Support NeoGAF

[LaserBuddha]

Yeah look at the side of a box of processed-to-hell cereal from General Mills. Then take a look at the side of a box of "organic" cereal, particularly granola. Guess which one is worse for you?

This is particularly true with those lines of "natural" popcorn that the various companies have been putting out.

I'm not going to accept that food containing chemicals or artificial ingredients are bad for me, unless the actual ingredients in the given product have been proven to have some sort of ill effect. Your body doesn't care if something came from nature or a lab, it only cares what those compounds do to it.

 

[EviLore]

There is a difference. Not all sugars are equal. It's called the glycemic index. So it depends on the fruit juice really. If it's blended fruit, then it'll have a low glycemic index. If it's flavored with refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup, then it's pretty much the same as Coke.
Also, the whole acidity thing as previously discussed.

Orange juice 46 GI -- 250 mL -- 26g carbs -- 12 GL
Orange juice, reconstituted from frozen concentrate 57 GI -- 250 mL -- 26 g carbs -- 15 GL

Coca Cola® 63 GI -- 250 mL -- 26 g carbs -- 16 GL


So, at the same amount of sugar per serving, orange juice is lower on the glycemic index. But that just means that orange juice has a glucose:fructose ratio that favors fructose more than HFCS does, since fructose is low GI.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

There is a difference. Not all sugars are equal. It's called the glycemic index. So it depends on the fruit juice really. If it's blended fruit, then it'll have a low glycemic index. If it's flavored with refined sugar or high fructose corn syrup, then it's pretty much the same as Coke.
Also, the whole acidity thing as previously discussed.

Sucrose and high fructose corn syrup pretty much are equal in terms of their fructose/glucose composition.

Fructose alone may not have a strong immediate effect on blood sugar, but it is metabolized almost exclusively in the liver, and much of it turns to fat. As a result we start seeing things like "fatty liver disease".

Yeah look at the side of a box of processed-to-hell cereal from General Mills. Then take a look at the side of a box of "organic" cereal, particularly granola. Guess which one is worse for you?

Both will make you fat. The processed version probably has more sugar in it, though.

 

[Monte]

The only times I ever drink soda are when out at a restaurant and with alcohol.

 

[Barrett2]

I drink diet soda on occasion.

I also exercise 5+ times a week.

*sunglasses.gif*

 

[way more]

What's damning about it for me is that it's been shown to cause an insulin response in animal tests, which in turn made the test subjects crave the carbs that their brain thought were on the way after experiencing the sweetness sensation of artificial sweeteners.

This test showed that adult rats overate and became overweight after artificial sweeteners were introduced to their diet.

While it may not affect humans in exactly the same way, there is reason to believe that it very well may. Combine that with the studies that show that people who regularly consume diet soda tend to be fatter and at higher risk for disease, and it's enough to make me wary about the stuff.

Well, caffeine will suppress your appetite for a little while but then you may crave more later. If I wanted to be flippant I would say they selected rats with poor will power. I read the study as saying diet coke will cause you to eat more in other regards. If you are aware of that then maybe you can avoid it..

 

[elrechazado]

Orange juice 46 GI -- 250 mL -- 26g carbs -- 12 GL
Orange juice, reconstituted from frozen concentrate 57 GI -- 250 mL -- 26 g carbs -- 15 GL

Coca Cola® 63 GI -- 250 mL -- 26 g carbs -- 16 GL


So, at the same amount of sugar per serving, orange juice is lower on the glycemic index. But that just means that orange juice has a glucose:fructose ratio that favors fructose more than HFCS does, since fructose is low GI.

Which means it's even worse. This is one of the many reasons why GI is a flawed metric.

 

[Karak]

Testosterone.

Get one of those (the bar, not the well groomed guy), do a few chin-ups every morning and get not only stronger but fully awake and your blood flowing in 2 minutes max.

I agree. Though I drink a shitload of pop. In the morning I do a single set of a hundred situps and a hundred pushups (ex military brother taught me that trick). It really does pump you up and get you ready for the day better than ANYTHING I have ever experienced. Been doing that since I was 16 and it has also had tremendous benifits in many areas.

A small quick set of chinups or pushups is a must in the morning.

 

[ch0mp]

Yeah look at the side of a box of processed-to-hell cereal from General Mills. Then take a look at the side of a box of "organic" cereal, particularly granola. Guess which one is worse for you?

This is particularly true with those lines of "natural" popcorn that the various companies have been putting out.

I'm not going to accept that food containing chemicals or artificial ingredients are bad for me, unless the actual ingredients in the given product have been proven to have some sort of ill effect. Your body doesn't care if something came from nature or a lab, it only cares what those compounds do to it.

I'm the other way around. If it's not an actual food I don't eat it. As in it had to be alive and not made in a lab. But you seem quite happy to be part of a large scale food experiment.

There's a bunch of artificial ingredients that were 'perfectly safe', until suddenly they weren't.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#banned_additives

The food and chemical industries have said for decades that all food additives are well tested and safe. And most additives are safe. However, the history of food additives is riddled with additives that, after many years of use, were found to pose health risks. Those listed below have been banned. The moral of the story is that when someone says that all food additives are well tested and safe you should take their assurances with a grain of salt.

All of these are considered 'safe' or allowed in foods:
Trans fats - heart disease, cancer, diabetes etc.
Olestra - it's not digestible... what do you think happens next? Here is a good example. Your body really doesn't know what to do with artificial compounds.
Caramel colouring - potentially cancer causing
Splenda - kills gut flora, increases pH
Aspartame - nothing conclusive on this as I'm sure we all know. There's an almost infinite amount of anecdotes about it though, I don't think it's settled yet.

 

[Karak]

I'm the other way around. If it's not an actual food I don't eat it. As in it had to be alive and not made in a lab. But you seem quite happy to be part of a large scale food experiment.

There's a bunch of artificial ingredients that were 'perfectly safe', until suddenly they weren't.

http://www.cspinet.org/reports/chemcuisine.htm#banned_additives


All of these are considered 'safe' or allowed in foods:
Trans fats - heart disease, cancer, diabetes etc.
Olestra - it's not digestible... what do you think happens next? Here is a good example. Your body really doesn't know what to do with artificial compounds.
Caramel colouring - potentially cancer causing
Splenda - kills gut flora, increases pH
Aspartame - nothing conclusive on this as I'm sure we all know. There's an almost infinite amount of anecdotes about it though, I don't think it's settled yet.

I wonder why that list doesn't have anything remotely recent? Do they not update it anymore? Seems like a good amount of stuff back in the day. Maybe they didn't test it as well back then compared to now or something.

Add normal natural sugar to supposedly safe stuff as well, though its continued use has a ton of ramifications.