I'm not really sure "soda with cane sugar is super healthy for you" is a solid argument. It's all crap and you shouldn't be drinking it. But hopefully Trump will be drinking much much more!

Baked potato chips are marginally healthier than fried ones. Would we cool with the POTUS banning fried chips?

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

That's what someone with TDS reads.

Me: I'm glad there will be sugar in soda again I miss the old days

You: The F you are going to get away with that

You: Donald Trump made Coca cola healthy and America is better now

Me: you are a moron Diehard, a f'ing moron.

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Baked potato chips are marginally healthier than fried ones. Would we cool with the POTUS banning fried chips?

Yes. Not a chip guy, but at jersey mikes, I go for the baked lays with my meal.

26 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Almost no chance you could distinguish between the two in a blind taste test. Coke tastes like f'ing coke anywhere in the world and the differences you can tell have at least as much to do with the water source as the sugar used. What is PSYCHOTIC and PATHETIC is that cultists casually interject that the POTUS mandating his fave soda is an accomplishment in governance.

The ones with real sugar do taste different to me. Just saying lol

6 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

You: Donald Trump made Coca cola healthy and America is better now

Me: you are a moron Diehard, a f'ing moron.

Yeah, that's not how it went down. I didn't say it's healthy for people to consume now, which is why I don't drink soda. It's all bad for you, but one option is slightly less so, especially when consumed in large amounts. Two of you heard me say one thing, and for two pages, the board has been flooded because of your resentment towards me and TDS mental instability.

13 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Baked potato chips are marginally healthier than fried ones. Would we cool with the POTUS banning fried chips?

Did RFK ban something or did the companies agree to make changes albeit by force? I don't eat a ton of food with crap in it, but I do think it all adds up. Processed foods, micro plastics from bottles, HFCS, artificial dyes, etc. You are a doctor you know how resilient the body is. In moderation not a big deal, but we have the FDA for a reason. I don't have an issue with them getting the companies to remove some of the junk in what people eat. There are much bigger issues, though.

Bunch of sloppy, fat F'ers in this thread hahahahahahahaha

23 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Bunch of sloppy, fat F'ers in this thread hahahahahahahaha

My body my choice. 😆

8 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Did RFK ban something or did the companies agree to make changes albeit by force?

c'mon man

Look this doesn't affect me personally at all. Put cocaine back in it for all I care. I just think it's a dumb publicity stunt when there are so many bigger issues to address when it comes to food.

Hell the BBB significantly cut SNAP benefits. Rural/low income groceries are gonna be hit hard which means people are going to be increasingly reliant on gas stations/bodegas/take out in those areas. He's creating more food deserts which absolutely decreases healthy non processed options in those areas.

If y'all want to be fiscal liberals now who believe the federal government is responsible for regulating businesses and citizen's decisions in order to promote better health amongst the population? Cool by me. The more the merrier. But focus on real issues. Don't jerk each other off over switching from corn syrup to cane sugar in our artificially-colored artificially-caffeinated phosphate bubble juice, while you ostensibly shut down grocery stores.

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

c'mon man

Look this doesn't affect me personally at all. Put cocaine back in it for all I care. I just think it's a dumb publicity stunt when there are so many bigger issues to address when it comes to food.

Hell the BBB significantly cut SNAP benefits. Rural/low income groceries are gonna be hit hard which means people are going to be increasingly reliant on gas stations/bodegas/take out in those areas. He's creating more food deserts which absolutely decreases healthy non processed options in those areas.

If y'all want to be fiscal liberals now who believe the federal government is responsible for regulating businesses and citizen's decisions in order to promote better health amongst the population? Cool by me. The more the merrier. But focus on real issues. Don't jerk each other off over switching from corn syrup to cane sugar in our artificially-colored artificially-caffeinated phosphate bubble juice, while you ostensibly shut down grocery stores.

Agree with most of that but not sure why you bolded the ban section. Twisted their arms? Yeah.

1 hour ago, dawkins4prez said:

Almost no chance you could distinguish between the two in a blind taste test. Coke tastes like f'ing coke anywhere in the world and the differences you can tell have at least as much to do with the water source as the sugar used. What is PSYCHOTIC and PATHETIC is that cultists casually interject that the POTUS mandating his fave soda is an accomplishment in governance.

The random capitalization makes this read like a trump tweet

5 minutes ago, paco said:

The random capitalization makes this read like a trump tweet

Needs like 5000% more punctuation

12 minutes ago, paco said:

The random capitalization makes this read like a trump tweet

Bigly.

Josh Smith, founder and president of Montana Knife Co., called himself a Trump voter but said he sees the tariffs on foreign steel and other goods as threatening his business.

For instance, Smith just ordered a $515,000 machine from Germany that grinds his knife blades to a sharp edge. Trump had imposed a 10% tax on products from the EU that is set to rise to 15% under the trade framework he announced Sunday. So Trump’s tax on the machine comes to $77,250 — about enough for Smith to hire an entry-level worker.

Smith would happily buy the bevel-grinding machines from an American supplier. But there aren’t any. "There’s only two companies in the world that make them, and they’re both in Germany,’’ Smith said.

Then there’s imported steel, which Trump is taxing at 50%. Until this year, Montana Knife bought the powdered steel it needs from Crucible Industries in Syracuse, New York. But Crucible declared bankruptcy last December, and its assets were purchased by a Swedish firm, Erasteel, which moved production to Sweden.

*Idk why there is a quote for each section

Fortune

Trump voter and Montana Knife Co. founder feels tariff pa...

Josh Smith says he'd happily buy the bevel-grinding machines from a U.S. supplier, but he can't. "There’s only two companies in the world that make them, and they’re both in Germany."

2 hours ago, Diehardfan said:

OK....Frodo wants to keep at it

The studies I sent, clearly show HFCS increases liver fat and blood fats (triglycerides) more than cane sugar due to its fast-absorbing fructose, which stresses the liver and can lead to fatty liver disease. Stanhope’s study found HFCS spikes blood fats and bad cholesterol more than sugar, contributing to weight gain and liver issues. Maersk showed sugary drinks boost liver fat, and HFCS’s quicker fructose hit likely makes it worse. Your claim about having no results is off. It's data on HFCS raising uric acid and triglycerides is published on PubMed (PMID: 22152650). The peer-reviewed studies aren’t vague they directly counter your points with solid evidence. Recheck the links and then move on with your day to something that actually matters :)

Oh so the Stanhope study showed hfcs sweetened drinks increase serum cholesterol and triglycerides? Yea and so do cane sugar sweetened drinks, numb nuts. But you know what that study doesn't do? Quantify the difference between hfcs and came sugar sweetened drinks. Like at all. Not once.

It's almost like you tried to act like it did and then got caught when you realized you were too lazy to read your own sources. Or maybe it's not laziness and just the fact that you're retarded. Not really sure.

35 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh so the Stanhope study showed hfcs sweetened drinks increase serum cholesterol and triglycerides? Yea and so do cane sugar sweetened drinks, numb nuts. But you know what that study doesn't do? Quantify the difference between hfcs and came sugar sweetened drinks. Like at all. Not once.

It's almost like you tried to act like it did and then got caught when you realized you were too lazy to read your own sources. Or maybe it's not laziness and just the fact that you're retarded. Not really sure.

LOL dude, the Stanhope study shows HFCS drinks raise blood fats 79% more than cane sugar drinks and increase bad cholesterol, which hurts the liver and adds fat more than sugar does. So sad for ya.

Maersk’s study found sugary drinks pile fat in the liver, and HFCS’s hit is worse because it’s got more fructose. You said there’s no comparison, but these studies clearly show HFCS is worse for your liver and weight gain. So sad too bad.

PubMed: 22152650 showed HFCS raises uric acid and triglycerides more than sucrose, supporting liver harm. Ass kicking here.

Again, your claim of no comparison is wrong and the data is clear in the peer reviewed studies you asked for.

I checked the sources, and they back me up, so maybe read them, but I'm guessing you have and don't understand them or are going Black Knight it's only a flesh wound living in denial because you wont take the L and want to die on this crazy hill.

6 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

LOL dude, the Stanhope study shows HFCS drinks raise blood fats 79% more than cane sugar drinks and increase bad cholesterol, which hurts the liver and adds fat more than sugar does. So sad for ya.

Maersk’s study found sugary drinks pile fat in the liver, and HFCS’s hit is worse because it’s got more fructose. You said there’s no comparison, but these studies clearly show HFCS is worse for your liver and weight gain. So sad too bad.

PubMed: 22152650 showed HFCS raises uric acid and triglycerides more than sucrose, supporting liver harm. Ass kicking here.

Again, your claim of no comparison is wrong and the data is clear in the peer reviewed studies you asked for.

I checked the sources, and they back me up, so maybe read them, but I'm guessing you have and don't understand them or are going Black Knight it's only a flesh wound living in denial because you wont take the L and want to die on this crazy hill.

JFC, you're dense.

"The added sugar component of the typical U.S. diet consists of nearly equal amounts of HFCS and sucrose (38); therefore, it is a limitation of this study that we did not also investigate the effects of sucrose consumption. However, we expect that the effects of sucrose would be comparable with those of HFCS because its composition (50% glucose/50% fructose) is very similar to the composition of the HFCS used for this study (45% glucose/55% fructose)."

^This is from your Stanhope study. And I have no idea what this Maersk study is you've now pivoted to. But I suspect the fact you haven't provided a link is because it also doesn't compare them directly or quantify the effects.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

JFC, you're dense.

"The added sugar component of the typical U.S. diet consists of nearly equal amounts of HFCS and sucrose (38); therefore, it is a limitation of this study that we did not also investigate the effects of sucrose consumption. However, we expect that the effects of sucrose would be comparable with those of HFCS because its composition (50% glucose/50% fructose) is very similar to the composition of the HFCS used for this study (45% glucose/55% fructose)."

^This is from your Stanhope study. And I have no idea what this Maersk study is you've now pivoted to. But I suspect the fact you haven't provided a link is because it also doesn't compare them directly or quantify the effects.

You are spinning to try and save face while misrepresenting

You’re wrong to say the Stanhope study doesn’t compare HFCS to sucrose because it clearly shows HFCS spikes blood fats 79% more and raises bad cholesterol, hitting the liver harder than cane sugar. Even had the numbers that you asked for.

You also claimed I didn’t share the Maersk study link, but I did in one of the 40 replies nobody outside of us cares about, and it shows sugary drinks like Coke add liver fat, with HFCSs fructose likely worse.

The other study backs this up as well, showing HFCS increases uric acid and blood fats more which stresses the liver more.

Your BS about no comparisons or specific results is wrong, Black Knight.

Honestly, you have engaged in multiple pages of BS arguing between HFCSs and sugar and I don't think anyone but you and Dawk give a flying F about it.

Anyone else you wouldn't still be going on this but you are so full of derangement towards me you won't let it go.

$600?!!

14 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

You are spinning to try and save face while misrepresenting

You’re wrong to say the Stanhope study doesn’t compare HFCS to sucrose because it clearly shows HFCS spikes blood fats 79% more and raises bad cholesterol, hitting the liver harder than cane sugar. Even had the numbers that you asked for.

You also claimed I didn’t share the Maersk study link, but I did in one of the 40 replies nobody outside of us cares about, and it shows sugary drinks like Coke add liver fat, with HFCSs fructose likely worse.

The other study backs this up as well, showing HFCS increases uric acid and blood fats more which stresses the liver more.

Your BS about no comparisons or specific results is wrong, Black Knight.

Honestly, you have engaged in multiple pages of BS arguing between HFCSs and sugar and I don't think anyone but you and Dawk give a flying F about it.

Anyone else you wouldn't still be going on this but you are so full of derangement towards me you won't let it go.

I just quoted your own study that literally says they didn't even investigate the effects of sucrose but okay, they're lying now I guess.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

I just quoted your own study that literally says they didn't even investigate the effects of sucrose but okay, they're lying now I guess.

Hope you have a great night :)

4 minutes ago, pisceschica said:

$600?!!

yesterday I read each adult and dependent. So a family of 4 would be getting 2400 in that case, but not sure if its accurate.

It also starts phasing out over 150k adjusted gross income for couples, or I think 75k for single filers.

Daily Meal

Why Do People Think High-Fructose Corn Syrup Is Worse Tha...

High-fructose corn syrup is linked with the idea of being unhealthy, but is it's not really much worse than sugar. Here's why people think HFCS is problematic.

It's not the post itself. It's the anguish it causes.

In a column published Tuesday, Stephens marveled at Trump’s recent slew of successes, saying that the president’s term has had a better turn since his first 100 days in office.

"Egads! After a disastrous first 100 days, Donald Trump is starting to have a much more successful presidency. This is not what we, his foam-at-the-mouth critics, had planned or perhaps secretly hoped for," he wrote.