I had a pink one with white cream in university once but who didn't experiment and do crazy things like that.
See, that's not appealing at all. It just looks so fake and pumped full of chemicals. Other than cookies for Christmas (made to give away) the only baking I do is an occasional batch of biscotti as I can drop them into quart sealers and eat them over weeks without worrying about them going stale. Since I went off coffee (not on purpose, just did) I haven't made them in ages either.
Food that is "definitely junk" does not negatively affect heath unless other factors, such as excessive consumption or a sedentary lifestyle, are also present.
I don't believe you can say that or I can debate that since we don't know the effects of various chemicals or regular consumption of items that you and I would agree are junk food.
Even last year they're suggesting that sugar is far more toxic to us than we're willing to admit and what we consider regular consumption is causing all sorts of diseases in people.
Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology is a huge opponant of regular sugar consumption and he has an hour and a half lecture here
where he references a long list of studies concerning the dangers of additional sweetning.
No idea if he's a crackpot or on the level but he was covered in a 2 part 60 minutes segment concerning the possible toxicity of sugar - »www.cbsnews.com/8301-185 ··· ar-toxic
Lustig's main beef has always been with fructose itself and how it isn't being treated as a liver poison. You'll hear him pop up in other UCTV videos sometimes.
Lustig's main beef has always been with fructose itself and how it isn't being treated as a liver poison. You'll hear him pop up in other UCTV videos sometimes.
Interesting... I mucked around with some search terms to find an article to either discredit or substantiate his rather serious claim that 'sugar is toxic' and I found this well written article in the New York times:
It doesn't really agree or disagree with him but it does suggest that perhaps we should question the amount of sugar we consume.
Me, personally, the only sugar I consume outside of natural juices is a little dribble of honey in my coffee and tea (I switched from refined sugar years ago).
Me, personally, the only sugar I consume outside of natural juices is a little dribble of honey in my coffee and tea (I switched from refined sugar years ago).
The "Stuff You Should Know" podcast had a really good episode on high fructose corn syrup. They do a pretty good job on explaining how the body handles it. Worth a listen for those curious.
See, that's not appealing at all. It just looks so fake and pumped full of chemicals.
100% of what you eat is chemicals. Chemical is not a dirty word, and anybody who says something like "pumped full of chemicals" is just screaming to the world "I'm ignorant!"
I just pumped myself full of chemicals. How? I drank a glass of water. Ohnoes, dihydrogen monoxide!
The same thing also applies to people who blindly presume "all natural" actually means anything useful. The safety of a substance has nothing to do with if it's natural or not. Arsenic? 100% all-natural. The safety of a substance comes down to its properties, not its origin.
100% of what you eat is chemicals. Chemical is not a dirty word, and anybody who says something like "pumped full of chemicals" is just screaming to the world "I'm ignorant!"
And you're being obtuse as you know what people mean when they say that. My apologies though if you're sitting down to a big bowl of Polysorbate 60, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate or Mono and Diglycerides.
What's in the white twinkies (couldn't find the pink one's ingredients list)
Twinkie, Desconstructed: My Journey to Discover How the Ingredients Found in Processed Foods Are Grown, Mined (Yes, Mined), and Manipulated Into What America Eats »www.amazon.com/gp/produc ··· 94630186
I would imagine Sucralose is a hell of a lot better for you than honey.
There's that human manufactured vs. naturally created internal debate I go over when it concerns artificial sweetener and the natural stuff wins out for no good reason other than a feel good reason. That and I don't get "tiny amounts of several compounds thought to function as antioxidants, including chrysin, pinobanksin, vitamin C, catalase, and pinocembrin" with artificial stuff.
Feeling good about what you eat probably does something for a person's well being too.
hehe I was mostly kidding. It's funny when you lower the sugar content of your diet the effect that lesser amounts have. Eventually a single sugar coffee tastes the same as a double sugar coffee used to taste, but when you have a double sugar coffee later it's way too sweet.
It's funny when you lower the sugar content of your diet the effect that lesser amounts have.
No, I get that. I used to work in an office where there was always doughnuts and sweets in the lunch room. The food pushers (you know who they are) would always make sure as many people took them as possible. I really only bake at Christmas now and it's mainly for stuff to give away (homemade baking goes over very well and it costs little).
A customer brought doughnuts last week when in the plant and I had to take first pick. I took a fritter (turned out blueberry) and it was way too sweet. On the coffee front I've always taken it black. Someone gave me one with cream in it one day (didn't know how I took it so put in single cream and brought sugar packets)... I almost gagged, as I'm just not used to anything but coffee in my coffee.
On the Stevia front, I was kind of kidding too. I see a number of recipes out there for items, but they usually are just way too complicated. I used to make protein 'brownies' with soy flour, protein powder and mainly applesauce to replace the fat. It was just way too much work and I didn't eat them up fast enough, even from the freezer. Now I break down and buy a box of protein bars for emergency need something to eat on the run times.
Of course, as I've said in the past... sweets were never really my issue, so it's just easier to not bother.
100% of what you eat is chemicals. Chemical is not a dirty word, and anybody who says something like "pumped full of chemicals" is just screaming to the world "I'm ignorant!"
And you're being obtuse as you know what people mean when they say that.
It's not a matter of being obtuse, it's a matter of objecting to baseless paranoia from the "chemicals are evil" crowd. I would invite anybody taking such a position to actually cut all chemicals out of their diet. I think they'd last three to five days before dying.
Natural is not automatically good for you, and artificial is not automatically bad. ALL substances must be evaluated on their individual basis. As I said, arsenic is all-natural (a base element, no less), but you'd be a heck of a lot better off consuming polysorbate 60. Because it's a safe food additive that has an extremely well documented history. Yes, some people have negative reactions to it, but some people being allergic to something doesn't mean it's harmful. Some people can't eat peanuts... Some people can't eat honey. I can't eat cocoa, natural or otherwise.
There's nothing harmful in a twinkie, despite your laundry list of scientific-sounding names. The simple fact is that they're not a good thing to eat, but they're not harmful. If you replaced every dessert in your diet with twinkies, but still had a moderated amount of them, you'd be no worse off than if you were consuming any similarly sugar and fat filled thing.
I don't believe that any of us have any authority to claim something is harmful or not, as people with degrees that study the harmful effects of foods, nutrients, chemicals, whatever we consume, are still debating about the positive and negative effects everything has on our kidneys, livers, heart, brain, DNA, etc.
Butter has been upgraded and downgraded more times in my lifetime than I care to consider... at one point it caused cancer.
why is this food junk? Becuse the crap has 22 chemical additives, including MSG which causes obesity and brain damage. Poor people think it's a thrill at a fast food place. Poor people also have more health problems than rich people.
this is junk food that young people eat. Dumb parents are to blame for allowing children to consume junk food. 30% of Canadian children are obese - but the bigger problem is long term health problems. Sickness and disease is the biggest industry in Canada, worth $billions of dollars and our goverrnment is never going to do anything that will allow people to take their health into their own hands and cause the pharma industry to lose $billions of dollars.
Go ahead, tax those fatty foods, fuck personal responsibility, it's ok to keep shoveling shit into my maw, as long as it's taxed, it's ok. Bullshit solutions for Bullshit problems.
You see those white 'things' that contain the hamburger - the top and bottom part? Those things are made from white flour, and dough conditioners, and dough emulsifiers and other additives. Why would anyone want to eat one oof those things with perservatives, that was produced thousands of miles away, and sat in a warehouse for months, when they can go to a good quality bakery, and buy a fresh loaf of bread, made yesterday, with good quality ingredients?????????
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
You see those white 'things' that contain the hamburger - the top and bottom part? Those things are made from white flour, and dough conditioners, and dough emulsifiers and other additives. Why would anyone want to eat one oof those things with perservatives, that was produced thousands of miles away, and sat in a warehouse for months, when they can go to a good quality bakery, and buy a fresh loaf of bread, made yesterday, with good quality ingredients?????????
Why????????????
Someone answer that question.
Because hamburgers and cheeseburgers taste yummy....
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
How dare you question a primary Canadian value, to pay for the poor choices of others. You're inciting a shit storm with a sensible comment like that.
If the goal is to encourage people to eat healthy foods then why not lower the cost of healthy foods.
One of the reasons people eat "junk food" is because it is cheaper.
Other times it is because of convenience. Most of the time it is quicker to eat a Big Mac at McDonalds then to order an healthy meal at a restaurant...
And as someone asked earlier, please define junk foods?
If the goal is to encourage people to eat healthy foods then why not lower the cost of healthy foods.
Who do you want to do that? The government? Then we move into a communist dictatorship or we subsidize certain types of foods and we've seen the issues with doing that already.
And as someone asked earlier, please define junk foods?
As I responded earlier, "I'm certain though, that we could reach a compromise on what definitely constitutes as junk food - soft drinks, energy drinks, chocolate bars, donuts, etc."
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
oddly, I knew this woman who was a real health food night, she was terrified she'd die of cancer one day. She avoided all junk food, alcohol, smoking, refined sugars and wheat, anything toasted or BBQ'd. Of course, she got cancer. In a case like that, would we tell her to pay for her own health care? Just wondering.
The real solution to having to pay for other people's unhealthy choices is to not pay for other people's health care and just have everyone pay for their own health care.
oddly, I knew this woman who was a real health food night, she was terrified she'd die of cancer one day. She avoided all junk food, alcohol, smoking, refined sugars and wheat, anything toasted or BBQ'd. Of course, she got cancer. In a case like that, would we tell her to pay for her own health care? Just wondering.
The only thing this post reveals is your complete lack of knowledge of science and mathematics. Stunning Yes, suprizing NO. Why.......... because you have a bird brain...yuck yuck
this is junk food that young people eat. Dumb parents are to blame for allowing children to consume junk food. 30% of Canadian children are obese - but the bigger problem is long term health problems. Sickness and disease is the biggest industry in Canada, worth $billions of dollars and our goverrnment is never going to do anything that will allow people to take their health into their own hands and cause the pharma industry to lose $billions of dollars.
