Starbucks is discontinuing Hazelnut coffee

[Scatterbrained]

I'm not a biochemist so I don't know all the specifics of how the body digests what, but while it's true that the body will take what it needs and eliminate the rest, you're going to get more of what you need from some things and less from others. There are also other substances that are in some foods and not in others. The process also takes varying amounts of time, which affects the body differently.

You're just not getting the same things out of a candy bar than you are going to get from meat or vegetables.

Right what I am saying like Jazzie mentioned is the house analogy. Think of the body as a house trying to be built. You need basic supplies, (bricks, wood, tiles..etc) every day a truck delivers supplies 3 times a day. Some trucks have more bricks, others have more wood some only have one supply while other have all evenly mixed.

...and what if the truck bringing the lumber starting bringing "synthetic" lumber? Lumber that supposedly looked and performed like real wood but actually bowed over time as well as releasing toxic vapors into your home? There are a lot of things that the agriculture lobby have managed to slip past the FDA that are actually quite bad for you over time. Aspartame comes to mind as a major one. . . . .

I curious what about my analogy you disagree with here Runnah? Think about this: when "mass production" techniques were first being introduced to agriculture, the south suddenly started dealing with outbreaks of Pellagra; a disease that no-one understood at the time. The peoples diet hadn't changed. They were eating the same foods in the same quantities. What was different was that the processed grains and cornmeal had been stripped of niacin (vitamin B3). That was before the era of "food science" too. Think of all the weird **** they're doing to your food now. Meanwhile, Aspartame (something that only made it through FDA approval with some heavy handed political wrangling from Don Rumsfeld) has been found to have a 1:1 correlation with metabolic syndrome. But sure, it doesn't matter what you put in your body, it's all the same, just keep drinkin that diet soda.

 

[runnah]

Nope, sorry but that is 100% inaccurate and physically impossible. The only way for one tomatoe to be more nutritious than another is for it to be physically bigger.

Why?

Because like I said, the tomato only knows how to grow into a tomato. It may grow bigger and faster in some environments but it's not going to be chemically different.

 

[runnah]

I curious what about my analogy you disagree with here Runnah? Think about this: when "mass production" techniques were first being introduced to agriculture, the south suddenly started dealing with outbreaks of Pellagra; a disease that no-one understood at the time. The peoples diet hadn't changed. They were eating the same foods in the same quantities. What was different was that the processed grains and cornmeal had been stripped of niacin (vitamin B3). That was before the era of "food science" too. Think of all the weird **** they're doing to your food now. Meanwhile, Aspartame (something that only made it through FDA approval with some heavy handed political wrangling from Don Rumsfeld) has been found to have a 1:1 correlation with metabolic syndrome. But sure, it doesn't matter what you put in your body, it's all the same, just keep drinkin that diet soda.

I didn't disagree with it. I think certain things are hookum, organics spring to mind, but I do think there are some less than moral things going on.

 

[limr30 3]

Because like I said, the tomato only knows how to grow into a tomato. It may grow bigger and faster in some environments but it's not going to be chemically different.

But it would be getting different nutrients - or NOT getting those nutrients - based on soil fertility and composition. Different locations have different soils. Different farming techniques allow more or less nutrient absorption by the plant. So they would be chemically different when analyzing the nutrients that have been absorbed into that tomato, which would then presumably be processed by the person eating the tomato.

 

[runnah]

But it would be getting different nutrients - or NOT getting those nutrients - based on soil fertility and composition. Different locations have different soils. Different farming techniques allow more or less nutrient absorption by the plant. So they would be chemically different when analyzing the nutrients that have been absorbed into that tomato, which would then presumably be processed by the person eating the tomato.

Not enough to be statistically relevant, and certainly not enough to pay $5 for a tomato.

 

[JustJazzie]

The proof is in your health. Runnah, let's note you are currently taking medicine because I assume you are ill, where as I and my "hokum" organic diet with no added chemicals have not been sick in over two years.

So you go ahead and pay $10 for your Nyquil, and I'll spend $5 on my organic over priced tomato and who actually came out ahead?
*shrug*

 

[limr30 3]

But it would be getting different nutrients - or NOT getting those nutrients - based on soil fertility and composition. Different locations have different soils. Different farming techniques allow more or less nutrient absorption by the plant. So they would be chemically different when analyzing the nutrients that have been absorbed into that tomato, which would then presumably be processed by the person eating the tomato.

Not enough to be statistically relevant, and certainly not enough to pay $5 for a tomato.

It depends, I suppose. Certain plants will be more sensitive to the soil composition than others. Some plants may absorb more pesticide than another, even if the same amount was sprayed. I do think that sometimes organic isn't worth the extra money because the pesticide would be absorbed by a part of the plant that we discard anyway, but for other things, it might make a difference. I know the differences of an individual plant might not be huge, but that also depends on what is making its way into that plant. Heavy metals, for example, might be present in minuscule amounts in one plant, but consuming small amounts for a long period of time might result in high levels of those metals in a person's body. We don't always eliminate stuff that's bad for us, after all. Some of it makes its way into cells and then stays put.

Anyway, it might not be worth it to some to pay extra for organic produce, but for others, it is. Capitalism and all, y'know

 

[limr30 3]

In other news, I'm currently enjoying a lovely cup of Starbucks coffee with some whole milk added! Yum!

 

[JustJazzie]

Except that tomato isn't "just" a to

But it would be getting different nutrients - or NOT getting those nutrients - based on soil fertility and composition. Different locations have different soils. Different farming techniques allow more or less nutrient absorption by the plant. So they would be chemically different when analyzing the nutrients that have been absorbed into that tomato, which would then presumably be processed by the person eating the tomato.

Not enough to be statistically relevant, and certainly not enough to pay $5 for a tomato.

tomato, it's Likely a genetically modified tomato blended with some "nutritious" pesticides, while you may get the same benifits from the tomato parts, you are consuming poision along with it. Suppressing your immune system and the benifits of consuming it in the first place

 

[runnah]

The proof is in your health. Runnah, let's note you are currently taking medicine because I assume you are ill, where as I and my "hokum" organic diet with no added chemicals have not been sick in over two years.

So you go ahead and pay $10 for your Nyquil, and I'll spend $5 on my organic over priced tomato and who actually came out ahead?
*shrug*

Don't you smoke?

 

[Scatterbrained]

So you're saying there is no such ththing as "higher quality wood" I can get solid wood, wood with termite holes, twigs and branches, or pressed particle board and I would end up with the same quality house in the end? After all, it's all "wood"

Yes, a tomato only knows how to grow into a tomato. it doesn't know if it's been grown is a field, green house or lab. The gene structure of a tomato doesn't change depending where it's grown (short of being outside chernobyl).

No, but it changes quite a bit depending on who's growing it.

A steak is not the same as a candy bar. It's not just about calories. The body is going to process a steak differently from how it processes a candy bar.

No it's not.

Your body breaks down all food into basic elements which it can absorb. The rest is passed.

Not quite. Now you're starting to sound like the corn lobby with their "sugar is sugar, your body can't tell the difference" crap.

Going back to this with a very simple, introductory explanation of two different types of sugars that I dug up for you. I wanted to find something for you that would be straightforward and easy to follow, while explaining just why two seemingly interchangable ingredients (in this case glucose vs. fructose) can effect your body in very different ways:

Glucose
The most important monosaccharide is glucose, the body’s preferred energy source. Glucose is also called blood sugar, as it circulates in the blood, and relies on the enzymes glucokinase or hexokinase to initiate metabolism. Your body processes most carbohydrates you eat into glucose, either to be used immediately for energy or to be stored in muscle cells or the liver as glycogen for later use. Unlike fructose, insulin is secreted primarily in response to elevated blood concentrations of glucose, and insulin facilitates the entry of glucose into cells.

Fructose
Fructose is a sugar found naturally in many fruits and vegetables, and added to various beverages such as soda and fruit-flavored drinks. However, it is very different from other sugars because it has a different metabolic pathway and is not the preferred energy source for muscles or the brain. Fructose is only metabolized in the liver and relies on fructokinase to initiate metabolism. It is also more lipogenic, or fat-producing, than glucose. Unlike glucose, too, it does not cause insulin to be released or stimulate production of leptin, a key hormone for regulating energy intake and expenditure. These factors raise concerns about chronically high intakes of dietary fructose, because it appears to behave more like fat in the body than like other carbohydrates.

Meanwhile, we are bombarded daily with "high fructose corn syrup" instead of natural sugars, and we wonder why there is such an obesity epidemic.

 

[runnah]

Except that tomato isn't "just" a tomato, it's Likely a genetically modified tomato blended with some "nutritious" pesticides, while you may get the same benifits from the tomato parts, you are consuming poision along with it. Suppressing your immune system and the benifits of consuming it in the first place

Is this backed up by a peer-reviewed study or just propaganda?

 

[waday]

In other news, I'm currently enjoying a lovely cup of Starbucks coffee with some whole milk added! Yum!

I enjoy the Holiday blend immensely. Just like the Tribute blend.

More so than any other coffee.

 

[runnah]

Meanwhile, we are bombarded daily with "high fructose corn syrup" instead of natural sugars, and we wonder why there is such an obesity epidemic.

I never said HFCS was good for you.

 

[JustJazzie]

The proof is in your health. Runnah, let's note you are currently taking medicine because I assume you are ill, where as I and my "hokum" organic diet with no added chemicals have not been sick in over two years.

So you go ahead and pay $10 for your Nyquil, and I'll spend $5 on my organic over priced tomato and who actually came out ahead?
*shrug*

Don't you smoke?

Marijuana occasionally. I prefer edables.;-)