/ck/ - Food & Cooking

yep so you can say things like "let me get 3 numbers 2's and 4 extra orders of fries, and make the soda a diet" u fat lard

>>4990190
That sounds like an american order, i'm not american. Also, been eating 1300-1500 calories a day for 3 months now, gone from 195 pounds to 160 pounds.

>>4990188
Do you know what has 0 calories and 0 sugar and is healthy

Water

>>4990188
>Research at Purdue University says artificially sweetened foods, including diet soda, can contribute to weight gain and other health risks.
A summary of current research was published in the academic journal Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism, Purdue says. The findings show daily consumption of diet soda can be connected to higher risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and weight gain.


Allow yourself one can of normal sugar per week and drink water or unsweetened tea the other 6 days you fucking shill.

>>4990208
Not OP but 'research' these days is a joke, i've seen about 40 different kinds of food that 'research suggests' are linked to cancer or aids or whatever.

>>4990208
I wish my mom would listen to this.

>>4990212

Yes, screw all research and rely on broscience and feelings instead.

I know 4chan isn't known for it's intelligence, but FFS take off your tinfoil hat.

>>4990188
in short, yes OP.

Why do you think all the skinny celebrities walk around hollywood with a diet coke in their hands?

>>4990188
As some one who dropped 60 pounds through diet alone, I have to say, diet soda is awful for you.
Every time I drank it I felt even more hungry through out the day.
Not to mention the chemicals, even though its sugar free, are still HORRIBLE for your teeth.
If you can do a green tea with stevia or another natural sweetener, its fantastic!

Good luck in your weight loss journey!

>>4990220
I didn't say 'all' research, but i'm not a gullible teenager like you appear to be who denies himself everything he reads in the paper that 'studies have shown MAY be related to ___'

as others have said, yes op. Just be careful, it still is not good in large quantities and you will feel slugish. that being said, its good when you have a sugar craving and dont want the sugar. Also look into diabetic food (chocolate, crisps ets) which also dont contain sugar and have a minimal calorie signature yet taste great. You can get them at most supermarkets

>>4990223
Honestly, cutting soda out of my diet almost completely is the best thing I've ever done for my health. Like once you go a bit without it you begin to wonder why the fuck you ever liked it so much.

Only time I ever touch the stuff now is if I need a quick chase for something.

>>4990228
I tried drinking soda a few months ago and I vomited.

>>4990221
>Why do you think all the skinny celebrities walk around hollywood with a diet coke in their hands?

Because they're also using a different kind of coke....

>>4990208

No.

http://examine.com/faq/does-diet-soda-inhibit-fat-loss.html

As someone who was overweight and addicted to soda, switching to diet soda helped me lose weight no problem. Aspartame isn't unhealthy either and I could find more studies if you want.

The only downside is the acidity fucks up your teeth.

>>4990231
Using a straw saves you from about 80% of the damage to teeth

>>4990194
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experiment
Trying to go Auschwitz?

>>4990231

>2011 Study.

The Purdue study was done 2 years later.

Fuck off.

>>4990208
>Research at some university shows that daily consumption of air can be connected to higher risk for eventually dying
Look, it must be true because it says research on it and they only put true things on the news
Better limit your air intake to none

>>4990228
I still crave a Dr. Pepper from time to time.
I can't buy a twelve pack though or it will be gone in about 2 or 3 days.
2 liters will only last the night.
Fuck I love soda. Really glad I stopped drinking it though.

>>4990235
Not even close, i've only been losing 2-3 pounds a week. Rarely hungry.

>>4990236

Post links you faggot. At least the examiner site referenced several studies.

>>4990223
>stevia or another natural sweetener, its fantastic
"natural" sweeteners are in no way better for you than artificial ones. That whole myth that natural=better is fucking dumb

>>4990237

>WAAAAAAAA a reputable institution is criticizing my unhealthy habit.

I know it feels threatening to have a comfort food or long time belief discredited, but you're not doing yourself any good

>>4990235
this is bullshit. I did a water fast fast for 20 days and was fine

>>4990235
and also, calorie restriction has shown to increase health and life expectancy. 1200 calries per day is perfectly fine and commonplace. I bet you bought into the myth where you have 3 large meals a day and snacks inbetween to be "healthy"

>>4990245
TO be fair, you should never take a study that shows a link and interpret it as though they found a causative relation. if they found a causative relation they would say so, finding a vague link isn't even science, but almost all of theses new "Does X cause cancer?" scares the media picks up on all the time fall in that category

>>4990248
>1200 calries per day is perfectly fine and commonplace
if you don't do anything physical ever

>>4990250
not even close to being true. Research is out there, look it up if your curious

>>4990245
I bet you didn't even read the article
If you had, you'd see that it's just a bunch of "if you drink diet soda you're probably also a fat fuck". There's nothing scientific in there that says diet soda is directly unhealthy. No wonder they think it makes you fat when everyone who goes to McDonald's gets a diet coke to "offset" their unhealthy cheeseburger. When I said >Research at some university shows that daily consumption of air can be connected to higher risk for eventually dying
I basically wrote an equally valid point, only I don't come from Purdue so you don't believe me.

>>4990255
Celebration of birthdays is directly correlated with risk of death

Is there such thing as a thread on /ck/ that doesn't get derailed into petty arguments these days?

>>4990247
>>4990248
You're right. Scientists don't know shit. What were they thinking?

>>4990259
Not when 70% of the threads are subtly planted newsbuzz controversy threads, intentional or not.
>Hey /ck/ what do you like to get at Starbucks?
it's only a matter of time until someone goes
>starbucks
>pleb
>pick 2

>>4990260
holy shit your retarded. look into shit fully before you form an opinion. you know that

>>4990262
I feel like we've had an increase of /b/ over the past few months.

>>4990243
I was comparing stevia to natural sugar not artificial sweetener...

limit yourself to 1 can at the end of the day. think of it as a reward for all your hard work

I've read somewhere that eating something sweet tasting that's not actually carbs tricks your organism in a way that might fuck up your metabolism slightly.

>>4990390
I think it just doesn't decrease your apatite in the way actually eating food will, so you end up eating more than you would have if you had actually just consumed real sugar if you are weak minded

>>4990190
>implying i dont have type 1 diabetes and rather eat than drink my insulin away
>implying i dont do that
i always order a small combo though

>>4990223
protip
"stevia" is just sugar.

>>4990269

>fatlogic

Here's something that I didn't see anyone else post. There's a few things to consider when switching to the diet soda. First off, the sodium content is still there. Secondly, you actually want to drink more water a day to help you lose weight. I will help flush the bad stuff from your system while also giving you better skin. Third, while you may think that drinking the soda isn't that bad, you are still taking in caffeine. The caffeine is taking moisture from you, causing your blood sugar to spike, requiring more water to bring it down. Long run it's easier to just drink water. And lastly, yes a lot of people have been talking about the different sugar free substitutes. Cutting sugar out completely, especially if you've been an addict for a while can be counter productive. I wouldn't quit cold turkey, but just slowly ween yourself off and avoid diet soda altogether.

>>4990456
>First off, the sodium content is still there.
important only if you already have sever high blood pressure, the amount of sodium in soda is trivial to an otherwise healthy person

>>4990456
>I will help flush the bad stuff from your system
I do not think thats how it works

>>4990208
Those studies are flawed as fuck.

their entire basis is "Stuff that tastes sweet makes you want more sweets! You'll cheat on your diet and get fat again!"

It's like saying "corporal punishment is bad for children because studies show that children whose parents BEAT THEM SAVAGELY have a 30% higher chance for acting out!"

it ignore the lion's share of sensible people who don't fuck it up and use things as intended. In moderation.

>>4990188
>it basically tricks your body into thinking that that you need more sugar to satisfy your cravings. It's better to have a normal coke and jog the calories off. Or drink something that actually tastes nice.

>>4990406
>“stevia” is just sugar
>posts picture of stevia's nutritional information showing that stevia has less than one gram sugar per hundred grams

>>4990473
look at the ingredient list. dextrose = sugar

>that stevia has less than one gram sugar per hundred grams

serving size is 1 gram so obviously its not going to be 1 full gram of sugar given the other ingredient there is the stevia extract or whatever

Artificial sweeteners cause insulin production. Insulin lowers blood glucose levels and forces the body to store carbs as fat.

This will either cause increased hunger, making dieting difficult, or will slow metabolism requiring a smaller calorie intake to lose weight.

The production of insulin can also lead to a insulin resistance, which causes the body to make even more insulin, compounding the previous problems. Additionally high insulin can cause fatty liver disease, and is a precursor to diabetes.

>>4990481
>serving size 1g
>has less than 1g sugar per serving

Oh, so its not 100% sugar, thats real helpful

>>4990481
Oh shit, I didn't see that! Seems like that brand is hanging on stevia's reputation and not actually including whatever sweetener stevia contains.

>>4990406
STEVIA SHILL DETECTED

that one brand of stevia SUCKS, and contains additives.

i get my stevia 100% PURE.

>>4990462
HUE

>>4990464
actually my parents were total jerks and i stood up for myself more and more, i made myself into a better person. (no thanks to them)

>>4990494
THIS. i love real stevia.

>>4990188

Don't. Drink. Soda/pop/cola. Just don't.

>>4990524
A shill is someone who is paid to promote a product by posing as a satisfied consumer of said product not someone who picks faults in the product like that poster.

>>4990524
i never use sweeteners so idk whats popular now, the only reason i know of this brand is because my mom bought it because she hears stevia is "all natural" and all that shit.
some anon actually told me that this brand is just sugar, im just passing the info along.
dont even know how many brands are there.
im going to my grocery store in a bit. ill check the other ones and see what they have.

>>4990534
this.

i take a gallon of water, cut up some lemon and lime slices and a little honey, put it into the gallon, leave it in the fridge for a day or two = really tasty water.

you can make 3 and leave them in your fridge


I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990541
but honey is practically the same thing as HFCS

>>4990538
not sure if shilling harder or just really ignorant.

shills also lie to defame stuff, for example, if that anon is a shill, they could be trying to give ALL stevia a bad name, to make them lose money.

the shill likely comes from a corporation that doesn't like the company that makes stevia because they rather everyone use something else... like a certain syrup....

>>4990540
there are many different brands, its absolutely essential to read the ingredients, because if you are buying stevia you need to know that you are buying 100% pure stevia with no additives, otherwise its defeating the purpose.

never ever buy mainstream hippy hipster health mom brands.


I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990545
Well then s/he's not a
>STEVIA SHILL
, s/he's a shill for the soda company.

>>4990543
HEREWEGO.jpg

>>4990543

I am NOT a doctor. ask your doctor before doing anything.

fructose itself isn't a bad thing in my opinion because in nature many fruits are loaded with this stuff, and so is honey and agave nectar, but those

things are usually a complete sugar.

high fructose corn syrup usually comes from a bad place to begin with, for example genetically modified corn from monsanto loaded with harsh

chemicals and pesticides. and then its treated with even more harsh chemicals (inb4 water is a chemical, that agrumentative point is invalid as the

context is discombobulated into manipulatively derailing the point without actual basis, as well as the fact that there are many different good and

bad chemicals in subjectivity to the human body, and even the good ones are taken in moderation) so after the corn syrup being treated with chemicals

(again) they add even more terrible stuff to neutralize its pH which at the point of finishing its crazy journey it is sold to companies to use it as

a cheap sweetener in drinks and foods. at this point its a very incomplete sugar that poisons the liver, causing all kinds of insulin issues and

unhealthy fat buildup of bad fats sometimes around the liver.(not necessarily weight gain).
i do however believe (but never tried any of) that Organic corn sugar that has not been processed could likely be relatively safe and healthy in

moderation.

>>4990551
oh haha you tricked me

>>4990558
fructose is fructose


Do you seriously believe that genetically modifying a plant would make fructose derived from it any different chemically? Thats entirely illogical

>>4990564
The fructose in, say, an apple, is different to the fructose in a can of Coke, because the fructose in an apple is held in cells, which the digestive system needs to break the walls of to get to, so it is absorbed at a slower rate than the fructose in a can of Coke, which is absorbed all at once, putting more strain on the pancreas and stuff.

>>4990573
your stomach breaks apart cells rather efficiently, fructose isn't absorbed until the intestines
So no, that is not a relevant variable

>>4990564
just get out. everyone wants you out of their lives.

just go home and re-think your entire life.


I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990606
>GMO is bad because science is scary
>natural fructose is better for you than fructose from companies I do not like despite being exactly the same thing

>>4990558
The difference in fruit and soda is that fruit contains fiber. Fiber acts like the livers bodyguard.

>>4990606

> I don't understand chemistry

Fructose, sucrose, glucose, maltose, etc. are all sugars. You know why they have different names? Because they are different chemicals. Demonstrate that fructose from different sources is both different chemically (ie, no longer fructose), and that those differences are dangerous, or gtfo.

>>4990616
>>4990635
samefag

>Hating Monsanto = anti-science

This is what Monsanto shills actually believe.


Monsanto has been and is objectively doing bad stuff. It's a very very horrible company.
They managed to erode any consumer rights that might have existed in the US in their field and try to keep it that way. Monsanto isn't just some kind of company that can be neglected, it's a serious threat for us humans.
You don't even get to know if you're buying GMOs, seriously? How can anyone be okay with this?

>>4990543
>>4990635
the weight of the claim rests on the original shill, you get out.

>>4990646
Saying incorrect things is antiscience

hate monsato all you want, but don't make things up if you don't want people to call out your anti-science attitude

>>4990646
>You don't even get to know if you're buying GMOs,
It doesn't matter at all. GMO foods are not magical poison . If you don't like monsato's economic tactics, thats a valid complaint. But to attack the sound science of genetics makes you an uneducated hippie shill, please go to college and at least take an into biology class

>>4990650
>"saying things incorrect"
>"hate monsato all you want, but don't make things up if you don't want people to call out your anti-science attitude"

what were there thing incorrect on? how were thign maked up? how gril get pragnent?

>>4990655
while i am not necessarily against genetic modification, monsanto really slips the banana peel into hue town.

ANONYMOUS POSTER QUOTE:"GMO crops often need more labor and more intensive use of things like pesticides than normal crops. Particularly some of the GMO varieties of soy or corn. Often there are two different types of GMO crops of the same food type. The most popular are the types designed to survive herbicides like glyphosate (aka roundup). Plants usually die when exposed to an herbicide, but through genetic modification they can survive it. One of the problems with this is that these same crops require a helllllllll of a lot more herbicide used on them on a regular basis and the herbicides like glyphosate require a nasty surfactant to even be of any use. The surfactants are usually pretty toxic and they tend to drive the herbicides deep into the tissues of plants. It helps kill unwanted plants even better, but itl means your GMO foods like soy and corn are packed with more crap you don't really want in your body.

When I had to do some research papers in college on this stuff it was really interesting to learn about. Up til then I didn't know that some GMO crops required more pesticide use and more intensive farming for about the same result. Right now I've got some people at the UF college of agriculture asking me to join in some research work with them. They've got all this new multi-million dollar lab equipment and insane amounts of money from farmers and agriculture companies like Monsanto. Agriculture research is surprisingly interesting and profitable."

>>4990646
All crops are GMOs. Selective breeding is GMO. If it was grown by a human it is GMO; now you know!

>>4990674
this is incorrect.

selective breeding is extremely different from going into a laboratory and genetically modifying a plants genetic material with retroviruses and other plant sicknesses and fungi.

>>4990694
How?

>>4990694
One's just quicker than the other. I don't see the big deal.

>>4990674
>All crops are GMOs. Selective breeding is GMO. If it was grown by a human it is GMO
lol no. GMO has a specific definition, I suggest you look it up.

>>4990694
How is it different?

Its quicker and more directed, you can more easily pick the trait you desire. But the results are entirely the same as far as human consumption is concerned

i dont know how this turned into a gmo shit postign thread but im back from tbuying groceries
(im >>4990540)
and i have to say im dissapointed in their stevia stuff.
to whoever posted 100% stevia, where did you get it. these are the brands i got
these are sold as stevia there was one that said it was sugar and stevia so i didnt include it here

>>4990710
and this one

>>4990701
>>4990706
>>4990709
your asking how, as if you don't know enough to know why they are NOT the same, yet you claim to know enough to say for sure that you DO know that they are the same.

caught. in. a. ruse.

>>4990674

get out of our lives monsanto.


we want to be free.

>>4990707
thank you- actual real person.

>>4990724
The process for modern GMO and old fashioned selective breeding is obviously different, but the results are the same and there is no real reason to distinguish between them in reference to human health

Sugar alcohols won't give your body any nutrition, but they can fuck with your insulin levels, which is counter productive if you're losing weight.

>>4990728

Indeed, both methods seek to attain the same kind of qualities in plants. If the same qualities are the aims, then why should we care about the method?

>>4990710
>>4990717
absolutelydisgusting.jpg

what angers me the most is that they blatantly show stevia as ONE of the ingredients on the product, but not the only one.

stevia is a real ingredient, a real thing.

when people buy it, they want to buy pure stevia, because its what they wanted in the first place.

>go to the store
>i want stevia
>buy stevia
>oh wait its not stevia

FALSE.DISHONEST.ADVERTISING.

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990738
the anon that told me about this also showed me a link (i dont have it anymore) about how companies can put "0 calories" in products if they have less than 5 calories, which is why all of these have 0 calories even though theyre all sugar

>>4990728
>>4990734
the results are different and again you are incorrect.

selective breeding is NOT the same as GMO from monsanto.


selective breeding with apples for example:
>farmer walks over to one apple tree they like
>takes a little pollen
>pollinates another tree they also like
>new apples grow with seeds that grow into new trees more likely to have the traits that they like from both previous trees. for example, they like the color of those apples, and the aroma of the others.
>sometimes honey bees do this for them

in genetic modification by harsh methods for example:
>hey guys this poison we use to kill stuff also kills the plant
>ok wait
>sick fungus + ummm
>moldy tomato and then
>sick tomato
>oh and some fish DNA
>and a few retroviruses laterrrr
>YES WE DID IT, now lets dump loads of pesticides over everything.


no thanks.

>>4990264
>>4990264
its not /b/. its /pol/

>>4990237
Oh shit nobody breath! We're gonna die!

>>4990759
you seem fundamentally confused on the besics of genetics

Why would a gene being present in a fish mean its abad thing?

There are a lot of genes present in all plants and animals, that doesn't make them scary

>>4990759
I still don't see the difference. Selective breeders will grow plants that resist pesticides too. What's wrong with plants that resist herbicides?

>>4990765

>>4990759
Seems to be you are afraid of the use of herbicides and pesticides

That has nothing to do with genetic science

>>4990743
supposedly the even do the same thing with fat in cooking spray.

they reduce the serving size to less than a single little "ptschh" of the spray bottle, and since its less than #.0 etc they can write it down as a 0 fat and fat free cooking spray.

>>4990770
read
>>4990665
>>4990768
read your own post and ask yourself what you are asking

>>4990782
strawman.

let me ask you a question:

are you ok with eating fruits and vegetables that have even TRACES of pesticides and herbicides?

it is very much related to genetic science because crops are genetically modified to withstand more and more poison.

read
>>4990665

>>4990788
So herbicides go into the plant because they use surfactants. So I'm eating herbicide.

Well, surfactants are just like soap, which I use to wash my hands. No harm there. Herbicides, kill plants only. No harm there.

What was your point again?

>>4990798
Pesticides kill bugs only and herbicides kill plants only. Why should I care about injesting traces of them?

>>4990811
*seeing as how I am neither a bug nor a plant

>>4990811
this reminds me of the story of some anon on /adv/ asking if he was fucked because he maced some guy breaking into his house,
he literally had a metal mace but before that he used bear mace and said it didnt work. some anon says "duh only works on bears"
fun times

>>4990798
>strawman.
The whole equating GMOs to herbicide is the strawman, not my post

>>4990798
Seems like you irrational fear is of herbicide use, not GMO's


Whether or not increased herbicide use is bad for people has nothing to do with the science or safety of genetic modification in general

>>4990831
>>4990811
>>4990805

i will let these absolutely hilariously ignorant and foolish posts speak for themselves.

any logical person would immediately see that you are trolls, shills, or simply not very smart.

i do not recommend that you EVER eat herbicide, pesticide, or soap.

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990856

>TRACES

Do you ever wash your dishes? Or wash your clothes? If the answer is yes, then there are traces of surfactants on your plates and your cutlery and these go into your mouth when you eat. If you shower surfactants are absorbed there too, through your skin.

As for herbicide and pesticide, show me where it says that eating trace amounts of these is harmful. Plants are of a different KINGDOM to humans. It's pretty easy to make things that are toxic to one but not the other. An example of this sort of thing which you may be more comfortable with would be antibiotics like penicillin, which are toxic to bacteria but not to humans, due to differences in the cell wall structures of both. Well it's the same with herbicides and pesticides; there are vast differences between plants/insects and humans which can be exploited to make substances which are poisonous to one but not the other. This is what pesticides/herbicides are: substances which are toxic to plants and insects, but fine for humans to consume in trace amounts.

Come at me bro.

>>4990820
Alright, basically GMO require more pesticides because they are less resistant. These pesticides induce cancer and other mutations because of the chemicals they are made of "attacking" the dna and hence not made for human consumption.
This is literally high-school knowledge

>>4990881
>pesticides
>attacking DNA

Don't believe you; you're not a doctor. Post a source or gtfo.

>>4990881
>Alright, basically GMO require more pesticides because they are less resistant
no, that requirement has nothing to do with the process of genetic modification. You are just referring to a specific strain that agriculture has chosen to create.

Once again sounds like your qualm is with pesticides, not genetic modification

>>4990881
>basically

Don't want the basic summary. Tell us exactly how GM makes the crops “less resistant”.

>>4990887
your talking backwards, they gentically modify the plants so they can put more pesticides on them after the fact.

in addition, they don't know how genetically modified plants will effect people years later.

>GMOs are safe!
>GMOs are unsafe!

>no studies of correct length ever conducted so GRAS all around
>the few studies that were correct length found problems and got vilified and defamed for it

Hmm....well you know what? I think I'll pass on eating GMOs and stick to gardening.

http://gmoevidence.com/danish-pigs-gm-soy/
Danish Pig Birth Defects – GM Soy
http://gmoevidence.com/iowa-infertility-in-pigs-from-gm-corn/
Iowa – Infertility in Pigs from GM Corn
http://www.examiner.com/article/mounting-evidence-that-gmo-crops-can-cause-infertility-and-birth-defects
Mounting evidence that GMO crops can cause infertility and birth defects

>>4990899
>in addition, they don't know how genetically modified plants will effect people years later.
the exact same way selectively bred plants do

>>4990914
can you back that up?

can you back up that genetically modified plants (all the different varieties) will effect people the "exact same way selectively bred plants do" in consideration to all those different varieties as well?

can you prove anything?

>>4990914
>the exact same way selectively bred plants do
Not really. Inserting a gene cassette in the genome of an organism can have cascading effects beyond what your target is.

>>4990922
You could surely genetically modify a plant so that it would become poisonous, but there is absolutely no reason to be suspicious that this could possibly happen accidentally, thats just not how genes work.

OP here, just got back after a few hours to find people still arguing about this.

lel

>>4990929
>Not really. Inserting a gene cassette in the genome of an organism can have cascading effects beyond what your target is.
has this ever been shown to be an issue?

>>4990931
>entire post is assumptions of assumptions

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990939
Assuming something wont magically become toxic seems like a fair assumption

>>4990942
not magically, scientifically.

remember that grass that was modified the wrong way and produced enough cyanide to kill a bunch of cows?

what about that corn they make that literally produces its own pesticide?

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4990944
>remember that grass that was modified the wrong way and produced enough cyanide to kill a bunch of cows?
um, no

>>4990944
the corn that produces "pesticide" produces a protein strand that naturally occurs in many maize varieties you already eat.

It's not a toxin, it's an indigestible protein that kills many insects because it literally stops them from being able to gain nutrition from eating.

It doesn't work in humans because humans have stomach acids that denature the protein, and we lack the physiology for it to affect us in the same way.

>>4990946
are you talking about bt?

>>4990946
See:
>The Bt protein is expressed all through the plant (BT Maize, AKA GMO corn with pesticides). When a target insect (European Corn Borer) eats the Bt-containing plant, the protein is activated in the gut of the insect, which is alkaline (human guts are acidic), and in the alkaline environment the protein partially unfolds and is cut by other proteins, forming a toxin that paralyzes the insect's digestive system and forms holes in the gut wall. The insect stops eating within a few hours and eventually starves to death.

Doesn't work on humans or mammals, or anything else with an acidic stomach.

>>4990954
Yes.

>>4990944
>remember that grass that was modified the wrong way and produced enough cyanide to kill a bunch of cows?

[citation needed]

organic farmers regularly spray bt

>>4990945
>>4990963
http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/23/2147245/cyanide-producing-gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths


http://www.naturalnews.com/036302_cyanide_gas_Tifton-85_Bermuda_grass.html#

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/cyanide-and-poisoned-cows/

http://now.msn.com/cyanide-in-biotech-grass-blamed-for-mass-cattle-death

>>4990971
what is bt?

why is it good/bad?

[citation needed]

>>4990979
except that wasn't GMO.
It's just how that grass IS. Most grasses are capable of producing cyanide. As is wheat, oats, barley, rye, and fucking guavas.

In fact, most plants are capable of cyanogenesis. It's not new or spectacular.

>>4990971
So? Bt is a microbially-derived toxin. There is a difference between spraying Bt responsibly and breeding all your crops to produce Bt... including in the pollen, which poisons important Lepidopteran pollinators.

>>4990988
BT is a protein produced by a bacteria.

It's good because it kills insects that destroy billions of dollars in crops every year.

It's bad because it's not a cure-all. There are now insect species that are resistant to it.

>>4990979
They gave it the cyanide gene?

How exactly would DNA encode for cyanide, something that is not a protein

>>4990979
What?

Your own sources specifically say the grass was not GMO, and in fact had been selectively bred using your luddite methods

>>4991011
prove it, show where it said that.

>>4991030
are you joking?

>>4991035
are you joking?

>>4991036
Apparently those sensationalist fear mongering hacks were a little too quick to report
>As originally published, this story referred to Tifton 85 grass as a genetically-modified product, which is incorrect; it is actually a hybrid of Bermuda grass.

I am really confused as to why you ever even referenced this story as it so clearly makes your people sound dumb

>>4991007
>Organisms don't produce cyanogenic glycosides

>>4991107
Sure some do. But the insertion of one gene wouldn't magically grant them this ability, it is a complex pathway involving many different genes, not something you could accidentally give an organism through the insertion of one gene

>>4991114
Who said genetic modification is limited to the insertion of one gene?

>>4991050
a hybrid of bermuda grass, and what other grass?

what bermuda or that other unnamed grass genetically modified?

by what process was the bermuda grass and other grass hybridized? by selective breeding or by a harsher genetic modification or splicing method? (not grafting)

>>4991114
who says that inserting one gene into a complex organism with complex pathways absolutely could NOT EVER accidentally produce an unwanted effect?

>>4991147
>Who said genetic modification is limited to the insertion of one gene?
its not, but the more genes involved, the more ridiculous and implausible the concept of them accidentally doing this becomes

>>4991158
That is maybe plausible if we are inserting random genes, but such a thing is so unlikely that is is not productive to worry about.

Its like saying "what if CERN creates a black hole?"

>>4991164
wait wait waiiiiiiiiiiit

>the more complicated things get the less likely that something will go wrong


HAHAHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA


am I reading this right?

>>4991164
>its not, but the more genes involved, the more ridiculous and implausible the concept of them accidentally doing this becomes
It's not as crazy as you think. Dhurrin, a well-studied cyanogenic glucoside, has been expressed in transgenic plants before.

People are interested in cyanogenic glucosides for obvious reasons. Molecular biology is also far more advanced than you apparently think.

What are you arguing? Your ignorance?

>>4991179
>Dhurrin, a well-studied cyanogenic glucoside, has been expressed in transgenic plants before.
and also in no-transgenic plants

>>4991171
>Its like saying "what if CERN creates a black hole?"
What a terrible analogy. Assuming that we have fully elucidated all complex biochemical pathways and understand the full implications of gene insertion is retarded.

>>4991180
uh okay?

>>4991186
>Assuming that we have fully elucidated all complex biochemical pathways
You do not need to make this assumption. Stop being ridiculous

>>4991171
a giant machine in an underground lab generating miniature black holes is extremely and absolutely so far off and different than the topic of genetically modified plants.


random genes or not, i find it implausible that you would think that even adding one carefully selected gene or changing one tiny thing even carefully would absolutely never cause an unintended result.

as you/anon said, its complex.

changing even the smallest things can upset a balance that we don't understand yet.

people changing tiny little things that they were sure would be fine can and has resulted in problems throughout history again and again.

my point is that it would be silly to assume that we know everything and that nothing can go wrong just because we ONLY added one gene.


I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4991191
>what is reading comprehension

>>4991186
maybe locked away in some secret government lab, YES.

but available to the outside world, and the rest of the "Not in the big bad evil super team" part of the government, no.

im sure they have the cure for every disease locked away too.

>>4991192
>absolutely never cause an unintended result.
An unintended result is very possible

To worry that this would somehow make the plant toxic for human consumption however is so extremely unlikely it is not even worthwhile to discuss

>>4991194
>I can't focus on the original argument so I'll go off on retarded tangents to change the subject

Tell us more about genetic modification, you seem to be very intelligent.

Basically, artificial sweetener makes you crave actual sugar. If you can control you're cravings, you're fine.

Also, too much soda (whether diet or not) is a lot of phosphoric acid that's bad for your bones. More than 6 cans a day is pushing it.

If you're doing the keto diet, then you may want to avoid it. Some (but not all) find that artificial sweetener kicks them out of ketosis. If you aren't doing keto, then don't worry about it.

>>4990259
there are, but I can't prove it.

>>4991192
>changing even the smallest things can upset a balance that we don't understand yet.
The exact same thing can be said with old fashioned selective breeding. Plants spontaneously mutate all the time, this has never resulted in human health problems

>>4991195
>To worry that this would somehow make the plant toxic for human consumption however is so extremely unlikely it is not even worthwhile to discuss
That's probably why you aren't a researcher or involved in regulations.

>hurrrr what's the matter u hate science or something

>>4991195
>"An unintended result is very possible

To worry that this would somehow make the plant toxic for human consumption however is so extremely unlikely it is not even worthwhile to discuss"

and THAT is why i don't like you monsanto shills, as well as the rest of you careless fools at monsanto.


you need to see yourselves in the mirror.

look at what you are saying. you obviously feel no shame but you need to understand how big of a mistake you are all making.

may G-D be with us all.

>>4991206
>Plants spontaneously mutate all the time, this has never resulted in human health problems
[citation non-existent]

Also, do you think plants spontaneously generate new pathways and multiple gene clusters in a single generation?

>>4991202
yes im very smart and i wear a labcoat all the time and live in a secret lab myself.

>>4991202
"More Human Than Human"
Nexus 6

>>4991209
Maybe he just likes making money for himself and not being a goverment shill?

>>4991223
bu... bu... but do you wear a wizard hat?

>>4991216
>Also, do you think plants spontaneously generate new pathways and multiple gene clusters in a single generation?
Of course they can't, but thats irrelevant.

There is no reason GMO crops should be held to a higher standard than other crops as far as demonstrating safety, the idea that an inserted gene would make a plant accidentally make a plan toxic is no more likely than a plant's spontaneous mutations causing it to become toxic

The fact is the only reason you are afraid of this science is your lack of education on the subject and general dislike for one of the companies profiting from the science

>>4990206
You know what 99% of diet come is?
Water.

>>4990208

correlation != causation

>>4991281
Coke* fuck...

>>4990257
It has been found that there is a direct correlation between people who shit sitting down, and people who die.

from experience, just drink water bro

Be an adult and just drink water.

>>4990221
cant tell if sarcasm

just stay off soda in general ffs, 1 or 2 a week, you arent fixing your soda/obesity problem if you are just going to keep drinking the shit but with "diet" slapped across it. drink water.

>>4991245
i-i should...

>>4991266
>"Of course they can't, but thats irrelevant."

nothing is impossible anon.

>"The fact is the only reason you are afraid of this science is your lack of education on the subject and general dislike for one of the companies profiting from the science"


N-NO U!!!


anon, many people feel like gmo crops aren't being held to a standard on a level that other normal plants are, they feel like monsanto and the FDA etc have all lowered their standards and allowed such horrible things to be going on that simply shouldn't.

>>4991292
no..... 99 drops of carbonated water and one drop of whatever syrup they might add would certainly not make the drink that we know.

>>4991342
water has NOTHING to do with...

NO.

you are a troll.

>>4991420
>fresh milk

When will people understand that raw milk is fucking dangerous? You wouldn't eat raw beef or raw eggs, would you? All of those can harbor dangerous bacteria.

>>4991322
i heard that mososnto was growing genetically modified sits with extra chairs in them

>>4991446
people in some other countries drink raw milk because their animal care and health standards and hygiene are what the standard should be in america... in america the standards are shameful and raw milk would be a death sentence to someone drinking it because of how unsafe it would be to consume that raw from a poor animal living in such horrible unsanitary unnatural conditions.

but it still shocks me that they allow all those other things.

they should stop using yellow 5/fluoride, and raise the hygiene and care standards for animals, so that raw milk would actually be safe like its supposed to be.

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4991446
>You wouldn't eat raw beef or raw eggs
no, but I can buy it

>>4991466
yea! why can't i buy raw milk and cook it myself?

>>4991464
>they should stop using yellow 5/fluoride
Please explain how either of this things increases the probability of food poisoning

>>4991420
>chemo for babbies
so how would you cure cancer from a kid that cant have surgery?

also
>naturalnews.com
these retards like to say vaccines are bad for you.
yeah no

>>4991477
because in my opinion, they ARE poison and should never be in my food in the first place.

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4991493
>opinions
>ok

>>4991527
>in my opinion, they ARE poison
Whether something is poison is not the matter of opinion

and you are wrong

and even if you wee correct, its not like cooking would get rid of fluoride, so not sure what that has to do with the dangers of raw milk

>>4991446
it all depends. raw milk from the hormone pumped cattle here in the states can be dangerous, but still my father (grew up in romania) gets raw milk from a local, small producer and drinks it fine, sometimes a little heated up. it really is a matter of your tolerance, in america we have shit tolerances since everything is ultra-pasteurized. people still eat raw meat and eggs though, all depends. dont just scream out "muh germs"

>>4991546
why do you possibly believe that cow hormones would make raw milk dangerous?

>>4990208
>Fat people are always on diets therefore diets make people fat

>>4991562
well, hormones that should never have been injected in the first place, not always naturally found in cows...

>>4991596
>that should never have been injected in the first place
According to who? God? You sound like a cray religious person afraid to mess with "god's work"

Who are you to determine whether they should be?

Also what does that have to do with the rawness issue?

Also there is no correlation between natural and good. There are plenty of natural things that will fucking kill us, like bears, and plenty of unnatural things that are great

>>4990188
NEVER EVER EVER DRINK DIET SODA
It's worse for you than normal soda
I had a friend that almost died because one of the main ingredients in diet soda kills you slowly

>>4991543
>"and even if you wee correct, its not like cooking would get rid of fluoride, so not sure what that has to do with the dangers of raw milk"


WOT?

>>4991624

lol wat

I know you. I meet people like you all the time. It's not any more dangerous than reg soda. In fact, if idiots absolutely need to drink the shit, I would push them towards diet.

But please, please just drink water. Set a good example for the children around you. I don't want our youth watching a bunch of man children drinking human pet food like they're fucking rats in cages

go ahead, give coke and pepsi your money. They love it when you buy their syrup.

>>4991543
i disagree and also i can't understand your english.

I am not a doctor. Ask your doctor before doing anything.

>>4991629
You disagree?

You think toxicity is a subjective property?

>>4991628
>>4991614
ABANDON THREAD

INSANE PEOPLE ATTACKING

THREAD OVERLOADED WITH SHILLS AND TROLLS

SAGE

>>4991633
HEREBETROLLS.jpg

>>4991633
The earth mothers spirit will cleanse you of toxins

you liberals are the worst

>>4991637
this thread didnt stand a chance m8 im out with my chocolate

>>4991629
>Ask your doctor before doing anything.
You have way too much faith in the medical education system.

>protip: I'm doing my residency

>>4991266
>The fact is the only reason you are afraid of this science is your lack of education on the subject
I'm a second year PhD student working in plant pathology. There is a reason my posts about Bt and cyanogenic gluosides were the only informative posts in this thread.

I routinely use E. coli and A. tumefaciens for cloning and transformation. I have about 400 transgenic Arabidopsis plants in the greenhouse right now.

You, on the other hand, no absolutely nothing about this science besides what you've read on Cracked. You think the wide scale planting of millions of hectares of inadequately tested transgenic crops is fine because "science is cool" and "people know what they are doing".

In short, you are just as bad, if not worse, than the overly-cautious ignorant side.

>>4990190
I hate those people so much

They come into my work, bringing their fat bodies with them, saying "I'll take a whole deep-friend schnitzel on white bread, lots of margarine, - no - no salads. Hey (partner), do you want to go buy the chips from next door while I pay for this? Oh, and a large diet coke, thanks."

The shop is called HEALTHY HABITS YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE GET OUT

>>4991791
>>4990190
I do that because I don't like drinking sugary drinks but enjoy Diet Coke. Problem?

Why do you think someone has to drink a dessert beverage with a hamburger?

>>4991788
>I routinely use E. coli and A. tumefaciens for cloning and transformation. I have about 400 transgenic Arabidopsis plants in the greenhouse right now.
then why the hell are you so delusionally fearful?

>>4991650
>IMPLYING ANY OF THIS HAS ANYTHINNGGG TO DO WITH WHAT PARTY YOU BELONG TO?!?!??!


YOU FOOL!

>>4991805
How is being a proponent of more adequate testing before commercialization being "delusionally" fearful?

The issue we are seeing with Bt-transgenic crops was obvious to most critics prior to the ubiquitous planting of said crops. People didn't listen and key pollinators are at risk.

But no, I'm sure someone like you who has no idea about the field you are vehemently arguing about can form a coherent argument based on facts and not emotion.

>>4991807
liberals are the only ones ignorant about science to the extent that they are afraid of things like vaccines, MSG and GMO.

>>4991808
>How is being a proponent of more adequate testing before commercialization being "delusionally" fearful?
How much testing do you desire. Would there ever be a point where you people admitted enough is enough?

>>4991810
>liberals are the only ones ignorant about science to the extent that they are afraid of things like vaccines, MSG and GMO.
1. Most scientists are liberals.
2. Religious right-wingers are terrified about the HPV vaccine and all the "mark of the devil" technology bullshit.

>>4991810
Stem cell research? HPV vaccinations?

>>4991817
>Religious right-wingers are terrified about the HPV vaccine
Not true. Some of the crazy southern style are crazily angered by the social implications of given it to their daughters. They are not afraid of biological dangers or its efficacy

The only people opposed to vaccines in general are the idiot west coast style liberals

>>4991814
>How much testing do you desire. Would there ever be a point where you people admitted enough is enough?
>where you people
There is no point in arguing with emotional and ignorant people. Keep politicizing every topic and only seeing things as two extremes instead of a continuum.

>>4991798
What I meant by>>4991791 was more how these people come in and order a clearly unhealthy meal, and then top it off with a "diet" coke. As if they think that will save them or negate the absolute lack of nutrition in what they're about to eat.

Its such cognitive dissonance that it is ridiculous

>>4991832
So what? It's their money, let them die. I don't take it personally. See you take shit personally that's none of your business, if they want to kill themselves how is that any skin off of your back?

>>4991830
>There is no point in arguing with emotional and ignorant people
says the guy spending time on 4chan

>>4990269
That sounds like a really bad way to get in the mindframe to reward yourself with food...

>>4991832
Your head is going to explode worrying about what others do instead to making your own path in life.

>>4991848
So what? You've lost the plot, as long as the government's not paying for it, so the fuck what?

Fucking tard!

>>4991864
Yeah, fuck progress, liets bog it down with more red tape and delays on the off chance that one day we might find something dangerous

While we are at it why don't we ban alcohol because that can be dangerous, oh and lets ban driving to cut down on traffic deaths too

>>4990188

Your logic is impeccable, Sir.

However, phosphoric acid will gnaw through your bones and teeth until you are as brittle as a coral sponge.

Water. 0 calories, 0 taste. #pure.

>>4991858
>>4991845

>I just want people to be happy and healthy and not make stupid choices
>mostly the second thing
>;-;

>>4991868
Progress is ignoring the government and making your own path. The USA was founded on indvidualism not some comministic collectivist bullshit. You'd do right to learn that.

>>4991830
You cannot let yourself be paralyzed by fear

We should encourage people to do things, not make it tougher. Sure things will go wrong once in a while, people will make some mistakes, but in the long run the vast majority of us will be better off for it

>>4990188
May as well drink piss. Diet cokes, zero cokes, pepsi all taste like shit.
Go classic or go home.

>>4991430
>hurr durr syrup has no water in it.
Please think for a minute. Or hey, don't just read this:
http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4368

For every 100g of diet cola, 99.58g is water. This shouldn't even be this hard to believe, pretty much all soda is ~90 parts water 10 parts chemicals.

>>4991895
HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE HUE

Just make Iced Tea with Stevia.

>>4991907
>I'm just pretending to be retarded! honest! I can stop whenever I want.

>>4990732
Also to mention that some people have issues with them in their digestive tracts. They can give you gas or worse -- the shits. Just look up the amazon reviews for haribo sugar free gummy bears.

>>4991895
I'd just like to be that guy and point out water itself is a chemical.

>>4990188
Just drink water you dumb faggot.

>>4992024
I'd like to be that guy that points out that you can't grasp the fact that he is talking about chemicals that don't need to be in food or drink in the first place and that everyone and their mother knows everything is made of chemicals. He's obviously talking about what he believes to be bad chemicals.

But, no, you have to be an idiot and not get that.

>>4990491
This link hasn't been proven conclusively in the human model.

>>4993197
But when something is proven safe in mice you think it is safe for people.

Makes sense.

>>4993207
No you don't. That's what confirmatory human trials are for.

>>4993226
Late-stage clinical trials are usually a couple thousand people with effects monitored for maybe a couple months.

>>4993234
Yep.

>>4990738
same as labeling things as "organic"

stevia is just a buzzword these days

>>4993256
>stevia is just a buzzword these days
How is an ingredient a buzzword?

>>4993263
As in labeling something stevia when it's not entirely stevia I suppose? But I guess just about every product is like that in some way.

You still drink soda.
Sad.

>>4990235
>1300-1500 kcal is starving yourself
Are you American or something?

>>4990208
Basically this >>4990464
>their entire basis is "Stuff that tastes sweet makes you want more sweets! You'll cheat on your diet and get fat again!"
This is correlation, not causation. If you're the guy that uses
diet soda as a gateway drink, of course you'll get fat, but due to other things. Diet soda can't cause you to put on weight, I mean, ffs, it's literally ZERO calories. Where the hell does the energy to cause weight gain come from?

>>4990188
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/51/6/963.short

Short term: OK
Long Term: Faak no!

Drink all you want. Nothing wrong with aspartame other than it tastes terrible.

as a femanon let me tell you...
diet soda is evil, there's university studies on this too so google it. When one drinks diet soda, the fake sugars in it like splenda will trigger a response in your brain and youll want to eat more, and consume more sweets. diet coke doesnt really satisfy you, it feeds the gluttony

>>4998924
>Imposing the requirement to drink 1135 g/d of APM-sweetened soda on normal-weight, freely feeding subjects decreased calorie intake significantly (by 7%) and reduced body weight slightly (significantly in males).
>Ingesting either type of soda reduced intake of sugar from the diet without affecting intake of other nutrients. Drinking large volumes of APM-sweetened soda, in contrast to drinking HFCS-sweetened soda, reduces sugar intake and thus may facilitate the control of calorie intake and body weight

I don't see any mention of long-term ill effects.

>>5000561
>The present results suggest that these short-term changes in the motivation to eat do not accumulate into an increase in long-term calorie intake. Perhaps with repeated exposure, adaptation occurs to the appetite-stimulant effect of artificial sweeteners.
This was notable, too. Old study, though.

Amongst the foodstuffs that cause stomach to produce most stomach acids, cheese and artificial sweeteners are the very top of the list - artificial sweeteners about 3 times higher factor than cheese.

Effect: heartburn.
Easiest way to stop heartburn: eat something "heavy" that will absorb/engage the acids. It's the instinct reaction.

Well, if you never have problems with heartburn - or just carry pills against it with you at all times - feel free to drink sugar-free soda.

>this entire thread

Excess of anything is bad for you. Excessive sugar in any form is linked to obesity and diabetes. Just drink water if you want to lose weight.