Is this some kind of campaign by Coke? This is absolutely absurd (even more absurd that it made it to the frontpage) Coke has more sugar than Pepsi, yet it's as if Pepsi is exclusively bad for you.What a f**king joke this place has become!
OK. I believe your sincerity. So maybe U were exercising more or walking more or running more. I just cannot accept that U made no other changes. Again, I use the mathematical method 2 attempt to determine truth. The only way to truly convince people would B 2 have a journal which defined everything U did for the entire 13 months 2 lose 60 lbs. Speculation, no matter how genuine is not science. Happy New Year.
Irrelevant.Glucose > FructoseThe difference is processed sugar is bad for you, whereas natural sugar is good for the brain and nerve system, because your body recognizes it and implements it accordingly.Just because something is called 'sugar' or 'fat' doesn't make it immediately bad for you.Protip- candy that states it's 'fat-free' is, in fact, "fat-free" but loaded with sugars- therein lies the problem because fructose is IMMEDIATELY turned to long-term fat in your system, making you fat despite not eating fat.
Because don't any of you know? Obama has everything to do with soda!I'm not going to explain how that works, but it somehow involves question marks and the final stage as 'profit.'True Story
R U unable to type the words 'are' and 'you,' misshavana or R U able to contribute to the conversation besides unquestioningly meaningless drivel? (That's rhetorical btw.) It makes no difference if you drink diet pop or regular, sugary colas, drinking 4-6 cans in a day of either is gonna mess you up.
Mexico has more billionaires than the US- and more natural resources-so there is a greater disparity between rich and poor. It is not racist to say that. Be that as it may, the US has a large disparity (still smaller than Mexico's) as well, and I use the disparities as a metric by which to measure the overall welfare of the nation. thereby, the poorer people in Mexico are generally less well off. They, however, do not get HFCS in their caloric beverages because they do no have a tariff on sugar like we do. In summary, despite the fact that the mexican people are statistically poorer, they still get to drink sugar instead of the poison that is HFCS and there is nothing racist about pointing that out. BTW, when you pull the race card, it sucks in your entire argument and you apparently lose the ability to reason.
ferretmanDec 25, 2009
Actually, Pepsi *Throwback* has the sugar. The "regular" Pepsi has corn syrup...ick.
televisionDec 26, 2009
Is this some kind of campaign by Coke? This is absolutely absurd (even more absurd that it made it to the frontpage) Coke has more sugar than Pepsi, yet it's as if Pepsi is exclusively bad for you.What a f**king joke this place has become!
misshavanaDec 29, 2009
PhillyMJS--U won! The grand prize: all the women U want 4 life. They R all 450 lb. Samoans--suuucker!
misshavanaDec 30, 2009
OK. I believe your sincerity. So maybe U were exercising more or walking more or running more. I just cannot accept that U made no other changes. Again, I use the mathematical method 2 attempt to determine truth. The only way to truly convince people would B 2 have a journal which defined everything U did for the entire 13 months 2 lose 60 lbs. Speculation, no matter how genuine is not science. Happy New Year.
shutitdownJan 3, 2010
Maybe if I just close the window and restart my computer I can get away wi... ALL HAIL THE HYPNOTOAD!!!
deweyhewsonJan 8, 2010
<a class="user" href="http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6660/pepsilogo.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6660/pepsilogo. ...</a>It does look somewhat...familiar....
hal0Jan 8, 2010
Irrelevant.Glucose > FructoseThe difference is processed sugar is bad for you, whereas natural sugar is good for the brain and nerve system, because your body recognizes it and implements it accordingly.Just because something is called 'sugar' or 'fat' doesn't make it immediately bad for you.Protip- candy that states it's 'fat-free' is, in fact, "fat-free" but loaded with sugars- therein lies the problem because fructose is IMMEDIATELY turned to long-term fat in your system, making you fat despite not eating fat.
hal0Jan 8, 2010
Because don't any of you know? Obama has everything to do with soda!I'm not going to explain how that works, but it somehow involves question marks and the final stage as 'profit.'True Story
hal0Jan 8, 2010
Oh I see what you did there inferno10, very clever!Snorting Coke might be healthy, just don't cut it with more than 39 grams of sugar!
hal0Jan 8, 2010
R U unable to type the words 'are' and 'you,' misshavana or R U able to contribute to the conversation besides unquestioningly meaningless drivel? (That's rhetorical btw.) It makes no difference if you drink diet pop or regular, sugary colas, drinking 4-6 cans in a day of either is gonna mess you up.
fredfredricksonJan 13, 2010
This is why I don't drink soda anymore.
bountyhunter4jcJan 22, 2010
Mexico has more billionaires than the US- and more natural resources-so there is a greater disparity between rich and poor. It is not racist to say that. Be that as it may, the US has a large disparity (still smaller than Mexico's) as well, and I use the disparities as a metric by which to measure the overall welfare of the nation. thereby, the poorer people in Mexico are generally less well off. They, however, do not get HFCS in their caloric beverages because they do no have a tariff on sugar like we do. In summary, despite the fact that the mexican people are statistically poorer, they still get to drink sugar instead of the poison that is HFCS and there is nothing racist about pointing that out. BTW, when you pull the race card, it sucks in your entire argument and you apparently lose the ability to reason.