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:
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".
Quote:
"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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
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.
Hybrid Mode
