| |
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/15/2008 11:17:36 AM |
The "as nature made it" argument doesn't consider the fact that most people don't like the flavor and texture of "unprocessed" foods.
Extremely debatable. "Most people"---yeah right, and that's based on what, you and your family and friends?
Also, to draw on the same dubious "most people" claim, one could easily say that "most people" have seldom or NEVER even had the chance to eat unprocessed foods because they are both elusive and expensive in our corporate-dominated food market in the US today.
There is little arguing with food cultism.
LOL what a brilliant and mature response. | |
|
| |
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/15/2008 1:36:19 PM |
Extremely debatable. "Most people"---yeah right, and that's based on what, you and your family and friends?
Also, to draw on the same dubious "most people" claim, one could easily say that "most people" have seldom or NEVER even had the chance to eat unprocessed foods because they are both elusive and expensive in our corporate-dominated food market in the US today.
Processing costs money. If they felt that they could make more money by selling unprocessed foods (i.e. that the public demand was that high), then they would obviously sell it that way. Amazing how the anti-corporationists always see some malicious profit motive at work, but never consider that the profit is driven by demand of the product.
And the idea that unprocessed foods are unaccessable or have never been eaten by the general public is nonsense. Most people have at one point or another tried an unprocessed food, whether brown rice or a whole wheat bread, etc. I can't walk into a grocery store without seeing a "health food" aisle.
LOL what a brilliant and mature response.
Really the only response for someone who equates a moral value to food (HFCS is "evil"). | |
|
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/15/2008 2:10:37 PM |
Processing costs money. If they felt that they could make more money by selling unprocessed foods (i.e. that the public demand was that high), then they would obviously sell it that way.
Oh so that's why high fructose corn syrup costs on average 20% less than plain sugar? I guess you've never heard of pork-barrel government subsidies...
Amazing how the anti-corporationists always see some malicious profit motive at work, but never consider that the profit is driven by demand of the product.
Amazing how corporatist-apologists never consider than demand of the product is also driven by pricing and marketing of the product, which are driven by artificial factors like pork-barrel subsidies and (gasp!) profit motives.
Most people have at one point or another tried an unprocessed food, whether brown rice or a whole wheat bread, etc. I can't walk into a grocery store without seeing a "health food" aisle.
Ah, again we have the good 'ole "Most people" assertion being pulled out of someone's backside.
Has it never occurred to you that so long as higher quality, less-processed (let alone "organic") food costs 50-200% more than mass-produced highly-processed junk, a lot fewer people are likely to even consider trying them? | |
|
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/15/2008 2:13:56 PM |
Really the only response for someone who equates a moral value to food (HFCS is "evil").
You also seem to be unaware of idiomatic usage. "Evil" is often used ironically to mean "very bad for you" in a strictly practical, amoral sense.
Then again, you seem to be very unaware of many things... | |
|
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/15/2008 2:56:44 PM |
Oh so that's why high fructose corn syrup costs on average 20% less than plain sugar? I guess you've never heard of pork-barrel government subsidies...
Those pork-barrel subsidies go to SUGAR manufacturers as well. In fact, we have an embargo on importation of Brazilian sugar currently to keep US sugar prices up.
Fructose is almost 2 times sweeter than sucrose, gram for gram, plus it dissolves better. Companies realized that they could use LESS fructose to sweeten a product than sucrose, thus saving money (and ironically providing less calories).
Amazing how corporatist-apologists never consider than demand of the product is also driven by pricing and marketing of the product, which are driven by artificial factors like pork-barrel subsidies and (gasp!) profit motives.
No doubt subsidies influence pricing, but MUCH of our agriculture is subsidized. **** at government for spending our taxpayer money to pay farmers to grow less.
And profit motive does not make people continuously buy a food type. Flashy marketing and "profit" didn't save New Coke. It doesn't make people keep buying foods that they really don't like, but are lured in again because of a commercial. And it obviously doesn't affect people such as yourself. How do you explain your "amazing" ability to see through the "deception" and eat the way you do?? Do you really think that the rest of the US is just that stupid to not know what they prefer to eat?
Ah, again we have the good 'ole "Most people" assertion being pulled out of someone's backside.
Has it never occurred to you that so long as higher quality, less-processed (let alone "organic") food costs 50-200% more than mass-produced highly-processed junk, a lot fewer people are likely to even consider trying them?
The higher costs are due HEAVILY to the lower demand. Truthfully, how many people have you gotten to switch from their "normal" American recipes to your "organic/natural/processed" diet?
I've tried various "unprocessed" foods and find them aesthetically unpleasing...I don't care for my rice to crunch, I eat a multi-grain/high fiber bread, but I prefer white, I can't choke down tofu, ad nauseum. | |
|
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/16/2008 7:39:30 AM |
Companies realized that they could use LESS fructose to sweeten a product than sucrose, thus saving money (and ironically providing less calories).
Where do you get the less calories part? Foods full of HFCS have just as much if not more calories than those that use sugar---well at least fruit preserves certainly do (I was just buying some at the supermarket yesterday and comparing labels).
How do you explain your "amazing" ability to see through the "deception" and eat the way you do?? Do you really think that the rest of the US is just that stupid to not know what they prefer to eat?
It's the difference between a high-information consumer and a low-information consumer. Sadly yes, I do think the majority of consumers (in the US as much as anywhere else) ARE stupid, but a large part of that is due to vested economic interests bombarding the mass media with their advertising. I mean, just look at all the junk food commercials on Saturday morning TV aimed squarely at kids. It's pervasive brainwashing from a very young age.
New Coke was an exception to the rule. Lots more examples of consumer gullibility in the face of mass advertising would be the spectacular success of Bose (hyper-overpriced crap) or the tasteless watery joke that most Americans call "beer" (Bud, Coors, Miller, etc which are cheap, at least).
Truthfully, how many people have you gotten to switch from their "normal" American recipes to your "organic/natural/processed" diet?
Actually quite a lot---much easier to do with people who have more disposable income than those who are struggling to get by already, sure.
I've tried various "unprocessed" foods and find them aesthetically unpleasing...I don't care for my rice to crunch, I eat a multi-grain/high fiber bread, but I prefer white, I can't choke down tofu, ad nauseum.
Brown rice is quite difficult to cook properly---in fact, most non-Asians screw up white rice too, or imagine that the abomination called Uncle Ben's is real rice. (Basically you have to soak brown rice overnight, use about a 3:1 water ratio, add a little olive oil to the water to raise the boiling temperature, and add either lemon juice or rice vinegar to the water to further help soften it.)
Tofu and other veggie proteins are not high priorities in my book, though again skill in preparation is essential to make them taste ok. Lean meat of any kind, including beef and pork, is fine, especially if you can find/afford the local organic variety. Just cut down or eliminate stuff like sausage, salami, etc.
If you've grown up eating white bread, like any other conditioning it does take a little time and effort to kick that habit, yes. Just like quitting smoking. Whole wheat bread from a local/regional producer is what I'd recommend, and at about $3.50-4.00 a loaf is the same price as the top health bread from national company like Sara Lee but has less water (takes longer to brown in a toaster and keeps you fuller longer). | |
|
bw1984
|
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 34 | |
| |
| |
bw1984
|
Joined: 12/13/2008
Msg: 36 | |
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/22/2008 10:46:35 PM | | cell mass is good for recovery and try N.O. Explode before. I like muscle milk as the best tasting protein powder. | |
|
| Compare the ingredients...
Posted: 12/23/2008 4:21:11 AM | | I think the subject is weight gainers here. +1 for Quickmass. Taste good with hot water too. | |
|
| |
| |
| What are the best tasting weight gainers?
Posted: 1/8/2009 12:43:46 AM | | Protein powder mixed with whole milk, ice cream, peanut butter, and a banana. Thicker, better tasting, and easier on the budget than those high sugar weight gainers!!!! | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| What are the best tasting weight gainers?
Posted: 2/13/2009 10:57:04 AM | | ^^^ If maxing out calories through beer is what you want, I would think that dark, malty beers (bleh!) probably have a lot more calories. | |
|
Home
login 
