Science vs the Fructose/HFCS Conspiracy

Ask and answer questions, discuss research and applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

Locked
Nevage
Member
Member
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm

Post by Nevage » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:27 pm

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


Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:28 pm

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

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:28 pm

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.
Fruit is sweet for a reason- so we will eat it. Trying to argue against that is arguing against common sense. If we weren't meant to biologically want sweet foods, we would have born without the ability to taste sugar, such as in a cat. Nor would there be so much processed sugared foods and drinks. I'm not advocating the consumption of processed crap, but I can easily see how the sugared sodas came to dominate the beverage industry.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:33 pm

frigginwizard wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote:Just because you are too stupid to even understand what they are talking about does not make them unrelated.


Image
:lol: The same thought occurred to me as well

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

Post by Peter Rouse » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:15 pm

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.


Jebus
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1106
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm

Post by Jebus » Mon Apr 12, 2010 8:37 pm

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.

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

Post by Peter Rouse » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:09 pm

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.

jml
Associate Member
Associate Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:55 am
Location: Seattle

Post by jml » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:20 pm

Peter Rouse wrote: How about the "global warming" scam being pushed through the world governments.
Time-out. Global Warming is super-duper cereal. Like actually.

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

Post by Peter Rouse » Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:49 pm

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
What is the preferred fuel for the heart.

What is your background in biochemistry?

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

Post by Peter Rouse » Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:03 pm

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/04/02-10

Another sample when industry is bigger than government and are above the law.

User avatar
TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
In Memoriam: TimD
Posts: 3129
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:04 am
Location: Va Beach, Va

Post by TimD » Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:31 am

I think this is getting a bit off topic, i.e Govt and corporations being corrupt, I think the terms are synonomous, and is turning into a good debate (although a bit heated) but might be better off in the Lounge. BTW, Peter, my bet is you listen to coast to coast AM. I'm a big fan, although I don't necessarily subscribe to all they put out, but it is eye opening, and they present a lot of off mainstream ideas. Monsanto's business practices were examined a few weeks ago.
Tim

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

Post by Peter Rouse » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:15 pm

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?

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:28 pm

Peter Rouse wrote:
Nevage wrote:
Peter Rouse wrote: 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?
Have you ever heard of Aerobic Cellular Respiration?

frogbyte
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm

Post by frogbyte » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:36 pm

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.

Rucifer
Member
Member
Posts: 928
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Location: Ohio, USA

Post by Rucifer » Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:47 pm

frogbyte wrote: because the existence of this much dietary sugar is not natural.
Agreed
frogbyte wrote:
Liking sugar as much as many people do is not natural
Completely disagree. It's completely natural to want to engulf as many calories as possible, regardless of where they are coming from. The unnatural part is how much food we have available now, and crap food at that.
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.
Agree and disagree. We are accustomed to what we eat, but some people don't like some foods and it has nothing to do with societial influences, for instance I depise the taste of cheese, not due to environmental reasons but was born with the taste receptors that give it a crappy taste to me. Biology gave us the tools to process and like fruits. It might not be necessary to eat them, but to say we weren't born to eat them is neglecting a look at our evolution.


Locked