Sugar Cartels plot to Destroy Humanity --- A.K.A Humanities Sweet Demise

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
It’s interesting cigarettes require a minimum age to purchase and are required to have warning labels. Your insurance wants you to tell your doctor if you smoke and insist on asking. But sugar? Why is one OK?

It's all about what activists group push the most... I would say many companies are looking much closer at the people they hire today as to the overall health of people applying.

a reply to: Xtrozero

ok gotcha, I can definitely agree with you there though I think it affects me differently,
If I have too many carbs, its nap time for me and I definitely couldn't finish a whole pie even if I wanted to.

I haven't eaten at a fast food restaurant, drank soda or any drink with HFCS in over 20 years. just that change alone was difficult but it made a huge difference for me within months and I never went back.
Don't don't get me wrong I still love me a good cheeseburger (or two) and fries, I just make them from fresher ingredients at home.
I'm still 110 pounds lighter with just that change.
The idea that my gummy bears or starburst, or favorite ice cream is causing me damage now isn't sitting well.
Ive already been through my fridge and cabinets twice in the past few days since reading this.
Honestly not giving up ice cream... idgaf

It's been known for many decades-since the 60's at least-that sugar substitutes are poison to our bodies, yet people continue to consume and manufacturers make more profit.

It's hard to comprehend why a 300 pound person would drink a 6 pack of diet soda each day and use sugar substitutes in hopes of loosing weight. Just because companies say it's a healthy alternative doesn't mean it is.

originally posted by: nugget1
It's been known for many decades-since the 60's at least-that sugar substitutes are poison to our bodies, yet people continue to consume and manufacturers make more profit.

It's hard to comprehend why a 300 pound person would drink a 6 pack of diet soda each day and use sugar substitutes in hopes of loosing weight. Just because companies say it's a healthy alternative doesn't mean it is.

Well, people have been told that sugar is extremely bad and so people go with corn syrup and substitutes which are most likely much worst. The OP's study is recent so this was not known for 60 years, and they talk about trace amounts, so who knows? How does a pack of substitutes equate to a shot of whiskey for example?

We also lived for many generations that the food pyramid was mostly carbs with meat and things like eggs were seen as the worst food you could put in your mouth. Maybe all that is from a secret war that vegetarians have been waging. I'm thinking that if they were/are the people most likely to become obsessed with foods in general, then I see them going into that profession over others, and so they have been most likely the ones dictating what is good or bad.

With everyone connected to each other, we have started to see a shift in only the last 10 years as to what is actually good for you seen as bad before, and what is not so good but forever was seen as the best. One example is cutting carbs out of your diet or fasting for days...both were a "are you trying to kill yourself" level of response.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: datguy

I guess my point is unless you live a very strick lifestyle everyone is killing themselves in a dozen of ways and don't really care, including myself.

I feel the same way. I have researched so many different items over the years every time I get determined to only eat healthy - just to find out that even many of those items aren't good for you either (cacao for example). I believe that makes it harder to have willpower.

originally posted by: TruthJava

I feel the same way. I have researched so many different items over the years every time I get determined to only eat healthy - just to find out that even many of those items aren't good for you either (cacao for example). I believe that makes it harder to have willpower.

Or you just do not invest a ton of effort into it. I eat healthy, but I also smoke cigars and drink whisky, etc. I also stay in shape and keep my general health in check. I have always believed that the body handles a lot of stuff seen as bad with little effect, it is when you overdo things is when you overwhelm the body downs bad health paths.

So, is this artificial sweetener introduction into the diet one of the contributing factors in this article?

medicalxpress.com...

So, science says that life expectancy is dropping, yet the government says life expectancy is going up so you have to be older to get full retirement benefits now. Something seems wrong to me. Maybe it is because a sixty five year old can get more done than the young or something.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The OP's study is recent so this was not known for 60 years

There was evidence 60 years ago that it was harmful to ones' health and more recent studies just add more information to how in-depth the harm is.

We also lived for many generations that the food pyramid was mostly carbs with meat and things like eggs were seen as the worst food you could put in your mouth. Maybe all that is from a secret war that vegetarians have been waging.

Yes! Eggs were bad, until they weren't; coffee was bad, until it wasn't. The thing with root crops is modern farming depletes nutrients from the soil and doesn't replace them. Things like selenium levels-necessary to the human condition-are sorely lacking.

Our bodies know how to process natural ingredients, but haven't yet adapted to all of the chemical additives to preserve shelf life. Popping a vitamin isn't as effective as ingesting what our bodies need by natural means, and those nutrients are now lacking and/or missing from our diets.

Our species will either adapt to an overly processed diet or die out. At the rate they keep adding chemicals without long-term studies on their harm (or falsified records) the future looks to be a bit challenging.

To get a more complete picture science needs to add in studies on EMF, ELF and RF along with increased radiation from the solar system, GMO's, Glyphosate and everything else that makes the wealthy even wealthier-so no chance of the average person wrapping their head around the assault on our environment/bodies/existence.

I don't believe for one second that the rich and famous eat the same poisons the average Joe is forced to eat, nor do I believe they rolled up their sleeves for an experimental vaccine that had been studied for decades with less than favorable outcomes.

a reply to: rickymouse
i couldnt find any public copies of the actual study, and im not paying for the pdf
AJPH

intersting article but hard to say for sure, definitely could be one of many factors in that timespan,
nuclear tests, war, smoking, sugar, without the specifics and the countries used for the comparisons you cant really decipher much

originally posted by: nugget1

I don't believe for one second that the rich and famous eat the same poisons the average Joe is forced to eat, nor do I believe they rolled up their sleeves for an experimental vaccine that had been studied for decades with less than favorable outcomes.

I'm not rich or famous, but I buy my meat by the 1/2 cow off a grass-fed rancher and it costs me in the end 5 bucks a pound. It is not hard to eat well, just takes a little effort to plan it all.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: nugget1

I don't believe for one second that the rich and famous eat the same poisons the average Joe is forced to eat, nor do I believe they rolled up their sleeves for an experimental vaccine that had been studied for decades with less than favorable outcomes.

I'm not rich or famous, but I buy my meat by the 1/2 cow off a grass-fed rancher and it costs me in the end 5 bucks a pound. It is not hard to eat well, just takes a little effort to plan it all.

I agree! Unfortunately, those living in large cities don't have those options as a rule, and lack the knowledge to 'forage' in todays world even if given the opportunity!

Wild asparagus wonderful, if you live in an area where it can be found and know what to look for.
I'm fortunate to live in farm country, and many old homesteads are now long gone, but their fruit trees remain; some right next to the back roads. The fruit isn't blemish free, but it cans up just as good as the chemically treated store bought fruit.

There's an organic beef and hog farm less than a mile from our home. If you eat grass fed beef for a season it's hard to go back to store-bought, hormone laced faux meat.

People spend a fortune on triple antibiotic creams, ant-itch lotions, antibacterial, antioxidants and the like; I just got to my side yard and gather some plantain. The best part is there are no side effects and it works better than the high-priced alternative in most cases.

I hate to be that guy but "Humanities" should be "Humanity's"

Here's the correct understanding of the difference between the two terms (according to AI):
"Humanity's" is the possessive form of the noun "humanity," which refers to all human beings collectively or the condition of being human. For example, "Humanity's future depends on our ability to address climate change."

On the other hand, "humanities" is a plural noun that refers to academic disciplines that study human culture, such as literature, philosophy, history, and art. For example, "Studying the humanities can help us better understand the human experience."

So, while "humanity's" refers to the entirety of the human race, "humanities" refers to specific academic fields that study human culture.

a reply to: datguy

I read this as a recovering sugar addict sugar free for a month and a half. And I WAS an addict, because sugar is a drug no less destructive than most other drugs or alcohol. Since doing so I have lost 13 lbs., am sleeping better, my mood has stabilized, and I no longer crave food all the time. And I DO believe sugar is some kind of component for population control at the very least; if people were to kick the sugar habit en masse, the general health of the population would improve drastically, and the medical establishment would lose out on a huge pile of money. I have often thought our problem isn't a need for better health care, it's a need for better health, facilitated by not eating the poisons we ingest daily, of which sugar is on the top of the list.

From my opinion, it’s less about activists groups and more about putting restrictions on people. We are trained that some substances are illegal and this is for our benefit as we are told. Some of those same substances could be prescribed by someone with authority, a doctor, but as an individual you aren’t able to make a choice to consume without breaking laws.

Then other interests push legal addictive substances like sugar.

It seems pretty easy to convince folks to be activists towards any cause if you have the resources.

a reply to: Xtrozero