Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Chojin Chojin is offline
was never good
Chojin's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 1999
Chojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contest
Old May 6th, 2010, 07:49 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCoolinator View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

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.
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).
Reply With Quote
 



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:41 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.