecient, dangerous way that effects the persons health negatively and also interferes with numerous organ and nervous systems.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

People don't eat rocks.

They can (this is actually the function of the pancreas). They can also eat numerous things that are insoluble. Things that the body doesn't use (insoluble fiber, pennies, rocks, bone) generally get passed to the bowel. Not your organs. That is stupid.

Why don't you believe it? It's right out in the open. Your not going to concede the argument to me, all you will be doing is acknowledging reality.

Because you'd have to cite me an article that directly sources a credible study which makes that claim. It could be true, but neither of us know that. In any event, it doesn't cause enough of a detrimental effect to matter in any capacity.

Induce meaning makes them retain more fat AND increases there appetite. There are numerous negative consequences to these addtives and synthetic ingredients. We have to take all of them into account. As you state previous "HFAC is just also kinda poisonous. Okay."

How does HFCS cause someone to retain fat? It's a sugar, and it gets used for fuel, especially in the short term. Also, how much fat does it cause someone to retain? And again, I don't think I ever claimed that HFCS was awesome for you, its negative effects are just pretty negligible compared to sucrose or fructose.

I think I've already proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that HFCS isn't used by the body in the same way as organic cane sugar.

And as you saw on your mountain dew chart.....HFCS has more calories and they add up.

I think you haven't at all, but that's because I'm only going by things you've actually said.

And actually, according to those nutritional facts I posted, sugar has more calories than HFCS.

290 / 77 = 3.76 kcal/g HFCS
280 / 73 = 3.83 kcal/g Sugar

Which of course isn't true, it's just rounding error. Both are 4 kcal/g.

It's broken down in a different way. An ineffecient, dangerous way that effects the persons health negatively and also interferes with numerous organ and nervous systems.

In the sense that a snake in the road interferes with my ability to drive a car down it, sure.

HFCS, at the end of the day, is really no worse for you than table sugar.

HFCS does taste worse and kinda sucks in other ways. If I had a choice, I'd rather take the sucrose (okay I'd more than likely not eat either of them).

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

They can (this is actually the function of the pancreas). They can also eat numerous things that are insoluble. Things that the body doesn't use (insoluble fiber, pennies, rocks, bone) generally get passed to the bowel. Not your organs. That is stupid.

Trace amounts of any substance you ingest get absorbed. Eat a nickel and then get your blood tested. Heavy Metal Traces will shoot up. Yes the nickel will come out in the bathroom and look untouched but you will still have a high amount of nickel material circulating through your body.

Because you'd have to cite me an article that directly sources a credible study which makes that claim. It could be true, but neither of us know that. In any event, it doesn't cause enough of a detrimental effect to matter in any capacity.

This little video may answer your question. Its somewhat amusing too if you've ever seen the HFCS propaganda commercials a little while ago.

Originally Posted by Chojin

How does HFCS cause someone to retain fat? It's a sugar, and it gets used for fuel, especially in the short term. Also, how much fat does it cause someone to retain? And again, I don't think I ever claimed that HFCS was awesome for you, its negative effects are just pretty negligible compared to sucrose or fructose.

The video above should of answered this question.

Originally Posted by Chojin

I think you haven't at all, but that's because I'm only going by things you've actually said.

And actually, according to those nutritional facts I posted, sugar has more calories than HFCS.

290 / 77 = 3.76 kcal/g HFCS
280 / 73 = 3.83 kcal/g Sugar

Which of course isn't true, it's just rounding error. Both are 4 kcal/g

Mountain Dew

kcal 290
carbs 77
sugars 77

Mountain Dew Throwback

kcal 280
carbs 73
sugars 73

Source: http://pepsiproductfacts.com/infobyp...+Dew+Throwback
This is what you posted before. Isn't the Throwback 280, 73, 73 ?

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS, at the end of the day, is really no worse for you than table sugar.

Actually at the end of the day HFCS, MSG, GMO's, and other unnatural synthetic additives are FAR worse than food that doesn't have them in it.

Much more. Almost night and day actually.

[Chojin]

I'll respond to the video in another post, maybe.

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

Trace amounts of any substance you ingest get absorbed. Eat a nickel and then get your blood tested. Heavy Metal Traces will shoot up. Yes the nickel will come out in the bathroom and look untouched but you will still have a high amount of nickel material circulating through your body.

key word being 'trace'.

This is what you posted before. Isn't the Throwback 280, 73, 73 ?

Yes, and throwback is the one that uses sugar instead of HFCS. I even posted the formulas and work, but I'm not surprised you didn't read them.

Actually at the end of the day HFCS, MSG, GMO's, and other unnatural synthetic additives are FAR worse than food that doesn't have them in it.

Much more. Almost night and day actually.

No. There is no appreciable difference. You're just being conned by hippies instead of suits.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

Yes, and throwback is the one that uses sugar instead of HFCS. I even posted the formulas and work, but I'm not surprised you didn't read them.

So sugar has less Kcal, sugar, and carbs then HFCS then?

Originally Posted by Chojin

No. There is no appreciable difference. You're just being conned by hippies instead of suits.

Ok,

I guess I'm a hippy cause I don't like eating poison and I posted an article that linked high levels of fructose to obesity and diabetes.

Also,

I just found out that HFCS actually makes people resistant to LEPTIN which regulates the bodies metabolism.

[Chojin]

Okay, the video only says that HFCS makes you hungrier, sugar tastes better, and there are some possible implications regarding various illnesses (which are also caused by eating sugar). Nothing about HFCS making people fatter or sicker than sugar would.

So again. HFCS doesn't make people fat, people eating makes people fat.

And I didn't say that you were a hippie, I said that hippies were conning you. Which is kinda worse, tbh.

So sugar has less Kcal, sugar, and carbs then HFCS then?

What the fuck? No. Again, if you run the numbers on those two drinks, it will tell you that sugar has more calories per gram than HFCS. And again, that's only due to rounding error--HFCS and sugar actually have the same calorie content per gram.

Maybe you're getting confused by the total calorie count being lower? Calories are basically a summary of the fat, carbs, alcohol, and protein in a food.

[Pentegarn]

this thread needs more quotes

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

Okay, the video only says that HFCS makes you hungrier

Yes,

that's just one negative consequence in the mountain of other complications which it causes.

sugar tastes better, and there are some possible implications regarding various illnesses (which are also caused by eating sugar).

As stated previously sugar doesn't do as much harm to the body like HFCS.

Nothing about HFCS making people fat all or sick when compared to sugar.

No,

As stated in the video and quotes HFCS causes many problems because of its unique structure.

So again. HFCS doesn't make people fat, people eating makes people fat.

The kind of food fed to the populace decides whether or not they will be fat.

And I didn't say that you were a hippie, I said that hippies were conning you. Which is kinda worse, tbh.

If its between getting conned by hippies or denying vast amounts of well known data. Then I guess I'll choose the hippy-con men.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by TheCoolinator

As stated previously sugar doesn't do as much harm to the body like HFCS.

And as stated, sugar does at least 99% as much harm to the body as HFCS.

No,

As stated in the video and quotes HFCS causes many problems because of its unique structure.

Except that's not what they said at all, they just listed a bunch of shit that HFCS does that sugar also does.

The kind of food fed to the populace decides whether or not they will be fat.

Wow, are you for real? Who's forcing you to eat HFCS? Anything you eat that contains it is going to be clown food whether it's using HFCS or sugar. It would make you fat when consumed in quantity whether it had HFCS or not.

If its between getting conned by hippies or denying vast amounts of well known data. Then I guess I'll choose the hippy-con men.

You don't have a fucking clue what HFCS does to you, you're just misinterpreting facts and regurgitating them ad nauseum to someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I mad.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

And as stated, sugar does at least 99% as much harm to the body as HFCS.

I didn't see anything backing that statement up. I did see a whole bunch of studies on how HFCS destroys the body and organs though.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Except that's not what they said at all, they just listed a bunch of shit that HFCS does that sugar also does.

I still don't understand how you're comparing sugar to HFCS. They are completely different in every way. Yes, large amounts of sugar is bad for you but at least it doesn't rot you out from the inside and halts liver processes, leptin, and cause neurological damage from being tainted by mercury.

Originally Posted by Chojin

Wow, are you for real? Who's forcing you to eat HFCS? Anything you eat that contains it is going to be clown food whether it's using HFCS or sugar. It would make you fat when consumed in quantity whether it had HFCS or not.

People don't read labels. Who educates them about the dangers of HFCS? Whatever is cheap and on the shelf people will buy.

So as I stated, "Whatever is fed to the populace will decide how unhealthy they will be"

Originally Posted by Chojin

You don't have a fucking clue what HFCS does to you, you're just misinterpreting facts and regurgitating them ad nauseum to someone who actually knows what he's talking about. I mad.

HFCS is dangerous. I haven't found any research stating otherwise.

[Chojin]

Well, this is pointless. Here, you can automatically respond to every post you would have made in this thread hereafter with these points and save us both aggravation by having a cyclical argument with yourself in Notepad.

HFCS has the same exact nutritional content as sugar.
Its chemical compound is not "completely different". It is "slightly different but pretty much the same".

HFCS is not any more dangerous than sugar.
Its negative side effects are trace and negligible.

[Chojin]

Oh and to respond directly to the article's claim in the OP in what I hope is the last post I'll make in this thread:

HFCS isn't responsible for obesity because the only way you can get HFCS in your system in the first place is by eating junk. No one is to blame for you eating junk but yourself.

[TheCoolinator]

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS has the same exact nutritional content as sugar.
Its chemical compound is not "completely different". It is "slightly different but pretty much the same".

So the compound is different. As the name would state. I've been noticing your using a lot of words like "Slightly, somewhat, kinda, etc", this does not help your argument.

Metabolic Danger of High-Fructose Corn Syrup


By Dana Flavin, MS, MD, PHD

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2008/...n-Syrup_01.htm

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS is not any more dangerous than sugar.
Its negative side effects are trace and negligible.

Unfortunately HFCS is the culprit to numerous serious diseases.

Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup

Since HFCS’s widespread introduction in the 1980’s North American [COLOR=#CC3333 ! important][COLOR=#CC3333 ! important]obesity[/color][/color] rates have skyrocketed. Obesity has been linked to may heath issues including heart disease and many forms of cancer. When HFCS is ingested, it travels straight to the liver which turns the sugary liquid into fat, and unlike other carbohydrates HFCS does not cause the pancreas to produce insulin; which acts as a [COLOR=#CC3333 ! important][COLOR=#CC3333 ! important]hunger[/color][/color] quenching signal to the brain. So we get stuck in a vicious cycle, eating food that gets immediately stored as fat and never feeling full.

Read more: http://healthmad.com/nutrition/dange...#ixzz0nCZn0Pun

These articles are everywhere and they all say the same thing. Is this a huge conspiracy against HFCS? Or is it just a blatant reality?

Originally Posted by Chojin

HFCS isn't responsible for obesity because the only way you can get HFCS in your system in the first place is by eating junk. No one is to blame for you eating junk but yourself.

If people aren't educated how do they know what is good for them? Most people just buy the cheapest stuff and believe they are eating the right things and now everything says natural on it so how are they supposed to know what is really good for them if they are being lied to at every turn?

also this....





This is a good one.