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 |
If only there was a diet pill that a dr. could prescribe to me that would make me as skinny as a meth addict.
|
Quote:
I actually posted the exact same thing earlier, but coolie promptly ignored it. |
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). Quote:
|
Quote:
People don't use alcohol to brush there teeth nor is it added to the municipal water supply. Sodium Fluoride is. Quote:
This quote is from the original article on page 1 of this thread: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
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).
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I said that obese people aren't healthy. Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
One more time for good measure. Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
VIOXX anyone? |
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Code:
Mountain Dew 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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So far, you have conclusively proven that certain chemicals make barnyard animals hungry and that you have a flawed grasp of English. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And as you saw on your mountain dew chart.....HFCS has more calories and they add up. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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). |
Quote:
Quote:
This little video may answer your question. Its somewhat amusing too if you've ever seen the HFCS propaganda commercials a little while ago. Quote:
Quote:
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 ? Quote:
Much more. Almost night and day actually. |
I'll respond to the video in another post, maybe.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. Quote:
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. |
this thread needs more quotes
|
Quote:
that's just one negative consequence in the mountain of other complications which it causes. Quote:
Quote:
As stated in the video and quotes HFCS causes many problems because of its unique structure. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So as I stated, "Whatever is fed to the populace will decide how unhealthy they will be" Quote:
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
also this.... This is a good one. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:18 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.