|SolRo - 2011-04-23 |
IT'S CORN SUGAR!
Your body cannot tell the difference!
|Black Napkins - 2011-04-23 |
Up until about 1:50, it's nearly the same recipe that I use for tortillas, I'm just using an alkaline. And unless they're trying to scare me away from tortillas as well, the idea that this is supposed to be scary is ridiculous.
We're not really good at digesting corn on its own. People've been chemically treating corn to make it more edible for centuries.
...not really sure what to rate this, but good find, Sudan.
sulfuric acid, other crap, and artificial enzymes arent the same as one treatment in lye.
They aren't trying to "be scary" really. King Corn is fairly balanced in portraying the corn syrup advocates as normal people. They are a bit too kind to Earl Butz in my opinion. The man was a total monster, but then it's about understanding what corn syrup is and the politics and science of the corn sugar industry, coupled with the gimmick that these two schmoes can start their own corn company with a tiny plot of land, and less connected to the organic/slow food movement.
So they accomplished their goals in making the doc.
Never thought I'd see a corn agra-shill here.
Do you suck Monsanto cock too?
It's just basic chemistry, your statement that treatment in lye is somehow materially different than sulfuric acid and "artificial" enzymes is silly and demonstrates that there are some basic concepts in chemistry that you would find well worth picking up.
The acid treatment is in a very dilute acid, which is neutralized before the end of the process. I'm not sure how much sulfate ion is behind (it probably gets removed in the final filtering and separation), but I doubt it is any more than we get naturally.
The "artificial" enzymes you are referring is just amylase used to hydrolyze starch (we've been doing this kind of thing for ages, look up Takadiastase). You have an amylase in your spit as well. The only difference between the stuff in your spit and the stuff in that bottle is that they changed a few amino acids in the sequence to optimize efficiency of the enzyme (this also helps copyright things so you can be the only person to sell it in a bottle and give it a fancy name like Turbo Amylase).
It's not obvious to me how much amylase makes it past the final filtering and separation stages (I doubt you could actually detect any), not that it matters, the protein gets hydrolyzed in your stomach and it can't tell the difference. Remember any time you eat a piece of meat, you eat a jumble of proteins that were present in the tissue. Until you show that there is a very specific type of amylase toxicity, you would have to guess that it's getting processed just like all the other proteins that you swallow (including the amylase in your saliva).
There might be a lot wrong with corn starch in our diets (apart from the fact that products made with it often just don't taste very good), but you don't actually identify any of them with the points you raise.
Borrowed solution isn't a corn agra-shill, he just has (at least) a reasonably good grasp on basic chemistry, which is tough to obtain if you don't have good teachers. I hope I have been a good teacher to you.
Thanks gmol. Basic is right, so I couldn't put it as eloquently as you did, but that's more or less what I was getting at.
And Solro: The funny part about this is that you're actually a shill. But the worst kind of shill, because you unknowingly peddle pseudo-scientific nonsense because of your feelings of outrage (which you're basing on the opinions of, amongst other people, a couple of college-fresh meatheads in the grain basket) and NOT because of any sort of scientific or critical thinking you've done on the matter.
So have fun sucking hippy cock, at least it tastes nice because you feel better about it, right?
FUnny how you retards think modern mass chemical processing is perfectly fine because natural lye was used for thousands of years.
Whoooops, mercury can make it into the acids and bases you idiots are claiming to be perfectly safe.
Only completely fucking naive dumbasses think industrial level producers use 100% pure lab-grade chemicals.
Well, it is an interesting article alright (oft cited by anti-corn people), but read it carefully:
Mercury was not detected in eleven out of twenty HFCS samples analyzed (detection limit 0.005 μg mercury/g).
The implications for mercury in ingested HFCS are not known and clearly more epidemiological and neurotoxicological studies are required.
The article is really about the fact that we should be taking a more careful look at mercury in food sources and that there is good reason to consider that individuals that consume HFCS at a higher than average level could be at risk for mercury exposure, but no one is breaking any glass here. One of the last lines in the conclusion is:
Food products that contain a significant amount of HFCS should be tested for mercury contamination in the end product and the public should be informed of any detections.
I think you would have a hard time finding anyone that disagrees with the notion that food products should be regularly tested for safety, and that this testing is worth considerable investment. This paper is basically advocating for more funding for food safety testing. I'm not sure what the latest is in this area, but I have a reasonable amount of faith in food producers in America (corpses don't make good customers), I'll bet mercury contamination rates have improved since the publication of articles like these.
Industrial food producers don't use lab grade chemicals, they use "food grade", which is typically of lower purity (it would very impractical to sell ingredients with lab grade purity, and pointless considering that they are just going to end up getting mixed in with a bunch of other stuff in the end anyway).
I'm okay with ingesting mercury. I think Solro's been doing it and he's a pretty smart guy.
The latest consensus (AFAIK) is that we can observe short term divergences in satiety in rats which ingest significant amounts of fructose vs. sucrose. We don't know if this applies to humans, and we have no idea what this means long term for humans or rats.
But it's not NATURAL (whatever that means) and artificial things are bad for me!!! I likes me my all-natural ingredients like nightshade, and hemlock, and...wait..isn't uranium natural? What the fuck does that word mean, anyways?
So we have to be fat in order to understand chemistry? I never said anything about HFCS being good for anybody or not, but there's a difference between 'treatment with' and 'addition of' chemicals, and that has nothing to do with whether or not HFCS is good for you. If you want to get people to listen to your opinions about things like this, it makes sense not to blow a bunch of smoke out your ass about trivial chemical processes. (ie. Solro)
That's really the only point I wanted to make. I'll agree that eating substantial amounts of refined sugars is not good for your health, but we already knew that, didn't we?
The issue is moot if you have enough self control to avoid cramming sweets down your fat gullet until you die from it like an overgrown child.
|boner - 2011-04-23 |
Someone forward this to Masaokis. I want to know if this shit is flammable.
|spikestoyiu - 2011-04-23 |
He looks a lot different from his NES Pro Wrestling days.
|Valkor - 2011-04-24 |
5 for stupid bullshit meant to scare idiots.
I wanted a video of someone making corn syrup at home, this was the only one. I could have done without the mooks pronouncing sciencey words funny.
|mudl - 2011-04-24 |
this is great. it's not scary, it's actually a pretty good tutorial, with some ignorable rhetoric thrown in. thx!
|cognitivedissonance - 2011-04-24 |
I really like Sweettarts. Am I evil?
| Register or login To Post a Comment|