Hold up. Regular brownies have no nuritional value whatsoever. They are, in fact, poison if they contain refined sugar. Sure, they are fun to eat, but they will rot your teeth, give you diabetes and eventually cancer if you get hooked. This is all WITHOUT THE POT.

Shoot, the addition of pot will probably HELP on a nutritional level.

It's official. The entire world is insane.

Eating beef is the nutritional equivalent of driving a super-stretch Hummer H2 in Friday L.A. gridlock traffic compared to other sources of calories.

http://www.culinaryschools.org/yum/vegetables/

How much beef in a quarter pounder comes from Cali?
How much water does the nutritionally equivalent amount of veggie require? This can't be measured pound for pound and veggies and grains are not as nutrient dense as meat. I have a feeling if an honest look was done at the math, Moby might end up missing a shower.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I wonder what it would be like if all drugs were legal and they were regulated like food, just for purity and contents. So you would need nutritional labelling to know how much cannabis is in your brownies etc . Maybe that's where we're heading.

I don't think that the type of people going to McDonalds care about the nutritional information and I also think they already know it's bad for you. I usually pick bad for you and tastes good over good for you and tastes OK

I knew this would happen. Talking to you, too, @oritteropo:

I'm leaving it with just this, because people are attached to their bacon and steaks as tightly as they are tied to religion. Perhaps it's again apples to oranges, but I'm guessing a lot of you are the same folks who rant against religion and wonder why people are so stupid and don't look at logic and science, blah blah blah. This is the perfect time to look in the mirror and see a touch of what you're up against. When you've been indoctrinated with something since you were literally born, you fight against being wrong so hard. So, so hard. Seriously. Take a moment, take a deep breath, and take a little search inside looking at how much of you knows for a fact that eating meat is just fine, and how much of it is cognitive dissonance. How much of it is emotional and how much of it is logical. Look at a video of people going on and on about how Jesus Christ is Lord and another video of people going on and on about how much they love bacon. It's kind of disturbing how zealous bacon-lovers get. Try it. It's fun. It's why I became vegetarian only about 4 or 5 years ago. And I gotta say, getting rid of that cognitive dissonance is very, very relieving and satisfying.

Yes, yes, yes. Loads and loads of vegetarians and vegans are unhealthy. Actually, I would argue that most vegetarians and vegans are wholly less healthy than omnivores since most of them have a high-and-mighty "I'm vegetarians/vegan so I'm automatically healthy" and eat some of the most disgusting, heart-disease-inducing, oily, fatty, un-nutririous, processed shit that's ever been made. Look at some of the fake meat stuff to just have a peek.

No. If you actually watched any of the videos you will see that it's not just being vegan that is important. It's to be a healthy vegan. You know, all that shit you can't ever, ever argue is bad for you. Fruits. Leafy greens. Beans. Lentils. Whole grains, occasionally. But mostly leafy greens and fruit.

And there are loads of studies that control exercise and all sorts of other arguments for "NO NO NO! IT'S NOT MY MEAT! STAY AWAY FROM IT IT'S ANYTHING BUT MY MEAT!". I can think of a specific one that I read/watched about controlling for exercise, and I can find it for you if you'd like, but I'm guessing you aren't really interested. They discovered that very aerobic, exercising, running omnivores were as healthy as lightly walking vegans. He even had a cute graphic for it.

And it's not just this guy, either. Head over to Dr. Fuhrman's website for more of the same. Except Dr. Fuhrman is toting stuff to sell, so that unnerves some people. They claim he's just trying to make a buck. But all the money he makes goes to nutritional research.

The last thing I'll say is this:

I honestly don't give a flying shit about what you eat. I don't really care about the environment at all. I'm not planning on having kids, and I'm sure I'll kick the ol' bucket before antibiotics stop working, water is scarce, the waters rise above NYC, and all the other possible doomsday things that'll probably happen within the next 100 or so years. It's true that I also enjoy not feeling guilty for eating animals who live. It'd make me happy if you stopped eating them because the main thing I believe I'm around for is to minimize suffering in the world. So, that'd be nice if more people didn't eat them.

But if you want to live a nice, long, healthy life where you don't die of a stroke, heart attack, or diabetes by the time you're 65, eat better.

There's a reason why the milk, sugar, meat and pharmaceutical companies pump out study after study about how it's totally fine to eat their shit. They spend so much money on it, it's ridiculous.

Cheers to your health, either way.

Stevia is too new to make any real determinations on. Currently, there is a lot of uncertainty. Just because something comes from a plant doesn't make it safer. Almonds used to be loaded with cyanide before we eliminated the trees that had those kinds of almonds. There have been recent studies questioning the safety of stevia, and this will likely be dealt with over the next decade. Unfortunately, certain countries have gotten around the necessary procedures for sufficient scientific inquiry because they are marketing it not as a food additive or sweetener but as a dietary supplement, which makes it easier to avoid such scrutiny. Unlike xylitol, which is perfectly fine for human consumption and has been shown to inhibit growth of oral bacteria that leads to caries and plaque, stevia is simply an unknown at this point.

However, stevia has also been around for a while. It has been a product since the 90s and has been banned and un-banned in numerous countries. European reports have shown that it is safe, but it is also still banned in many countries there.

For those of you think that it is "natural" and thus safer, I urge you to look up the naturalistic fallacy on wikipedia before going any further here. It has also been used as a sweetener by certain tribal peoples for centuries, so that means absolutely nothing as far as science goes, but it will still sway many people over, just like traditional herbal Chinese medicines like tiger penis powder and rhinoceros horn powder.

However, it is not a "natural" substance whatsoever, even though that word means nothing in nutrition anyways. Basically they take a small amount of Rebaudioside A from the stevia plant and use a bunch of alcohols and other chemicals to extract out the active sweetening ingredient and then crystallize it. This is then renamed steviol. It is significantly less sweet than most of the other sweeteners, except maybe saccarin, at only about 150x the sweetness of sugar.

Basically, Stevia is probably not bad for you, although the verdict is definitely not in on this one. It is no more "natural" than any of the other sweeteners. You need more of it to reach the same level of sweetness as your other sweeteners so dosage could be an issue. But you have to understand that each of the companies that makes these sweeteners has to find a way to sell their product. So, what do they do? They claim that their sweetener is "natural" and "safe" which implies that all of the other sweeteners that came before it aren't, and as evidence by my previous tirades, this is simply not the case. But they profit from our unwillingness to look at the data for ourselves and play on our natural tendencies to trust them.

In short, we are not certain about stevia yet, but we are certain that sugar is bad and aspartame is fine. However, you probably shouldn't eat any processed food, but we already know that in our bones. We all know that cooking up a delicious meal from simple ingredients is the best way to eat healthy but we don't do it because we are lazy. I am just as guilty of this as the next person. We can only dream of a future similar to "The Invention of Lying" where marketers aren't allowed to lie to us and can simply say that their food is bad for you but you drink it because it tastes good and because you have been for years. A world where they can't market to our children so we don't all grow up addicted to halloween candy or cereals that are more sugar than grains. The best way to do this is to cut your cable from the television and live on the internet with AdBlock installed. Then those fuckers can't get at you as easily.

No. Aspartame is not bad for you. Sugar, however is absolutely bad for you. The purpose of this video is to show people how much aspartame is in Coke Zero vs the amount of sugar in Coke. Sugar, the number one cause of obesity, heart disease and other health issues, is far less sweet so you need a much larger amount to get the same level of sweetness as aspartame. The tiny amount of black stuff left over at the end of the Coke Zero pan is the aspartame. You need milligrams of aspartame compared to 30 grams of sugar.

All of the studies that have "shown" damaging effects of aspartame have given RATS not milligrams of aspartame, but GRAMS. This would be equivalent to a human being shoveling a pile of aspartame powder into their mouth, something that no one could even do because it would be too sweet to ingest.

Aspartame is a very simple chemical that when it enters the human body breaks down into three things, phenylalanine, methanol and aspartic acid. Once again, the amounts that these things break down into is smaller than you would get from eating comparable "natural products." You would get more methanol eating a few grapes or an apple. Aspartic acid is an amino acid that is good for you and you would once again find more of it in an oyster than in Coke Zero. And finally phenylalanine is the only thing that is of any danger to anyone. And even then, it is only dangerous to those who have phenylketonuria, a sensitivity to phenyl-groups that you would know if you have. Otherwise it is a hormone that only affects infants and is present in breast milk, one of the healthiest substances on earth for a human.

Sure, aspartame is one of the most complained about items by consumers at the FDA. But does that mean the science is wrong? No. It simply means that someone gets a headache and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank instead of the fact that they are dehydrated. Or someone has a dizzy spell because they got up too fast and they blame it on the diet soda they just drank. Aspartame has been investigated by every Federal Consumer Product group around the world and none of them have found a sufficient link to any health danger in order to take it off of the shelves. If you believe that this is a conspiracy, you are wrong. The bigger conspiracy is the rampant disregard for the danger of sugar in processed foods.

If you are curious about the dangers of sugar that are backed by solid nutritional and molecular biology, you should watch "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" on Youtube, or the movie Fed Up.

"But there has never been a warning about sugar on our food labels "

Really? Every packaged food item I've ever seen has a nutritional information panel on the side list fats, carbs, sugars, etc in grams per 100g.

I assumed that was the case in the US as well, and a quick google shows it to be not uncommon.

But yeah, sugar is really not good for you.

Nutritional value label for this video:
56% content
44% credits and "subscribe here"

Warnings:
85% slow motion
15% Androgynous "Rick"

*May contain bits of Michael Jackson's "Thriller"

Well, from a nutritional point, she's not wrong.

Perfect demonstration of the fact that muscle growth does have A LOT to do with genetics and not just exercise and nutrition.

@ChaosEngine
thats the thing though,there is no longer a debate.this man has made the argument that nutrition far out ranks genetics or environment.

he has the data.
50 years of it.

i posted a related video that has 24 votes.
now grant you,the speaker is far more entertaining BUT that speaker uses much of this mans data,in conjunction with his own,to make the case.

i am not a vegan nor a vegetarian but due to evidence like this i have become far more aware of what i put in my mouth.so i am not posting to promote veganism but when the data is THAT compelling?
logic dictates we should incorporate the new data.

i guess i just dont understand the resistance.
one video on the same subject 24 votes.
this one? 2 upvotes and 1 downvote.

maybe this video is just boring.data can be boring.
ah well..i posted for sniper anyways.
so in the end it doesnt matter.

the data is in and now we know.what we choose to do with that information is a personal choice.

haha...oh you guys....
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Uprooting-the-Leading-Causes-of-Death

fer real though.sniper got so much shit for suggesting nutrition was pinnacle to prevent,and sometimes cure cancer.figured i would throw some support his way,because the evidence is becoming a large body of data that proves his point.

professor cambell-nutrition can prevent and cure cancer has been added as a related post - related requested by enoch on that post.