Must be pre-workout for the insulin spike.
It might work better for that 
but I doubt it . Maybe they are taking up their creatine
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup[/quote]
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup[/quote]
"Studies by the American Medical Association suggest “it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose”, but welcome further independent research on the subject.[45] Further reviews in the clinical literature have disputed the links between HFCS and obesity,[46] type 2 diabetes,[47][need quotation to verify] and metabolic syndrome,[46] and some food and beverage industry experts have concluded that HFCS is no different from any other sugar in relationship to these diseases.[46]
HFCS has been classified generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since 1976.[48]"
But… But… The AMA is controlled by lobbyists and Big Pharma!
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?[/quote]
I do think diet contributes. But in most kids and young adults, I think lack of activity is the bigger culprit. I know when I was in middle and high school, my friends and I played sports and were on-the-go non-stop. Nintendo was popular, and we all loved Madden football when it first came out. We would play an hour max. But we were riding our bikes, playing sports, swimming at the lake and river, camping, hiking… you name it. Just DOING stuff.
And I lived on Mt. Dew and 7-11 snacks. I had maybe 1 quality meal a day: dinner. My breakfast was a sugary cereal. My lunch was junk food. Before gym/sports was gatorade, and 7-11 hotdogs and hamburgers for .99. That was it. And everyone was in good shape. Some more than others of course, but we were all ACTIVE.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?[/quote]
I do think diet contributes. But in most kids and young adults, I think lack of activity is the bigger culprit. I know when I was in middle and high school, my friends and I played sports and were on-the-go non-stop. Nintendo was popular, and we all loved Madden football when it first came out. We would play an hour max. But we were riding our bikes, playing sports, swimming at the lake and river, camping, hiking… you name it. Just DOING stuff.
And I lived on Mt. Dew and 7-11 snacks. I had maybe 1 quality meal a day: dinner. My breakfast was a sugary cereal. My lunch was junk food. Before gym/sports was gatorade, and 7-11 hotdogs and hamburgers for .99. That was it. And everyone was in good shape. Some more than others of course, but we were all ACTIVE.
[/quote]
Ya, that is true. My younger years were similar and I graduated HS at a buck 35 so maybe you’re right.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?[/quote]
If they are manipulating ingredients to reward the pleasure area of the brain so as to make you want more then yes, they are culpable.
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The FDA is always the Boogyman until it rules against the drug and food companies, then like the EPA, it’s lauded as The Great Protector. [/quote]
Who is lauding the FDA as the Great Protector?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
You’re talking to someone who wants to legalise narcotics and restrict access to cookies. [/quote]
Good point.
I suppose asking people to have some god damn personal responsibility and educate themselves about anything other than the Jay-Z/Kanye West weddings is going too far. It’s 2014, the government needs to spoon feed every last detail of everything to people, god forbid they do anything for themselves.
YOLO
Selfie!
[/quote]
I suppose not letting corporations manipulate food ingredients to spur on addiction is too much to ask. You want personal responsibility for the citizens but the corporations get a free pass in this aspect.
[/quote]
Nice assumptive conjecture.
The corporation’s personal responsibility lies in satisfying the customers. If the customers use their brain, and stop buying shit… The company will have to adapt or it will fail.
The problem corrects itself, without the beloved government having to dole out. [/quote]
So spending buckets full of cash on R&D to reward the pleasure center of the brain to trigger addict-like behavior is satisfying the customer base? Why do companies have to use subterfuge in order to sell more product and exact ill-health on the citizenry? Your solution assumes that corporations do not try and fool their customer base with manipulation. If they do, how is it an even playing field? Is/was there any regulation that was okay?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So what? The FDA is merely a front organization that protects markets for big corporations.
[/quote]
That’s funny because the author of the article you posted is the former head of the FDA. By the way, which “big corporations” is the FDA a front for and what evidence do you have to substantiate this claim?[/quote]
Here is a book written about an entire industry and how the FDA protects them.
[/quote]
That’s about the pharmaceutical industry. I thought we were talking about food pushers?[/quote]
You asked who the FDA is a front for? This was an example. This type of market protecting can and does extend to other industries.
Here is a study recently done by the University of Connecticut. It may not be a Snickers but hey…
[/quote]
Addictive qualities of Oreos cookies? For crying out loud. Utter nonsense. There will never be enough regulations to satisfy these statists. That’s what this is about. More government, more regulations, more bureaucracy until we’re all drowning in it.
[/quote]
If it’s all bullshit then why don’t you call the university and explain it to them?
This has nothing to do with statists and everything to do with companies trying to keep the public in the dark and to maximize profit at any cost.
[/quote]
Every ingredient and its amount is printed on the package. How exactly are they trying to “keep the public in the dark?” What measures do you propose the government should implement to deal with cookie addiction?
[/quote]
Can you please show me where these corporations make the public aware of the manipulation of particular ingredients to reward the pleasure center of the brain to spur on food like addiction so they can sell more product? Corporations should not be allowed to dump money into R&D for the express purpose of selling more product while helping to destroy the public’s health.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]
You would be wrong. [/quote]
I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]
Lol…
Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]
if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?
[/quote]
Lol… you must have selective memory because we covered this in great detail months ago.
Fight on though, fight on. [/quote]
Yes it was discussed some time ago without any real answers.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]
You would be wrong. [/quote]
I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]
Lol…
Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]
if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?
[/quote]
Well, for starters Australia has a population of 22 million as opposed to 320 million. Australia has the fifth highest GDP per capita in the world. Australia had a GDP growth of 2.5% last financial year as opposed to 0.1%. Australia does not print shitloads of currency then artificially lower its inflation rate. Australia has a debt to GDP ratio of 20% as opposed to 101%. Australia is riding a mining boom and benefiting from trade with China and Japan. Any of this mean anything to you?
[/quote]
So let me see, it has to do with a smaller population. A high GDP, how is this even possible with the high minimum wage? So if the U.S, didn’t print money it could work here? What are the trade deficits Australia runs with these countries that helps to allow them to pay a much higher minimum wage?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Can you please show me where these corporations make the public aware of the manipulation of particular ingredients to reward the pleasure center of the brain to spur on food like addiction so they can sell more product?
[/quote]
They don’t do that. That’s just a fantasy of some tenured crackpot trying to publicise his work by being controversial. They don’t “manipulate” ingredients. When I add extra sugar to my coffee I’m not “manipulating” the ingredients. And food is not “addictive” in any meaningful sense. Sure, food can bring on a dopamine high but that’s just as true of food that hasn’t been “manipulated” - ie steak, potato etc. I certainly prefer that to a load of sugary cookies. However I’m not a steak and potato “addict.” You can only get away with such a bullshit claim if you suggest that ingredients have been sinisterly “manipulated” by nefarious scientists.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So let me see, it has to do with a smaller population.
[/quote]
Partly yes.
A number of reasons. Better economic management for starters. In the 80’s through to the early 90’s Australia had a Labor(left-wing) government. However although they were socially liberal Bob Hawke and Paul Keating introduced a number of economic reforms. Then John Howard(conservative) built up a large budget surplus.
No. In fact it doesn’t “work” here either. It just hasn’t affected the economy as much as it could have due to the reasons stated above.
[quote]
What are the trade deficits Australia runs with these countries that helps to allow them to pay a much higher minimum wage?[/quote]
It’s not our trade deficits that have minimised the impact of a high minimum wage. It’s the reasons stated above.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is not a poor diet. It’s lack of activity. [/quote]
I think it’s both, but I certainly don’t blame Pepsi because dumb ass’ drink 64oz’s 3 times a day.
Quick side story, I was on duty with a Sgt years ago on a 24 hour post. Dude drank three 2 liter bottles of Pepsi during that time. Not a drop of water or anything else for that matter. Unreal, but that’s Pepsi’s fault, right?[/quote]
If they are manipulating ingredients to reward the pleasure area of the brain so as to make you want more then yes, they are culpable.
[/quote]
I’d hate for people to have to take some personal responsibility for what they eat. That would be just awful.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Lol, it must be the evil food companies. It can’t people the choices people make, can’t be. [/quote]
I can tell you didn’t even read the article.[/quote]
You would be wrong. [/quote]
I should have said comprehend.
[/quote]
Lol…
Kind of like how Australia’s super economy and mega minimum wage translates to America’s right?
[/quote]
if it works in Australia then why wouldn’t it work here?
[/quote]
Lol… you must have selective memory because we covered this in great detail months ago.
Fight on though, fight on. [/quote]
Yes it was discussed some time ago without any real answers.
[/quote]
Of course you would think that.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Your solution assumes that corporations do not try and fool their customer base with manipulation. If they do, how is it an even playing field?[/quote]
It’s a level playing field in the same way I’m not a crack head.
I know crack is bad, so I don’t smoke it. I know the tobacco I smoke is bad, and blame NO ONE but myself for being an idiot.
It’s called common sense.
If what you are claiming was even remotely true, I would be addicted to crack and could blame other people for it.
[quote]Is/was there any regulation that was okay?
[/quote]
Sure. I’m not anti-regulation. But much like when I’m looking to buy sushi, I’m pretty selective as to where I get it from. Regulation is the same thing.
regulation isn’t always bad, but it certainly isn’t always good either.