Posts by driftinggull13

Look, McDonald's isn't inherently toxic, and just because a massive crowd of people devours it because it’s cheap doesn't mean the food itself is some kind of poison... It's like you look at everything through this lens where every single substance is a threat. Seriously, try drinking 10 liters of water in one sitting and let's see how much damage that does to you.

Phosphoric acid is actually a weak acid, and once it hits your stomach—where you've already got hydrochloric acid sitting there at a pH of 1, which, by the way, is a incredibly strong acid—it basically acts more like a base... it just buffers the acidity of your gastric juices so it doesn't even reach your bones, plus it's used as a preservative in tiny amounts. Besides, phosphate ions are present in every single living cell in the human body anyway, so it's really not doing any harm at all.
Moving on...

stiven said:Poison is poison, no matter what fancy name we decide to call it.

Coke destroys your liver, your teeth, hell, even your bones...😲

Well, here’s the ingredient list right in front of you, so why don't you be a dear and point out exactly which part is doing all that damage?

Chloe Morris12 said:Look, I get it. But does Diet Coke actually help you stay thin? 😁

It’s not even about "less," it’s basically zero... practically nothing. Just drink it and stop worrying, it isn't some kind of poison. It's just one of those things where if people repeat a lie enough times, everyone starts believing it's gospel...

young.but.dead said:It's got less sugar than regular soda, but it's still basically poison... honestly, you're better off drinking alcohol than a Coke—I’d suggest wormwood instead.👍

Poison???? Less sugar???? It doesn't even have sugar, let alone "less" of it... and as far as being toxic goes, look at the state of things in America, Asia, and all over Europe... people have been getting poisoned for decades because Diet Coke has been around since 1982 and it's already the third most popular soda in the world. Seriously, people are dropping like flies...😉
If you actually look at what's in it, besides the zero calories, you've just got caffeine (which is way less than what you'd get in a cup of coffee, or even tea, really), caramel coloring, aspartame, phosphoric acid, citric acid, sodium, CO2, and good old fashioned water. They even make a caffeine-free version if someone is really into that... I mean, which part of that is actually "poisonous" anyway?

driftinggull13 said:Maybe there's some kind of connection because this stuff is made synthetically instead of being squeezed right out of actual fruit.

I mean, maybe the chemical makeup isn't a perfect match, right???

If that were the case, why on earth would everyone be constantly freaking out about how E330 is one of the most carcinogenic additives out there???

Extracting it straight from fruit would cost an absolute fortune, and honestly, there's zero difference between the synthetic version and the natural one because... well, E330 lemon is E330 lemon. If they weren't identical, they wouldn't even be using the same name.

dustybison15 said:Look, driftinggull13, if you were actually dealing with a serious illness, you wouldn't be sitting here typing stuff like this...

Later...👋

HA HA HA, I'd say, Matkovich... 😉
If I were actually sick, I’d be looking for actual medical treatment—which, by the way, I highly suggest you do too—instead of wasting time on miracle beans, some random mega-supplement, or old-school bloodletting...
👋Here's something for you 😘 and a little extra for

I’m getting those same vibes of gastritis, though honestly, that stuff can spiral into an ulcer before you even realize what hit you... A gastroscopy is definitely the gold standard if you want real answers, but let's be honest, it’s a total nightmare to go through. Maybe you could just start with one of those H. pylori breath tests instead? You basically just blow into a little tube and call it a day...

Oh, please, he’s a total genius... I was watching some local news this morning, and they were showing this market up in San Francisco where a kilo of something was going for a hundred bucks, and this lady is standing there claiming she only paid fifteen for it, laughing her head off... She even joked about charging two hundred, but said she wouldn't because even she thinks that's pushing it too far.
Well, if you ask me, she missed a massive opportunity, because she really should have gone for three hundred and it would have been legendary. Honestly, you might as well take the money from fools whenever you can... I personally consider it a perfectly fair redistribution of wealth from the idiots to the smart people.

Walter Moore4 said:driftinggull13, buddy, maybe pull your head out of the clouds for a second; you’re typing like you’ve swallowed all the world's wisdom, or maybe you just ate too much 😁......👋

I eat nothing but red meat, and honestly, that’s where all this intelligence and aggression comes from.😉
See, who says food doesn't make you smarter? I'm living proof. I steer clear of seafood (the whole phosphorus compound smell is a dealbreaker), I don't touch plants, it's just red meat, white bread, and beer for me. I'm one of those old-school guys who loves soft rock and heavy meals. 🙂

Regarding the question about Mavrovič's land... you're asking what if it's more extensive, or what if it's protected... but what if it isn't? And even if it is, that's just the answer regarding the water; the winds blow from all sorts of directions, so there's NO such thing as organic food because everything is contaminated, more or less.
The regulations basically just require that certain fertilizers and herbicides haven't been used for a specific amount of time, and that's it. In other words, nobody is going to tell you there's less herbicide or synthetic fertilizer being used there (because there is), since making that claim would be hard when you're trying to sell "organic" food.
Food digestion and metabolism are pretty well understood; obviously, we don't know everything about human physiology, but it's not on the level we're discussing here. It's settled science. Your argument makes about as much sense as me saying there's no point in learning math because we don't know everything and some things remain unknown.
The body stays in homeostasis, because if it didn't, it would have kicked the bucket a long time ago. Smokers have their own issues, just like former coal miners do, but that has nothing to do with diet, and yeah, their bodies are also in homeostasis.
Curing something through food? Maybe from hunger, sure.
Expelling toxins at the cost of energy? So what? Why shouldn't the body spend energy? Using that as an argument against something is like claiming physical exercise isn't good because, hey, it uses up energy.
Look, while we're on the subject, go compare the energy required for the process of converting glucose into energy versus the energy gained from glucose absorption, and then come tell me about energy costs and who's spending more.
Same goes for fats, and for amino acids—how much it "costs" to take them in versus how much it costs to build proteins in the body.
Osmosis is also passive transport, and yeah, we're all a little smarter now, especially those hearing it for the first time.
You can get other micronutrients elsewhere without much trouble because they're... well, micronutrients, and you only need tiny amounts of them anyway; you were getting them before Mavrovič's media-hyped bread.

I'll say it again: that bread isn't somehow healthier or more nutritious than any other kind. Maybe it has slightly more vitamins and micronutrients because it uses the whole grain, though I'd love to see a chemical breakdown of the ingredients so we aren't just guessing. I think it's mostly down to taste. Some people like it, some don't.

One more thing, my mention of Guyton wasn't to act like a genius, but because a huge number of people write about nutrition without knowing the basic elements of digestive physiology. They talk about "better carbohydrate digestion" without actually knowing anything about how carbohydrates are digested. How can you claim something is better when you know nothing about it? That's like claiming natural Vitamin C is better than synthetic Vitamin C. Vitamin C is Vitamin C, just like a specific carbohydrate is the same whether it's from Mavrovič or Claire, and they both behave exactly the same way during digestion.

What I’m trying to get across here... is that eating bread really just comes down to personal taste, and honestly, food grown without any chemicals—like how things were back in the day after the war—wasn't necessarily healthier because it was just covered in different kinds of pests and parasites.

I have to disagree with you on the idea that people actually know what's healthy for them. If that were true, nutritionists wouldn't even have jobs. Of course, if someone prefers Mavrovič's bread, that's just their preference, but this whole philosophy about Mavrovič's bread being way healthier than Claire's... I don't buy it. Sure, maybe it has a few extra micronutrients that Claire's bread lacks, but you can easily get those from other foods anyway. And regarding the steak, the issue is that "off" taste which happens when cell membranes rupture due to ice crystals and subsequent enzymatic breakdown. It's basically the same reason why meat is left to age overnight after being butchered, just to make it tender.
As for fish and fries, you've got it wrong. Carbs, like potatoes, are just as necessary as proteins and fats, like the fish; it's all about the portions. Again, moderation is everything. There isn't really "better" or "worse" food, there's just overeating.
Look, I'm no nutritionist, but I think it's useful to listen to the people who obsess a bit more over chemistry or dietetics, because that gives you a better perspective to help you separate the wheat from the chaff... or in this case, the actual substance from the advertising. BTW, you actually think Mavrovič's stuff looks healthy?

Megan Morales5 said:I bet you're carrying some extra weight...😉 usually those "super fit" theorists have zero clue how things work in the real world, and I wouldn't be surprised if this whole argument turns into that logic where—calories are just calories and all energy is "healthy" energy, so it doesn't matter if you drink a bottle of Coke or eat soup, fish, sides, salad, and dessert as long as the calorie count is the same. Because, you know, a calorie is just a calorie.😁

Are you actually sure you ate Mavrovič's food?

To your disappointment, calories really are just calories and there’s no such thing as "sick" or "healthy" energy. At least, that's what physicists say. Though, who knows, maybe they don't know anything either...😉
nimbledriver81 doesn't have any extra weight (actually, she used to be the opposite) and she's a woman, and what she's saying is just plain truth. People who don't know the first thing about nutrition usually tend to mystify certain brands, and most of their ads are pretty questionable to begin with (not saying all of them, though).
Mavrovič has a relatively small amount of land, and surrounding that land is territory where people use pesticides and all sorts of other chemicals. Do you honestly think those same substances don't end up on Mavrovič's land through the water and the air? Besides, I highly doubt everything comes from his estates; he produces too much, and without pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, the yields would be way lower (because, let's face it, that's why people use them). From what I can tell, the main difference is just that he sells a mix of husks and various grains.
Anyone with parents from the countryside, or even a grandma or grandpa, should just ask them what "healthy" food was actually like back in the day, say after the Great Depression, and then you'll hear the real story. Stop mystifying things, people.
Bringing the body into "balance"????? Give me a break, please. Your body is *already* in balance, because if it wasn't, you'd be six feet under. Do you seriously think your body's systems for detoxification, digestion, or "cleansing" are just sitting around waiting for you to remember to eat less, or drink more water, or only eat greens, or......???? It's just New Age nonsense. A recommendation for reading (for the umpteenth time) is Guyton: Physiology. I promise you there would be a lot less fluff about "balance," and especially about passive and active transport. Otherwise, you're missing facilitated transport (that's the third type). Substances that enter passively—just due to the concentration gradient—are, if I recall correctly, two: Oxygen and alcohol (I might be wrong, there could be more, I don't quite remember). When alcohol enters the system, a huge chunk of energy is used for breakdown, so the claim about energy expenditure doesn't hold up. A negligible amount of energy is used for transport, while a much, much larger amount goes toward digestion. A carbohydrate from Mavrovič's bread will use the exact same amount of energy as a carbohydrate from Claire's white bread, because it doesn't depend on the source, but on the type of bond, and the way those bonds break down follows specific energetics (chemical reactions). The body doesn't care where the glycosidic bond in the carbohydrate comes from; the enzyme doesn't distinguish between Mavrovič and Claire. Another thing, Mavrovič's bread isn't even good to me, so I can't even eat much of it. Anyway, my mom is from the rural areas and it never even crosses her mind to grab corn bread or any kind of "whole grain" stuff. She ate plenty of that growing up.
The secret to good nutrition is moderation and eating a variety of foods, along with physical activity. Everything else is 🙂

Megan Morales5 said:feta from a half-white loaf—just empty calories, sure they're there but they aren't actually useful for anything
but Mavrovič's feta... that's feta packed with actual fuel for your body, you know, real energy, basically utilized calories

I mean, sorry, but if you’re using calories from food as energy, what does that have to do with Mavrovič's bread or any other brand for that matter? If a calorie turns into energy, then honestly, it doesn't matter where that calorie originally came from...
What even are "empty calories"? Seriously, throughout my entire education, wading through mountains of biomedical and chemistry coursework, I have never once heard that term used in a scientific context...
Where are you people even getting this terminology?
Personally, I think plain white bread tastes a hundred times better than Mavrovič's, but hey, everyone has different tastes, I guess... Mavrovič's bread doesn't have additives—though I wouldn't bet my life on it—and it uses a blend of different grains, unlike most other breads that are just mostly wheat or corn. And really, what is so monumental about this bread? Please, don't tell me you think it's somehow vastly healthier, and what's so terrible about additives anyway?...

No way,😉

ruggedviper982 said:You started a whole different thread here, but whatever, I’ll give you an answer anyway...

See, when I was a kid—which wasn't actually that long ago, let's be real—there used to be this specific children's aspirin. I think the formula was basically just regular aspirin but with some additive meant to make it "easier" on the stomach. Nowadays, neither pregnant women nor kids are supposed to touch aspirin for various reasons (and I really don't want to start a whole new debate about that)... Or back then, people would be giving babies eggs and lemon juice when they were barely even a few months old. Now, they recommend waiting until they're at least 12 months before even touching egg whites. Etc., etc...

Or take the microwave, for example—that's not even about kids specifically. When microwaves first hit the market, they were a total craze, and now there are all these theories floating around about how they're incredibly unhealthy, suggesting you shouldn't prepare anything in them for kids under three...

That’s just how I view nutritionism. Personally, I wouldn't even try to link it to the hard sciences—even though, looking back at history, those have "evolved" too, in certain fields... But if I *were* going to connect it to something, it would be medicine and the ways we treat specific diseases, like cancer or Hepatitis C...

So, you really have massive gaps in your knowledge if you want to lecture us on nutritionism. Advil, Aleve, and aspirin are essentially the same thing in terms of active ingredients, and the dosage is right there on the label. There might be a lower dose version for kids, obviously...
And you wouldn't link nutritionism to the hard sciences because they've "somewhat evolved"... 😲 😲 😲
Oh, please... honestly, someone should just cut off your electricity, your car, your meds, your food supply, your building materials, your clothes... just so I can see what else has "somewhat evolved"...
And what exactly is medicine built upon if not the hard sciences? Alternative medicine? Chakras and auras???????
"I wouldn't link it"??? Good grief... seriously, please, go study actual medicine—you know, physiology and digestion—and *then* come talk to me about nutritionism...
I honestly don't know how to explain to someone that brown sugar and white sugar are practically identical from a digestive standpoint. Just look at the ingredients. But hey, how is anyone supposed to be a nutritionist if they refuse to accept that theory has to align with the hard sciences? That's why most of you don't bother reading medical textbooks... because they contradict the nonsense you just pull out of thin air based on nothing but pure imagination...

I honestly swear by the power of grabbing a few drinks with the guys... I once talked my way out of a massive headache at home just by leaning into it, and besides, it keeps my immune system on point because I don't seem to catch every little bug going around...😉 😁

ruggedviper982 said:It really depends on what you’re actually trying to get out of a cutting diet. A proper diet should be about melting away body fat, not stripping your system of all those essential vitamins and minerals...😕

Look, I don't know. This isn't my profession or anything, it's just a hobby I tinker with, and honestly, I've never even struggled with my weight...🙂

Yeah, well, clearly this isn't your area of expertise, which is pretty obvious from both your last two posts... If you actually want to understand what's happening, go pick up a copy of Guyton and read up on digestive physiology; it might clear things up and help you realize there's no such thing as "high-value" versus "low-value" sugars when they're basically the exact same thing. Like, brown sugar is pretty much identical to refined white sugar, and your body isn't having any easier time processing one over the other if you look at the actual composition... And I'm fairly certain minerals don't play much of a role in how sugar is absorbed anyway. You really need to study some basic physiology if you're going to talk about digestion, dieting, and nutritional density, so I'd highly recommend starting there if you want a real foundation...

dustycanyon6 said:(honestly... I don't think I'll ever fully wrap my head around the fact that lactase is actually an enzyme and not some kind of hormone! 😁),

And then you have people claiming this whole forum is useless or just a massive waste of time... seriously... 😉 👍

Casey Palmer5 said:But people who are lactose intolerant can eat fermented dairy products without any issues, right?

I know for a fact that plain milk makes me feel absolutely terrible, but I never have an issue with cheese, yogurt, or stuff like that...

It’s just a thing in my family, honestly, if I drink even a small glass of milk I get this feeling like it’s just sitting there churning in my stomach all day long, like I swallowed a literal grinding stone...
The little splash I put in my coffee isn't enough to trigger that kind of disaster, though.

I haven't really touched milk since I was a kid, I used to have these massive battles with my mom over it back in the day. I don't really go for other dairy products regularly either. I'm more of a meat eater...😁

Look, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying it's blown way out of proportion. Everyone in the States knows about it, sometimes for good reason and sometimes just because it's one of those things everyone talks about for no reason at all...
The biggest issue lately seems to be all the gay and lesbian stuff, and then when they hold their parades, they get targeted, except maybe during those massive ones where people travel from all over the country. Then it's more noise than anything else. It’s just massive propaganda, just like all that intolerance... total nonsense...

Taylor Brown61 said:Well, thanks for breaking all that down—you basically filled in all the gaps I left out...

and here’s a little fun fact for you too... heh, let me add my two cents 😁

fructose—since it's essentially "pure" fruit sugar—gets absorbed by the body almost instantly, so if someone starts feeling shaky because their blood sugar is crashing, grabbing something with fructose is probably the best move... sure, it might cost a bit more, but it actually works... just like grape sugar does! 👋
but anyway, getting back to those artificial sweeteners... from talking to a few doctors, I've gathered that it's best to stick with The Beatles (kill me now, I'm not even sure if I'm spelling that right)... apparently, aspartame has the lowest impact, and honestly, that's the main thing that matters!

Look, let's be real, the body absorbs all kinds of sugar just fine, whether it's glucose or fructose. There are even plants out there that produce sweet sap. Just stick to sucrose in moderation, and if you're worried about extra calories, just go work out like that person above pointed out so well. Obesity and heart disease aren't really caused by eating too many calories, they're caused by not moving enough.😉

I remember reading this deep dive once into the chemical makeup of all different kinds of sugar, from the standard white stuff all the way down to those various syrups, but I can't for the life of me track down the link right now...
Basically, brown sugar is almost identical to refined sugar when you look at the composition. White sugar is just pure sucrose—that’s the disaccharide made up of fructose and glucose. Now, brown sugar usually has a slightly lower concentration of sucrose, maybe somewhere between 80% and 95% depending on the brand, but that gap is mostly just filled out by glucose, fructose (which is just broken-down sucrose), and water. It’s got a negligible amount of minerals, ash, or fats—maybe 3% total if you're lucky—and that's really it. Honestly, I don't see any biochemical reason why anyone would claim brown sugar is "healthier" than the white stuff, though I guess people like the flavor profile differently...
The lowest sucrose content is actually found in syrup, sitting at about 65%, while the remaining 30% is mostly just water and a tiny bit more minerals, under 2%...
Since fructose sits higher on the sweetness scale than both sucrose and glucose, pure fructose is sweeter, but man, it's pricier too. It's like asking a Napa Valley winemaker to swap their traditional methods for some high-end additive; sure, you could put fructose in wine instead of regular sugar to boost the sweetness, but it's going to cost you a fortune, brother...