On a non-serious off topic note I read that and the first thing that comes to mind is "Soylent Green is people!" XD
(sorry I just had to say it 
).I'd like an extra large chunk of MEAT, well done please.
- Thread starter silverleaf
- Start date
On a non-serious off topic note I read that and the first thing that comes to mind is "Soylent Green is people!" XD
(sorry I just had to say it ).
ursen
Officer SOE/LoE/Where's "here"?
Tek7 have you tried Stevia as a sweetener? There is a world of difference there from all other processed sugars.
Elader Arkon
Helped Tek test a thing
Silly lower 48 people and your fake food concerns and vegetable based diets.
I hope to start hunting soon after I have a job and a place of my own (ie: a freezer that can hold a ton of meat). A full grown moose and/or Caribou will last me quite some time. Not to mention there's the fresh blueberries, strawberries and the Salmon season every year...
What will I do in order to balance this horribly healthy food with that of the normal American's diet? Why go through a 24pack of mountain dew every two weeks of course...
I hope to start hunting soon after I have a job and a place of my own (ie: a freezer that can hold a ton of meat). A full grown moose and/or Caribou will last me quite some time. Not to mention there's the fresh blueberries, strawberries and the Salmon season every year...
What will I do in order to balance this horribly healthy food with that of the normal American's diet? Why go through a 24pack of mountain dew every two weeks of course...
blackgravity
New Member
Scientifically, corn syrup is nearly identical to sugar (according to an article I am trying to find). My issue with it is it is in SO MUCH of our food that it's just bloating the demand for corn in general, which is partially a reason for why food is getting so much morn expensive.
On the topic of better foods, I know pork has a mixed reception, but man, the free range pork they use at Chipotle is tasty. Nom nom.
On the topic of better foods, I know pork has a mixed reception, but man, the free range pork they use at Chipotle is tasty. Nom nom.
Patriot
Active Member
Actually, no. Because all those pesticides tend to kill pests who eat the "junk food" before it gets to us. Food grown without pesticides and modern fertilizer is far more likely to end up as a small crop due to the amount lost to the various hungry pests and just poor growth. Smaller supply + high demand = high prices. Simple economics.
The real question is: in the push to buy organic to be more humane to animals and out bodies, are we causing other humans to suffer as a result? If we went entirely organic, preservatives are kinda out the window. That means foods that used to last weeks now spoil in days (if you ever made your own bread you know this). That means less ability to ship foods to international markets and/or relief efforts. Not to mention, less available meats (due to more allocated space per animal) and food overall.
So is organic a good thing or a bad thing? I couldn't tell you. I do know that humans are living longer now than in the past despite our agricultural practices. I also know that fear is a great marketer of products and ideas. And the fear I see being pushed around right now is the fear of standard farming techniques.
Last edited:
Abba San
Legacy of Elijah [LoE] - Proud Grandfather
I see "free range" on all kinds of meat - beef to chicken. They make it sound like they were just wandering through the prairie before it came to your plate. You know it doesn't they don't have to go and catch them. I wonder what the difference really is...are they just nicer to the meet while it still has feet and a face?
Also, what makes Chipotle so good is the sauce and the way they cook it. I think they could do that with my shoe and it would be good. I love Chipotle.
Patriot
Active Member
Free range being stamped on meat is a bit vague if not entirely misleading. . .
First, the only thing it applies to as far as the government is concerned is chicken. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) only requires that chicken marked as free range be given access to the outside. There are no specifications as to the size of the outside area nor the duration of time they be allowed to spend there. They make no indications as to other kinds of animals being classified as free range.
Other than that little tid-bit there is no formal or common definition on what free range actually means or should entail.
First, the only thing it applies to as far as the government is concerned is chicken. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) only requires that chicken marked as free range be given access to the outside. There are no specifications as to the size of the outside area nor the duration of time they be allowed to spend there. They make no indications as to other kinds of animals being classified as free range.
Other than that little tid-bit there is no formal or common definition on what free range actually means or should entail.
Last edited:
I just drastically reduced all sugar in my diet instead of using substitutes. On the rare occasions I sweeten my tea, I use a bit of agave nectar.
I had a bit of a sweet tooth (understatement) before making the dietary changes and using artificial sweeteners would likely just wake the slumbering sweet tooth. I still indulge in a single square of dark chocolate (the good stuff, not the concession stand stuff) a day.
I was willing to give up a lot in changing my diet, but giving up all chocolate was out of question.
XionTawa
New Member
Errrrr...not! I have read many articles where they have linked HFCS to more fat gain, and a higher risk of diabetes... Not only that, but they must use more HFCS to sweeten things than regular sugar...by about 25%...
Some sources:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/08/20/4274/the-dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/
heh...
EDIT: ...on a side note...Mexican coke FTW!
Last edited:
Patriot
Active Member
Back at ya - it's far from a settled issue:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588
Haha - I couldn't help but laugh at this line from the second article you posted:
My goodness, he explains the reason manufacturers use HFCS a couple of paragraphs later (it's cheaper and a smaller amount is needed to sweeten). Fear mongering, I tell you!
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588
Katherine Zeratsky said:
Haha - I couldn't help but laugh at this line from the second article you posted:
As if the manufacturers are conspiring to get you to eat sugar when you don't want to. . .Christopher R. Mohr said:
My goodness, he explains the reason manufacturers use HFCS a couple of paragraphs later (it's cheaper and a smaller amount is needed to sweeten). Fear mongering, I tell you!
Last edited:
Keero
Tribe of Judah Membership Administrator
For the record, that Pepsi/Mountain Dew throwback with natural sugar (at Wal-Mart IIRC) tastes a lot better than the Corn Syrup variety.
XionTawa
New Member
QFT...
@ Patriot ...In my own personal research, comparing things that use sugar and HFCS...in almost all situations, the one with HFCS had at least 25% more "sugars" than the items made with sugar...
A good example is the throwback sodas... However, I am down to only one can of soda a day, and it is 7-up...for caffeine, I drink coffee, with no creamer and about only 20% of the sugar that is in a can of soda... Convert grams to tablespoons...and well...I was very shocked by just how much sugar is in soda...
Last edited:
Patriot
Active Member
I have no arguments about soda not being the healthiest thing for us. I pretty much limit myself to 1 soda per day as well (give or take a day or two with more or less a month).
Now if you really want to scare yourself, start looking at salt quantities in processed foods. Of course, anytime someone mentions this to me I point to the following:
"Salt is good" -Jesus (Mark 9:50)
If it's good enough for God, then it's good enough for me. =)
Now if you really want to scare yourself, start looking at salt quantities in processed foods. Of course, anytime someone mentions this to me I point to the following:
"Salt is good" -Jesus (Mark 9:50)
If it's good enough for God, then it's good enough for me. =)
Odale
Active Member
Salt is a natural preservative... it being in processed food has got nothing to do with flavor.
And sure salt is good, but so is water... and you can drown in that stuff
As for me, I try to eat healthy when I can... but healthy food costs money and time - neither of which I have an abundance of. Right now I'm sitting in the commons at school eating two slices of pepperoni pizza (the bad kind with what looks and tastes like actual bread as the crust) and a coke. I love Coke, but I know I shouldn't consume it.
In the end, if I can I try to go natural with food. This means sugar instead of Sweet'n Low or Splenda, a Granny Smith apple (SO GOOD!) instead of candy bar and milk or juice instead of a Coke.
With regards to eating meat, I have no problems with it... so long as the animal wasn't slaughtered unethically (how companies used to slaughter cows for their meet was atrocious).
Last edited:
RyanB
Legacy of Elijah Guild Leader
Yes, they look similar at a molecular level. The problem is the body just doesn't treat them that way. A natural table sugar is easily absorbed and burned while HFCS simply sits. Plus there is something about it that makes people crave more.
The princeton link is my favorite on the subject so far, and anyone interested should read.
TL;DR:
Rats given "soda" concentrate of sugar - few fatties, but mostly ok.
Rats given HALF that amount of HFCS - 100% obesity.
I will add this: I know that on low budgets, some things have to go. I'm simply endorsing that people learn more about their food, because I believe if they did - they wouldn't cut back there. My grocery bill runs about 30% more than it normally would, I hit farmer's markets, and I've even tracked down places to buy beef by the half cow. The beef actually doesn't cost me any more than it would at the store, and once you've eaten grass-fed, free roaming beef, it's hard to go back without puking a bit.
Agree on the "free range" doesn't necessarily mean much (just like "natural" doesn't either), was simply trying to keep in line with OP and that there are ways to be a bit "less cruel". Really you shouldn't go wrong with organic/non-GMO.
Last edited:
Odale
Active Member
offtopic:
You're welcome Keero.
/offtopic
I agree.
You're welcome Keero.
/offtopic
I agree.
silverleaf
New Member
ever heard of the hallelujah diet?
Some guy from some charismatic church in the US decided that pple will live to a ripe old biblical age if they ate original food that was in the garden of eden.
Now we don't know if people really lived that long to begin with, because numbers mean different things in jewish and studies have shown its more likely symbolic ages rather than literal 365x24hour day years plus a thousand boring details that I couldn't really care much about.
But if you look at it it's kinda true, people back then generally lived longer assuming no wars plagues etc etc. So diet does play a part
But if it means I have to give up meat, I'd rather keep life short and salty thank you!
Some guy from some charismatic church in the US decided that pple will live to a ripe old biblical age if they ate original food that was in the garden of eden.
Now we don't know if people really lived that long to begin with, because numbers mean different things in jewish and studies have shown its more likely symbolic ages rather than literal 365x24hour day years plus a thousand boring details that I couldn't really care much about.
But if you look at it it's kinda true, people back then generally lived longer assuming no wars plagues etc etc. So diet does play a part
But if it means I have to give up meat, I'd rather keep life short and salty thank you!
Stc95
Tribe of Judah Guild Wars Chapter Leader
But if you look at it it's kinda true, people back then generally lived longer assuming no wars plagues etc etc. So diet does play a part
But if it means I have to give up meat, I'd rather keep life short and salty thank you!
They lived long after the flood too, when everyone was allowed to eat meat.
Also, Adam and Eve were directly created from God. Nothing was wrong with them, they had the perfect genetic makeup, hence why their children could marry each other and not produce messed up children. The atmosphere was also way different, nothing to smog up the atmosphere. There was probably more oxygen in the air, which means things get bigger, are better supplied, and last longer.
While diet, I assume, did help them out, it is not the only factor in the mix and it is impossible to solely say that the people in Genesis lived longer due to their diet and nothing else.
To add to this it's not just the lack of pollutants but I've seen a few bits here and there theorizing about the atmosphere pre-flood conditions being much different than they are today. Giving evidence to this the rainbow was a promise from God Genesis 9:11, 13 not to send another flood. As such it it makes sense that rainbows did not occur pre-flood giving credence to these different atmospheric conditions existing. Pre-flood dew is said to have settled on the ground as opposed to rain. I've also heard of people recreating pre-flood atmospheric conditions in pressure chambers to produce enormous plants. The presence of all that water in the atmosphere pre-flood may have blocked some of the harmful rays that could shorten life spans (I wonder if those rays could damage dna passed on resulting in the shorting lives of subsequent generations). Anyway just something I heard I haven't researched it for accuracy so don't quote me on it.
Last edited:
blackgravity
New Member
coincidentally, the sierra mist does not. at least to me. blech.