221937 Bullies, 4304 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 41 to 47 of 47
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
  1. -TANK- is offline

    Lightweight

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico
    Posts
    140

    Posted On:
    9/26/2013 12:19pm

    supporting member
     Style: Judo, Wrestling, TKD

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by jnp View Post
    Heh, I've been telling my son for years that sugar makes you weak. It hasn't stopped him from asking for dessert after dinner, but he typically eats a very small amount of dessert. He never gets sugar at lunch or breakfast. He also very rarely gets to drink soda. Once in a while I'll let him have one of those natural root beers or an Izze.

    So, I was recently simultaneously pleased and embarrassed when his friend's mother told me the following story after he spent the night at his friend's house. For breakfast, she offered them one of those super sugary cereals. I think it was Fruit Loops. Horrified, my son asked if his friend's mother loved him, and if she did, why was she giving him a breakfast filled with sugar?
    This post is very relevant today. Mommies and daddies leaving apple juice etc., (teeth rotting) in a bottle in their childs mouth to put them to sleep. Snacks after games, because the coach said so, as if the 15-30 minutes to get home is going to kill them.

    Parenting should be by license, some parents interested only in themselves fail to teach their children proper nutrition. Check out the Gracie Diet.

    The OP may have overstated 'Poison' however, after 10 years selling Coca Cola products and consuming the equivalent of what 10 people in a lifetime it has taken me over 23 years to get rid of the effect, almost.

    Diabetes aside, lets add this one with this gene Interleuken-1
    that points to periodontal problems (diabetes and heart are related, and my disclaimer is that correlation is not necessarily indicative of causation in this case, not enough science) this OP may be one of the best posts for us to really sink our teeth into, and with evolving wellness care issues, those WITH this gene, should not even touch any sugar, except through fruits (see your doctor) etc.

    As we cut back on sugar voluntarily, I am against any government involvement save educative type approaches, (and good luck with this as the Sugar Cartel is not to be trifled with)
    the industries that wish to do well in the future will have to redirect their marketing strategies more and more to non-sugar type products if they wish to profit. Great OP Phrost.
  2. McChaos is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    71

    Posted On:
    9/27/2013 8:57pm


     Style: Kyokushin, BJJ, Aikido

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrapper View Post
    Blaming sugar for fatness is intellectually identical to blaming a firearm for a murder. Very un-Phrost-like!
    Nice post (I agree with your arguments), but bad example. Firearms are responsible for murder. Rates of interpersonal violence are much higher in the UK than in the US (international data puts the US only slightly ahead of Canada in rates of interpersonal violence). However, the US has the highest homicide rate in the Western world because people in the US are much better at killing each other....because they have guns.

    You get angry with someone in the UK or Canada you have to rely on less effective means to vent your anger. In the US, you can vent your anger with firearms. So, yes, you CAN blame firearms for murder without a hint of intellectual laziness. Because firearms are the central factor explaining high homicide in the US vs other more violent western countries.

    I know what you're going to say. Blah blah blah (insert gun debate stuff). I have no opinion about the gun debate in the US (I don't care....I live in Canada). But I do have a lot of info and data, and people need to get their facts in order.

    Hijack over. I love sugar.
  3. Scrapper is offline
    Scrapper's Avatar

    Fear and bullets.

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Dayville, Connecticut, United States
    Posts
    4,287

    Posted On:
    9/30/2013 1:28pm

    staff
     Style: MMA

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by McChaos View Post
    Nice post (I agree with your arguments), but bad example. Firearms are responsible for murder. Rates of interpersonal violence are much higher in the UK than in the US (international data puts the US only slightly ahead of Canada in rates of interpersonal violence). However, the US has the highest homicide rate in the Western world because people in the US are much better at killing each other....because they have guns.

    You get angry with someone in the UK or Canada you have to rely on less effective means to vent your anger. In the US, you can vent your anger with firearms. So, yes, you CAN blame firearms for murder without a hint of intellectual laziness. Because firearms are the central factor explaining high homicide in the US vs other more violent western countries.

    I know what you're going to say. Blah blah blah (insert gun debate stuff). I have no opinion about the gun debate in the US (I don't care....I live in Canada). But I do have a lot of info and data, and people need to get their facts in order.

    Hijack over. I love sugar.
    I have covered all of that here :
    http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...32#post2744632
    and i promise you, as long as the western world includes Mexico and South America, the US will never even be a contender.

    To the topic at hand!

    And blaming sugar for being fat is exactly the same tactic as blaming guns for murders. In both cases you put the responsibility for an individual's choice on an inanimate object. It even hold up under your reasoning. Ergo:

    "Firearms are responsible for murder.." (Your quote)

    Vs. (only changing two words)

    "Sugars are responsible for fatties."

    While both statements are somewhat defensible, neither infers any responsibility for the individual choice involved. For the conditions being discussed ("getting fat" or "getting shot"), both statements imply that the object is at fault, not the executor of the choice. My point (gun control silliness notwithstanding) stands, rhetorically speaking. ("rhetorically speaking!" Hah! I kill me.)

    Your position appears to be the firearms are responsible for murders, but sugar is NOT responsible for fat people. You basically say that fatness is a choice, but homicides are solely determined by the presence of the gun.

    Why are the murderers of the hook but the fatties on it?
    And lo, Kano looked down upon the field and saw the multitudes. Amongst them were the disciples of Uesheba who were greatly vexed at his sayings. And Kano spake: "Do not be concerned with the mote in thy neighbor's eye, when verily thou hast a massive stick in thine ass".

    --Scrolls of Bujutsu: Chapter 5 vs 10-14.
  4. Permalost is online now
    Permalost's Avatar

    pro nonsense self defense

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    12,530

    Posted On:
    9/30/2013 1:37pm

    supporting member
     Style: FMA, dumbek, Indian clubs

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrapper View Post
    blaming sugar for being fat is exactly the same tactic as blaming guns for murders.
    Its even more similar to when ranch dressing was the douchebag of the month.
  5. adouglasmhor is offline
    adouglasmhor's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Glasgow, United Kingdom, United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,496

    Posted On:
    10/10/2013 5:04am


     Style: Les Mills Bodycombat™

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Permalost View Post
    Its not too hard to plan one's day so you never have to buy drinkable fluid and the fresh piece of trash holding it. Soda vs bottled water is a wasteful argument.
    This post just reminded me to walk to the water cooler in work and fill my 20oz Bubba Keg mug. (Cna I still be a hippy if I have a Bubba Keg?).
  6. big maclol is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Bay area, ca
    Posts
    225

    Posted On:
    10/17/2013 3:14pm


     Style: mt/bjj

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    As soon as I cut out sugar I burned fat like butter.

    Processed sugar is still a new thing and hasn't been around that long. Fruit sugar came seasonally and has the added benefits.

    We're only supposed to have like 15g of sugar a day and that doesn't even include how most people drink like 5 32g sugar bottles of juice.

    (I'm drinking pink lemonade right now)
  7. doofaloofa is online now
    doofaloofa's Avatar

    I'm Svelte!

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Wesht Cark
    Posts
    3,419

    Posted On:
    10/18/2013 2:04am

    supporting member
     Style: mma

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!


    Interesting series of documentrys

    The opening argument is the explosion in sugar usage came with the discovery of a way to turn corn starch into corn syrup, thereby stablising potentially perrisable corn surplusses

    But what to do with all this syrup? Hmmm?

    Growing corn in the USA is big buisness, that bankrolls plenty of politicians and lobbiests
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.