Shhhhh, they might hear! I ate one of the packets on my way home from the shop (I walked the long way round).
If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Walking slowly back from the shop chanting 'You keep what you kill' and pounding your chest as cookie crumbs spray everywhere.
*Sigh*
If this passes and you call somebody transphobic because they say their religion says trans people are peadophilic groomers and should be exterminated, you owe them $35,000
If this passes and you call somebody transphobic because they say their religion says trans people are peadophilic groomers and should be exterminated, you owe them $35,000
Although that bill is indeed a crock of shit, and aimed at enabling discrimination, the characterisation of what it does there isn't really accurate.
In your example, calling someone transphobic would still be protected speech. You'd have to be telling a third party that they discriminated against you in some way, and if it was demonstrably true that they did, you'd still be protected.
This is not to say the bill is even faintly reasonable. What it does is raise the bar for demonstrating discrimination to impossible heights for LGBT people, while also introducing massively punitive costs to prevent anyone even trying.
OMFG, post the words of the law that say they do what they say. Of course, it doesn't fucking affect me because I don't live in Florida. I'm the one arguing in good faith, you're not. You claimed XYZ, I asked you to back up that claim, and you haven't. I didn't claim anything, what do I have to back up? You're literally making shit up.
@~1:50
So AP African Studies isn't a class? And it's not a class about one people?
That flies in the face of nutrition experts.
Not sure if that works that way, I'm not the expert. I just know sugar without fiber is very bad outside of very small quantities.
How the body metabolizes the sugar in fruit and milk differs from how it metabolizes the refined sugar added to processed foods. The body breaks down refined sugar rapidly, causing insulin and blood sugar levels to skyrocket.
How are you gonna say fruit juice is good for anyone? It's objectively bad for anyone to drink. Stop recommending horrible public health policies.
Looks like sugar may be the main cause of Alzheimer's as well since it's now being referred to as type-3 diabetes. But keep telling people that sugar isn't bad so they keep being unhealthy just so you don't have to agree with me.
You can impotently shriek all you want. The facts don't care about your ego.
I just had surgery and am on a liquid diet that includes fruit juices. Maybe you're not as smart as you think you are.
Not saying you're wrong, but that might not have been the response I'd have gone for when Phoenixmgs was criticising other people's recommendations for public health.
Fruit juices are fine for anyone who needs calories but can't get them directly from food for whatever reason. Ask anyone trying to bulk up - the amount of food you need to eat can be unpleasant, especially as you need to cover other diet goals as well, given protein is generally low calorie and you need that too. Drinking calories is easy OTOH (I use energy drinks for it, but fruit juice would do just as well, it's just not as nice).
If I'm aiming for 3k calories a day, it's fruit juice or it's cookies (it's cookies) because I don't own a chicken farm.
If I'm aiming for 3k calories a day, it's fruit juice or it's cookies (it's cookies) because I don't own a chicken farm.
Ugh. That sentence is kind of true in ways, but misses far too much important detail.
Because, as stated, fruit juice contains various nutrients and antioxidants that may be beneficial, and when drunk in modest quantities does not pose a significant issue in calorie consumption. Thus context is king, and it depends on what the circumstances of public health are. Stop blabbing absurd and inflexible absolutism.
Really, really, do not start trying to tell me about Alzheimer's, because that is very much in my speciality area. This "type 3 diabetes" was invented and fashionable about 10-15 years, but has gained little traction since. Obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease are significant risk factors for Alzheimer's, and thus excessive sugar consumption will be an issue. However, sugar is not the main cause of Alzheimer's.
Honestly that's just about the most childish thing anyone's said to me on these forums in a long time.
Sugar is fine, in moderation.
Tell you what (what?), if you think sugar is bad you should see the laughable quantities that go into making booze (I used to be a keen homebrewer and I made some genuinely nice beers. Dangerzone was a real half-glass of an evening drink, weirdly hot by beer standards.)
So, the line from that section of the video is: "there's a fourteenth amendment question here. One of the scholars cited in the leaks had been quoted as saying 'white people are XYZ', and it was basically just because they were white".
Which scholar? Quoted how? I'm sure you know its not against the Constitution to teach about people with shitty views, because if it was, it would he impossible to teach about... most of history.
Do you actually even know who they're talking about, and what the quote is...?
It's not a class about one person.
Nope. "Nutrition experts" do not generally go around calling things that most people consume daily "poisonous".
Sugar on it's own is broken down rapidly. Combined with a fiber or a protein source slows it down.
Ag3ma literally explained this. It doesn't have to be the fiber of the fruit. Just any fiber. Protein also causes a similar effect. Which is why the sugar of fruit and the sugar of milk don't cause the same insulin spike. A breakfast for me could consist of turkey bacon, scrambled eggs and some kind of veg like tenderstem brocoli. I don't particularly enjoy juice personally but if I were to add a glass to my breakfast all of the protein and fiber I'm eating will also minimise the insulin spike.
You don't know what you're talking about, you come in swinging dick acting like you know better and that's why everyone thinks you're a clown. You have come to these conclusions about breakfast, carbs, juice and whatever other bullshit and nothing will change your mind because as far as your concerned you're just the smartest little boy in the whole wide world. At one stage, pages ago, you asked me how can people lose fat without ketosis because you don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of concepts like lipolysis. Now you're going to go google a bunch of shit and pretend that never happened and pretend like you do understand those concepts and have all along. It is fine to not understand shit. Your problem is you don't understand shit, form faulty views on incorrect, incomplete or just straight misunderstood information then pull a Stephen Crowder "[insert bullshit here], change my mind" . You are not a smart person. You are an incurious, cocky child.
Like this is literally @Ag3ma's field. This is what they know. I'm just a BSc. Student in Strength and Conditioning who does a little sports nutrition. And once again I would never dream of speaking in the absolute terms you do because outside of giving general advice and tips I know that giving dietary advice is outside my scope of practice. I am more qualified to speak on nutrition than you are but would never try to speak authoritatively on the subject the way you do.
Last edited:
The more bread you eat, the more easily they can catch you.
Generic explanation incoming.
Sugar means lots of things. Monosaccharides (single sugar molecules: chiefly glucose, fructose, galactose), then there are disaccharides which are combinations of two monosaccharides (e.g. lactose, sucrose, maltose). Polysaccharides are lots of linked monosaccharides, such as starch (in plants) and glycogen (in animals) for glucose storage. And plenty more sugars, but let's skip all that. Disaccharides are broken down into monosaccharides in the gut, which are then absorbed in the gastrointestinal system.
Table sugar (typical refined sugar) is sucrose, which is glucose + fructose. Fruit has mostly fructose. Milk mostly lactose, which is glucose + galactose.
Glucose is the basic form of sugar which biological organisms tend to use for energy metabolism. As a result, it is taken up by all cell types in the body for their energy, and this also why it's important in blood supply: thus blood glucose, glycaemic index, control via insulin (and glucagon) and relevance for diabetes. Fructose and galactose, however, are not metabolised across the body, but in the liver, where they are mostly converted into glucose, glycogen, or fats which can then be transported and used by other cells in the body. Glucose therefore has a much higher glycaemic index than fructose and galactose, obviously so, because glycaemic index represents blood glucose and absorbed glucose goes straight into the blood. Fructose and galactose only result in limited glucose production and release.
However, there are some major issues not really being covered here. High levels of monosaccharides are not good for the body, because sugars do other things too. For instance, they bind to other molecules in the body such as proteins (this is the source of the HbA1c test for diabetes, which measures glucose binding to haemoglobin), which is often not a good thing as they can impair their function. We're relatively well adapted to glucose, but much less so to fructose and galactose: they tend to be even worse than glucose in this regard of binding to molecules we'd be better off them not binding to. There's another problem that fructose and galactose: being metabolised in the liver into fats can contribute heavily to fat accumulation, particularly in the liver itself with risk of liver impairment, plus significant production of waste metabolites that may also be problematic.
So yes, the metabolism of various sugars is different. However, the long and short of it is that whilst you might argue that fructose and galactose are better for humans with respect to glycaemic index and diabetes risk, studies suggest that they're associated with outcomes equivalent to, potentially even worse, than glucose in terms of overall population health (although there may be varied advantages and disadvantages at the level of individuals).
So, my basic suggestion would be to be mindful of sugar consumption from any source whatsoever, and I would be extremely cautious of advice suggesting fructose is somehow "safer" than sucrose.
