ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 1:50 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Peter Rouse wrote:
stuward wrote:
Liking sweet things is natural, eating them in modern quantities is not.


Actually no it's not natural. Anyone with a biochemistry background will know this.


It has been natural since single celled organisms fed on glucose. It may even predate DNA (ie RNA based cells). It certainly predates taste buds, by possibly as much as a billion years. Try reading some books on evolutionary biology. You might learn something.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:48 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:
Here is one more piece of evidence I will post,

"There is no evidence to suggest that the consumption of foods containing this sweetener, according to the provisions of the Food and Drug Regulations and as part of a well-balanced diet, would pose a health hazard to consumers. In addition, other scientific advisory bodies such as the Scientific Committee for Food of the European Community, and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization have reviewed all the available safety studies and have found aspartame to be safe. More than ninety countries world-wide, including the United States, countries of the European Union, and Australia and New Zealand, have also reviewed aspartame and found it to be safe for human consumption and allow its use in various foods."

-Canadian Food Inspection Agency

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/ad ... me-eng.php


So you trust the government to do the right thing by you?

You people have very short memories.


Guilt by association logical fallacy. It is also a false dichotomy. No trust is required with independent verification.

It is said you should learn to walk before you run. You should learn to think before you speak.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 5:50 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Nevage wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
stuward wrote:
Liking sweet things is natural, eating them in modern quantities is not.


Actually no it's not natural. Anyone with a biochemistry background will know this.


I have a biochemistry background and would like to know your reasons why sweet things arent natural. To me glycolysis wouldn't be a major metabolic pathway if we didn`t consume sweet things in the past (fruit) because we weren't gettin the sugar from agriculture back before then


Bravo sir! Excellent pwnage!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:01 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:

So you trust the government to do the right thing by you?

You people have very short memories.


Yup, more than companies. I pay their salary ya know?

And what do you mean by, "you people," haha.-jk


So you trust the government that stages events to start a war - such as in the case with Vietnam? Never heard of "The Gulf of Tonkin incident"

How about more recent even, the Christmas day underwear bomber?

The list goes on and on......

You also have a president the refuses to provide a birth certificate - a requirement to be president. Not only that he doesn't even use his real name.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: rotflmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The first is just guilt by association, no biggie, you have done that 100 times in this thread already.

Next, are you saying the government was responsible for the underwear bomber? It wasn't a religious wacko? I have not heard that one yet. Is this an offshoot of the 911 truthers? :lol:

You saved the best for last. You're a birther!!!! wow! I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself!! Obama showed his birth certificate. Don't give me any of that "short form" crap either. You know perfectly well that if you lose your birth certificate and need a replacement, THAT is the form the state of Hawaii gives you. You have proven yourself to be a dumb gullible bigot. Yea one of those colored folks got uppity and became president. Deal with it you inbred hill billy!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:08 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:
I don't have a president, I have a prime minister. I'm Canadian.

So seing how almost every country allows the use and sale of aspartame, are all those nations stupid too?

Food inspection agencies go through a lot of work to make sure the public has access to clean foods.

Canadian, that explains everything. You see no where near the level of corruption that is seen here in the US. Look at the rbgh which was rejected by the Canadian government, even though Monsanto attempted the bribe and then threatened them with legal action.

No, not stupid, corrupted. Are these the same governments that were just recently pushing the H1N1 vaccine? How about the "global warming" scam being pushed through the world governments.

FDA and other such agencies do not work for the public, they work for the industry (Yes, they are meant to protect the public). This can be seen here in the US with the FDA and their level of corruption that exists. The want to ban nutritional supplements claiming they are bad and toxic and will kill you while at the same time allow drugs on the market the kill hundreds of thousands of people (some of these drugs are still on the market even after being proven dangerous). Look up US Senate Bill 3002. Also read up on Codex Alimentarius that is currently attempting to be pushed through the world governments and can already see the start of it in parts of europe.

This is just scratching the surface - I have researched this far more than you could imagine and have spent a lot of money in the process finding the truth. People really need to wake up.


Ok, now it is getting serious. There will be no vaccine conspiracy theories here. NONE!

People listen to advice like this and don't get vaccines, for this as well as other things. PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF THAT!

This is no longer harmless gullibility. This influences dumb people to do things that might cost them their lives.

We also have diseases on the verge of going extinct making a comeback. All because of stupid, gullible, illogical, inbred fv(k like you!

I will not have anyone dishing out half-baked medical quackery on here. Go pedal your snake oil elsewhere.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:11 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Peter Rouse wrote:
Nevage wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
stuward wrote:
Liking sweet things is natural, eating them in modern quantities is not.


Actually no it's not natural. Anyone with a biochemistry background will know this.


I have a biochemistry background and would like to know your reasons why sweet things arent natural. To me glycolysis wouldn't be a major metabolic pathway if we didn`t consume sweet things in the past (fruit) because we weren't gettin the sugar from agriculture back before then


BTW glycolysis is not a major metabolic pathway. Where did you study biochemistry?


Yes it is. As I said it might even predate DNA based cells. Of course I'm sure you think evolution is a conspiracy too......


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:14 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
frogbyte wrote:
The prominence of sugar metabolic pathways has little to do with liking sweet things. Humans tend to like the things they're accustomed to. It has little to do with genetics. That's the only way to account for some of the revolting things people eat in various weird countries.

Liking sugar as much as many people do is not natural because the existence of this much dietary sugar is not natural.


It is natural. We evolved that way. Being attracted to sweet tastes is as old as taste buds. Honestly, try reading some science before you pretend to know everything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
frogbyte wrote:
Exactly. Weird is that which you're not accustomed too.

I don't think "It's completely natural to want to engulf as many calories as possible, regardless of where they are coming from". When you're hungry, yes. But when you're not hungry, no.


If it wasn't, we would not exist to be talking about it. Animals who did not try to eat every calorie dense thing they could get a hold of were less likely to reproduce. It's natural selection. It's not like animals millions of years ago could go down to Whole Foods and buy food whenever they felt like it. It was slim pickings. You got your energy or you died and that was that. Try "The Selfish Gene" and "The Greatest Show on Earth", 2 excellent books on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins. Honestly you are in serious need of a proper education. Seriously try doing some reading. You can make up for a lot with a few good books.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:37 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:

So you trust the government to do the right thing by you?

You people have very short memories.


Yup, more than companies. I pay their salary ya know?

And what do you mean by, "you people," haha.-jk


So you trust the government that stages events to start a war - such as in the case with Vietnam? Never heard of "The Gulf of Tonkin incident"

How about more recent even, the Christmas day underwear bomber?

The list goes on and on......

You also have a president the refuses to provide a birth certificate - a requirement to be president. Not only that he doesn't even use his real name.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: rotflmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The first is just guilt by association, no biggie, you have done that 100 times in this thread already.

Next, are you saying the government was responsible for the underwear bomber? It wasn't a religious wacko? I have not heard that one yet. Is this an offshoot of the 911 truthers? :lol:

You saved the best for last. You're a birther!!!! wow! I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself!! Obama showed his birth certificate. Don't give me any of that "short form" crap either. You know perfectly well that if you lose your birth certificate and need a replacement, THAT is the form the state of Hawaii gives you. You have proven yourself to be a dumb gullible bigot. Yea one of those colored folks got uppity and became president. Deal with it you inbred hill billy!


OMG you really are that stupid. They already admitted that a US government agent led him onto the plane, bypassing security and with no passport. This is the official FBI report (which they kept changing the story for 2 weeks).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:44 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
Nevage wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
stuward wrote:
Liking sweet things is natural, eating them in modern quantities is not.


Actually no it's not natural. Anyone with a biochemistry background will know this.


I have a biochemistry background and would like to know your reasons why sweet things arent natural. To me glycolysis wouldn't be a major metabolic pathway if we didn`t consume sweet things in the past (fruit) because we weren't gettin the sugar from agriculture back before then


BTW glycolysis is not a major metabolic pathway. Where did you study biochemistry?


Yes it is. As I said it might even predate DNA based cells. Of course I'm sure you think evolution is a conspiracy too......


Basic Medical Biochemistry - pages 358-359

"The body oxidizes more fatty acids each day than any other fuel."

"Fatty acids are the major fuel in humans"

Textbook of Medical Physiology (9th edition) Page 866

"... almost all the energy requirements of the body can be provided by the oxidation of the free fatty acids without using any carbohydrates or proteins for energy."

I don't know where you studied biochemistry but I would ask for a refund.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:48 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Ironman wrote:
frogbyte wrote:
Exactly. Weird is that which you're not accustomed too.

I don't think "It's completely natural to want to engulf as many calories as possible, regardless of where they are coming from". When you're hungry, yes. But when you're not hungry, no.


If it wasn't, we would not exist to be talking about it. Animals who did not try to eat every calorie dense thing they could get a hold of were less likely to reproduce. It's natural selection. It's not like animals millions of years ago could go down to Whole Foods and buy food whenever they felt like it. It was slim pickings. You got your energy or you died and that was that. Try "The Selfish Gene" and "The Greatest Show on Earth", 2 excellent books on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins. Honestly you are in serious need of a proper education. Seriously try doing some reading. You can make up for a lot with a few good books.


I read up to 5 books a week.... every week. In fact I have over a hundred biochemistry books in my library, several thousand on nutrition. I actually have my own library - how many people can say that?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:49 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Ironman wrote:
frogbyte wrote:
The prominence of sugar metabolic pathways has little to do with liking sweet things. Humans tend to like the things they're accustomed to. It has little to do with genetics. That's the only way to account for some of the revolting things people eat in various weird countries.

Liking sugar as much as many people do is not natural because the existence of this much dietary sugar is not natural.


It is natural. We evolved that way. Being attracted to sweet tastes is as old as taste buds. Honestly, try reading some science before you pretend to know everything.


Now you just look ready stupid. Read a biochemistry and physiology book.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:54 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:
I don't have a president, I have a prime minister. I'm Canadian.

So seing how almost every country allows the use and sale of aspartame, are all those nations stupid too?

Food inspection agencies go through a lot of work to make sure the public has access to clean foods.

Canadian, that explains everything. You see no where near the level of corruption that is seen here in the US. Look at the rbgh which was rejected by the Canadian government, even though Monsanto attempted the bribe and then threatened them with legal action.

No, not stupid, corrupted. Are these the same governments that were just recently pushing the H1N1 vaccine? How about the "global warming" scam being pushed through the world governments.

FDA and other such agencies do not work for the public, they work for the industry (Yes, they are meant to protect the public). This can be seen here in the US with the FDA and their level of corruption that exists. The want to ban nutritional supplements claiming they are bad and toxic and will kill you while at the same time allow drugs on the market the kill hundreds of thousands of people (some of these drugs are still on the market even after being proven dangerous). Look up US Senate Bill 3002. Also read up on Codex Alimentarius that is currently attempting to be pushed through the world governments and can already see the start of it in parts of europe.

This is just scratching the surface - I have researched this far more than you could imagine and have spent a lot of money in the process finding the truth. People really need to wake up.


Ok, now it is getting serious. There will be no vaccine conspiracy theories here. NONE!

People listen to advice like this and don't get vaccines, for this as well as other things. PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE OF THAT!

This is no longer harmless gullibility. This influences dumb people to do things that might cost them their lives.

We also have diseases on the verge of going extinct making a comeback. All because of stupid, gullible, illogical, inbred fv(k like you!

I will not have anyone dishing out half-baked medical quackery on here. Go pedal your snake oil elsewhere.


I have over 10,000 medical researchers and doctors that agree with me. The vaccine game is a scam.

Lets look at last year H1N1 and the seasonal flu. Last year was the lowest reported cases of the seasonal flu.... it was also a record low for number of people getting vaccinated... do the maths.

Now look at the H1N1 - how many of the H1N1 cases had the H1N1 vaccine?

You have no knowledge in this field so stop pretending you do. You are just a stupid idiot who sits behind a computer who is even too scared to use his own name.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:59 am 
Offline
Novice
Novice

Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 96
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Ironman wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:
Jebus wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:

So you trust the government to do the right thing by you?

You people have very short memories.


Yup, more than companies. I pay their salary ya know?

And what do you mean by, "you people," haha.-jk


So you trust the government that stages events to start a war - such as in the case with Vietnam? Never heard of "The Gulf of Tonkin incident"

How about more recent even, the Christmas day underwear bomber?

The list goes on and on......

You also have a president the refuses to provide a birth certificate - a requirement to be president. Not only that he doesn't even use his real name.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: rotflmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The first is just guilt by association, no biggie, you have done that 100 times in this thread already.

Next, are you saying the government was responsible for the underwear bomber? It wasn't a religious wacko? I have not heard that one yet. Is this an offshoot of the 911 truthers? :lol:

You saved the best for last. You're a birther!!!! wow! I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself!! Obama showed his birth certificate. Don't give me any of that "short form" crap either. You know perfectly well that if you lose your birth certificate and need a replacement, THAT is the form the state of Hawaii gives you. You have proven yourself to be a dumb gullible bigot. Yea one of those colored folks got uppity and became president. Deal with it you inbred hill billy!


He never showed his birth certificate. You really are in denial. If he did show me the news item proving this.

What was the first executive order Obama gave as president and why?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 11:21 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Ironman wrote:
It is natural. We evolved that way. Being attracted to sweet tastes is as old as taste buds. Honestly, try reading some science before you pretend to know everything.
"Sweetness" is like any other taste - the body tries to desire what it needs. If you're blood sugar is low, yea you might want sweeter things, just like craving salt or anything else. Where it goes wrong is when you chronically shove something unnatural into the system.

Ironman wrote:
If it wasn't, we would not exist to be talking about it. Animals who did not try to eat every calorie dense thing they could get a hold of were less likely to reproduce. It's natural selection. It's not like animals millions of years ago could go down to Whole Foods and buy food whenever they felt like it. It was slim pickings. You got your energy or you died and that was that. Try "The Selfish Gene" and "The Greatest Show on Earth", 2 excellent books on evolutionary biology by Richard Dawkins. Honestly you are in serious need of a proper education. Seriously try doing some reading. You can make up for a lot with a few good books.

Again, no, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. Your statement doesn't even make any sense. Fat is more calorie dense than sugar anyway.

It makes sense for sugar to not make you feel full, though, which I think maybe is what you were trying to get at. Since fruit is rare and spoils rapidly, best to eat it when you can, as much as you can.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 154 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group