Will it kill you? No. Is it even bad for you? No. Does it taste good? Yes. So who gives a shit. The stuff they use to keep its shape is probably not worse for you than the sugar they sweeten the product with. And that is a natural product. It is the same thing with the "Organic Food" trend. The naturalistic fallacy abounds in this day and age, even with all of the science that shows that GMOs are treated exactly the same in the human body as non-GMOs. People still believe that just because something has an unpronounceable name, it is immediately bad for you, when nature itself is the thing we have to fight against.

Never saw my granny ever drink water. Diet coke, iced tea, and crappy merlot (w/ice and sweetener) every once inna while. She was one if those 'fish fuck in it' folks, if you mentioned a glass of water to her she'd always get the same wince on her face...

Celebrate World Water Day with hot tub sex or bathing in a public fountain.

Not when they get subsidies, subsidies, and subsidies from the Federal Government which prevent free market competition.

Corn syrup is especially bad.

Obamas' flipped generally

O'Reillys' a massive ego-fucking-itself dickcheese tool nobody spokesfuck

Janet Napolitino a fucking cunt, and the leader of the fascist police-state criminal organization the Dept. of Homeland/Vaterland/Heimat Security

So what you are saying to anyone with a fucking clue about the world they inhabit is, that you enjoy the flavor of the new brand of artificial colors and sweeteners, Guyana-punch-flavored Kool Aide Brand Ass-Fucking Propaganda Machine Drink.

Oh I'm sorry..Did I wake someone from their nap??
I'm sure there's others.

Oh wait, I'm sorry... CLEARLY (articulated with smarmy, sarcastic tone), there's others..

The whole issue about calories is a misdirect, there are dozens of other more important reasons why McD's is worse than trash. A couple of examples - the food is loaded with all manner of artificial ingredients, it's lacking in quality fiber, it's highly processed (low nutritional value), and the quality of the macro ingredients is very poor - i.e. the use of trans-fats as @RedSky points out, as well as the use of poor quality sugars (i.e. HFCS) to sweeten the dough.

That's not even to mention the exploitation of their workers, rainforest clearing to raise cattle, wasteful use of plastic packaging etc.

Since the ancient Romans had an artificial sweetener you'd have to say that Saccharin is the first modern artificial sweetener rather than the first.

So @ 3:01 lemme see, berry mix, (some thin whitish dairy?), cream, sweetened condensed milk, and that gelatin wad at the end there(?), never saw this before....Can this confection be anymore convoluted and time-consuming?

For those in the 1% who would frequent dives like these, even food has become a bore.

BTW, there's that canned music accompanying no verbal instructions-Again, the best way to make a cooking video-Peeps that need kitchen chemistry 101 need not apply! Love this format for instructional viddies.

This little fellow warms and sweetens my bitter, cold heart!
("Beer Is My Fuel", to quote the bard-)

>> ^deathcow:

@chingalera
> Artificial sweeteners = Slavery
I need help with dat one


Not sure this is what chingy's talking about, but there are those out there that believe Aspartame (nutrasweet) erodes the fibers of your nerve endings (or something like that), which makes you dull and cattle-like for your government.

@chingalera
> Artificial sweeteners = Slavery

I need help with dat one

Coffee and beer are probably what has saved me from suffering the curse of kidney stones the males in my clan have dealt with all sober and following doctor's ill-informed suggestions! Oh yeah, NEWSFLASH:Salts' OK for ya, too and margarine tastes like suet and renders food inedible!!

Artificial sweeteners = Slavery
Processed Foods = Immune System Failure
Bacon and oysters, has been proven to increase libido and income (side effects may include grants from the Rockefeller foundation and freaky bitches digits!)

You keep using the word diet as something you can just go on and off of. That's the problem; 'Going on a diet' implies that it's temporary. What's needed to eat and live healthy is a permanent lifetstyle change. In other words, you don't stop the diet. The previous diet is what led to getting overweight in the first place, so of course they gain the weight back if they start eating like that again. Exercise all you want, if you take in more calories than you expend, you will gain weight. If you expend more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. It doesn't matter if you have a problem with that, or if people get depressed, or if you just straight up don't think it's a health issue (it is), that's how it works. That's why this argument takes place when this issue is brought up. It really is just a matter of will power and education on nutrition. How much will power's needed depends on the person, along with their knowledge on nutrition and eating well. Breaking these long standing habits can be incredibly tough, but not impossible.

There's a lot of grey area in the discussion of being overweight and healthy/fit/etc. If you have terrible eating habits, exercise will only make things a bit better; it wont magically counteract all the negative aspects of your body composition, or of the food you eat. The effect food can have on a person astronomically outweighs the potential effects of exercise. That's in no way saying exercise is pointless, but if you're diet's not in check, the exercise alone is like ordering a diet coke with your ten cheeseburgers.
>> ^bmacs27:

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.
To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.
The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.
You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

You guys aren't listening to what I'm saying. There is nothing wrong with eating right and exercising. I have a problem with caloric restriction, or as it is commonly called "dieting." Further, I have a problem with judging health from weight or BMI. There is very little data to back that up, and in fact the data suggest that a low BMI is actually more problematic than a moderately high 30ish BMI in terms of life expectancy. My issue is that it's been so ingrained in people to associate weight loss (an aesthetic issue) with fitness (a health issue). There are plenty of people that are fit, and no matter what they do, will carry extra weight.

To me "eating right" means eating healthy foods, e.g. whole foods, fruits, vegetables, proteins as your primary nutrition rather than fatty and heavily sweetened foods. Exercise is the most important part of the equation. The data shows that so long as you are not sedentary you can pretty much eat and weigh whatever with little to no health consequence.

The depression does not come simply from the lack of eating, and thus the cessation of a rewarding activity. It comes from the diversion of energy away from active use (e.g. in the nervous system) and towards the restocking of fat stores. In other words, you'll never lose weight, and instead will just be bummed out all the time.

You talk of "millions of people" that have successfully lost weight. I'd like to see a data that shows a diet emphasizing caloric restriction leading to long term reductions in weight. Every study I've seen shows that diets of that sort yield short term weight loss although subjects generally reacquire the weight within a year of stopping the diet, and report depression during the diet. Prove me wrong.

We've had a natural brand of lollies here in Aus for a while, they are pretty good, they don't use organic ingredients though so it's awesome to hear about those being used. @gorillaman some preservatives are pretty nasty (e.g. the nitrates used to preserve many meat products), and there is plenty of legitimate science looking at GMO foods, this article looks in detail at many of the safety issues if you're interested:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01119.x/full

Plus there's the fact many GMO crops have substantial roundup residue, certainly not something I would want to eat too much of. Lastly, there is the issue of cross-contamination, once that happens there is no turning back, and the proof many GMO crops are safe is rather thin on the ground (the safety studies are generally very poorly designed and implemented).

My only comment on the ingredients of the lollies would be that agave is not a good sugar substitute or sweetener - it's often sold in health food stores as such, however it's extremely high in fructose, so much so that it's essentially HFCS on steroids.

>> ^vaire2ube:

so he's saying that corn syrup sucks ass, is bad for you, and takes more to sweeten... i thought our "body cant tell the difference" (tm)
i think ill listen to retailer who puts customers above profits... surprise, he makes a profit anyway because he's honest. shame on american companies wasting water to produce corn for syrups and animal feed.
there is no drought, there is a misuse of resources. shame shame shame.


Corn syrup is mostly fructose. Our body can tell the difference and processes it differently than other forms of sugars. Our body craves fructose because it is naturally found in relatively low quantities in foods that are so damn good for you that they cancel out all the bad things that fructose does to you see: apples, bananas, berries, etc.. Problems arise when all the healthy goodnesses are stripped away leaving only the refined not-so-goodness.

See: http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth for a very very informative video on the subject.