Good post I found this part quite amusingtie-dyed SWAT gear.
Good post I found this part quite amusingtie-dyed SWAT gear.
I have to say, I find the food naturalists every bit as nazi-ish when it comes down to telling people what's better for them.
The difference is the naturalists aren't sending masked men with machine guns to steal from you and kill you if you don't eat the way they think you should.
For myself, I have found that if I even eat the low end of their spectrum I will gain weight. For reference, I work out 4-5 times per week and have a large athletic build. Unless I'm just extremely abnormal , I can't eat pasta and bread every day without it showing. Just my experience.Everything in context, Rambone, everything in context. It says 6-11, and the range is created based on activity levels and prevailing personal health situation. Clearly the inactive don't need 11 servings, but somebody burning 2000 calories a day might. (And let's not forget that not all bread/grains/carbs are created equal.)
I have to say, I find the food naturalists every bit as nazi-ish when it comes down to telling people what's better for them. You eat what you want and when you live longer you can laugh at my grave. Otherwise, go away. What do you care if my ready-to-bake chocolate chip cookies have HFCS?
They are not motivated by freedom is all I'm saying. It sounds like it, but when the tables are turned, I guarantee most of them would line up to wear the tie-dyed SWAT gear.
Yet. Don't for a minute think that they wouldn't support such action against the Keebler Elves for nothing more than the heinous crime of using enriched bleach flour if they had their way.
They are not opposed to this kind of police behavior, only this kind of police behavior against their interests. They are no friend of freedom.
My point is that while it looks benign enough to have a bunch of natural food buffs bemoaning the interference of the government when said interference attempts to block something they support, but they wouldn't bat an eye at government interference that mandated something they support. They are not motivated by freedom is all I'm saying. It sounds like it, but when the tables are turned, I guarantee most of them would line up to wear the tie-dyed SWAT gear.
For myself, I have found that if I even eat the low end of their spectrum I will gain weight. For reference, I work out 4-5 times per week and have a large athletic build. Unless I'm just extremely abnormal , I can't eat pasta and bread every day without it showing. Just my experience.
I didn't say that. But with one notable exception , I've not met/encountered one person opposed to them that didn't want the government to jump in and control it somehow, mostly by banning it.I don't think everyone who speaks out about HFCS wants more regulation or more government control. Talking down bad products is a very free-market thing to do.
Hopefully you can think of at least one who doesn't fit that profile!
There are fascists in all walks of life. As you know, there are even "righties" who justify strapping on SWAT gear to force people to live their way. For proof, just start a thread about forced medication, forced military draft, forcing kids to recite the pledge, forced drug testing, banning flag desecration, etc. You can find folks who would ban things they don't like and mandate things they do like -- everywhere you go, and for every different reason.
But in my experience reading natural news sites, fascism is not the majority. You'd be surprised at how many of them would abolish the FDA. It doesn't take much research to realize that government hurts more than it helps.
I wouldn't even consider natural-living to be a "leftie" movement. When did being healthy turn into a political opinion? Just like it would be a bit unfair to group all right-wingers as fat, unhealthy sloths who drink soda and eat processed food. People stop eating like crap because they realize that they were slowly killing themselves with their bad habits.
in defense, HFCS is not an inherently bad product. It's the amount of which found in the average American diet which is detrimental.
So very true. Unless one is a child, one is responsible for their own diet, caloric intake, and the form in which those calories take. Yes, it's true healthy food is expensive, but I would posit there are far more areas where one can cut their budget in order to eat a healthier diet. But then of course they may not be able to keep up with the Joneses.
If anyone is a fan of Penn & Teller's show BS, they did an episode on fast food, HFCS, and the hysteria surrounding all of it.
If anyone is a fan of Penn & Teller's show BS, they did an episode on fast food, HFCS, and the hysteria surrounding all of it.
I disagree. I've had to "unlike" many a natural news sources on FB and unsubscribe from e-newsletters because it wasn't about promoting the dissemination of information but about using that information to further a personal agenda, which usually translated into something the government "should be doing."
I reiterate: HFCS in and of itself is not a bad or toxic product. It's the QUANTITY of HFCS which one consumes that represents a danger. For crying out loud, drinking enough water in one sitting can kill you. And yes, that has happened.
Thank God that our bodies aren't made up of 80% fructose.
Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds | Reuters
Thank God that our bodies aren't made up of 80% fructose.
Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds | Reuters