random item

Troperville

Tools

Find recent edits by troper:

back to: Main / UnfortunateIngredients

edit article | go to discussion page

5th May '13 3:41:19 PM tracer

Send tracer a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Fixed a grammar-o

Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:

to:

5th May '13 3:40:35 PM tracer

Send tracer a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:

to:

30th Apr '13 3:33:36 PM karstovich2

Send karstovich2 a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 46 (click to see context) from:

to:

29th Dec '12 12:38:15 PM Rothul

Send Rothul a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 30 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 33 (click to see context) from:

to:

5th Dec '12 6:14:19 PM tracer

Send tracer a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:

to:

16th Nov '12 3:08:36 PM tracer

Send tracer a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

A "sot drink" would be something very different!

Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:

to:

16th Nov '12 3:08:08 PM tracer

Send tracer a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Added line(s) 40 (click to see context) :

17th Oct '12 4:11:51 PM InsanityPrelude

Send InsanityPrelude a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Couple more little fixes, and a comment for those who don't read the history and/or discussion. Also, moved the Swedish Chef example to Asbestos Free Cereal.

Added line(s) 31 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 40 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 42,43 (click to see context) from:

to:

17th Oct '12 4:06:28 PM InsanityPrelude

Send InsanityPrelude a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Pulled to discussion: the trope is about avoiding ingredients *perceived* as bad, not whether they *are* bad or not.

Changed line(s) 33,39 (click to see context) from:

** The original advice, if memory serves, was that omega-3s are better for you than the more common omega-6s. However, at least one canny company is banking on the fact that [[FleetingDemographicRule people have forgotten about that]], as it's now touting its product as "contains omega-3 ''and omega-6''!
*** If this (biochemist) troper has understood the lit correctly, the problem is having too much of one. It apparently doesn't terribly matter ''which'', you need to keep them in balance. A pretty good rule of thumb in is 'all things in moderation'--everything's got an [=LD50=].[[hottip:*:LD stands for 'lethal dose.' 50 is 50%...as in, about 50% of the time it's the lethal dose.]]
*** Yes, and the average American has a ~1:30 &#969;-3:&#969;-6 ratio, with the ideal being 1:1. Vegetable oils, corn and soy are the major culprits.
*** It isn't so much a matter of moderation as that the same enzymes are used for both Omega-3s and Omega-6s, so if it is unbalanced towards Omega-6 you won't be able to process enough Omega-3s, which have been shown to be important to heart and brain health, though I'm not clear on what their function is.
**** just an FYI: Omega-6 is normal fats like butter, Omega-9 is your 'healthier' monounsaturated fats (olive oil), and omega-3s are the ones in fish oil and flax seed. 6's are Pro-inflammatory, while 3's are Anti-inflammatory (9s are somewhat less inflammatory than 6s), a 1:1 or 2:1 ration favoring 3's will reduce inflammation; high inflammation is associated with diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, and etc: thus the health claims, and the promotion of adding it to your diet. Sadly most "fish oil" pills have a 2:1 ration of 6 to 3 within the pill itself, and only between 1-2 grams of omega 3 total, the average american consumes well over the recommended under ~65g of fat per day: making the supplements mostly a scam, you'd need to take a ridiculous amount of them every day to hit a reasonable does of omega 3's, and even then, they have the wrong ratio internally to ever fix your total ratio.
* Certain anti-aging creams contain amino acids. Like all agents used in anti-aging cream, don't expect these to have any serious effect. In advertisements, these are referred to as simply "aminos" because people [[HollywoodAcid associate the other term with either highly corrosive acids]] or LSD.
** Never mind that amino acids are simply the rudimentary components of proteins, which human beings ''need to live''.

to:

Changed line(s) 41,43 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 46,56 (click to see context) from:

** As mentioned above, the backlash against this is driving brands like Coke and Pepsi ''back'' to advertising the "[[AllNaturalSnakeOil natural sugar]]" they contain, where previously they banked on artificial sweeteners.
* High fructose corn syrup, the currently-trendy "evil" of the food industry [[hottip:*: Actually, not all that different from [[http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/science-of-sweets.html table]] [[http://obesitymyths.com/myth9.1.htm sugar]]]], is beginning to be called "corn sugar" to lessen its "evil" connotations.
** One brand of pancake syrup (Log Cabin, if memory serves) proudly touts itself as being corn-syrup free...and when you read the ingredients, you realize that the main ingredient has been changed to ''rice'' syrup. As though that's any better.
*** It's different. Might actually be better. HFCS is basically fructose and glucose, both monosaccarides. Rice Syrup is maltose and maltotriose, more complex sugars that digest more slowly and break down (via enzymes in the gut) entirely into glucose. It's unclear whether this matters to non-diabetics or not.
** Whatever you think of the difference in flavor (it may or may not exist), some have noted a good reason to hate HFCS: the only reason anyone uses it is that it's artificially cheap, thanks to ridiculously high US subsidies on corn, most of which amounts to corporate welfare. (Sugar, by contrast, is artificially ''expensive'' in the U.S. due to high import tariffs on foreign sugar, which shield the domestic sugar market against foreign competition. Pick your political poison.)
*** Fructose is metabolized differently, despite claims to the contrary made by the Corn Refiners Association. It should be noted that this is ''literally'' basic biochemistry--you cannot call yourself a biochemist ''without'' knowing how wrong is the claim in the (as of 2011) ads that your body cannot tell the difference. It might be worth adding that [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose_malabsorption fructose malabsorption]] seems to happen in about two out of five people.
**** The 2011 ads don't claim that your body cannot tell the difference between sugar and ''fructose''. They claim that your body cannot tell the difference between sugar and ''high fructose corn syrup.'' Post-digestion, sugar consists of a 50%-50% mixture of fructose and glucose, while HFCS consists of a 55%-45% mixture of fructose and glucose.
** HFCS may "technically" be sugar, with the same amount of calories/carbs/whatever, but here's an example to prove that this does ''not'' mean "all sugars are created equal"; if you are lactose intolerant, your body reacts to lactose (milk sugar) negatively. Lactose is technically sugar, but being lactose intolerant won't prevent you from, say, regular table sugar. From there, you can flat-out ''prove'' that there is ''some'' difference. Like the post above, there's something really creepy about it being ''everywhere.''
*** It's "everywhere" chiefly because A) as the name suggests, it's derived from corn, B) corn is the staple crop of most of the Midwest US, and C) it's correspondingly cheap.
** In the 1970s and 1980s, health food stores sold fructose (not HFCS, ''pure fructose'') as a "healthier alternative" to regular sugar. When HFCS started becoming a health concern in the late 1990s, health studies started being performed on laboratory rats, and at least some of these experiments involved feeding the rats pure fructose instead of HFCS or table sugar -- with the result being a striking correlation between pure fructose intake and obesity. Although "High" Fructose Corn Syrup is not significantly higher in fructose than table sugar, Fructose = obesity became ingrained in the public consciousness as HFCS = obesity.
*** Concerning the terming "corn sugar", and how it's treated not different, this is not only a patent lie ( [[http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5592/2 sugar is a well... a sugar]], and gets flushed out of the body somewhat quickly, while [[http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/sweets/5600/2 HFCS is actually closer to a starch]], meaning your body holds it for ''longer'', up to 3 days according to one report[[superscript:[[Blog/CitationNeeded [citation needed] ]]]], in which time due to its market prevalence you've ''probably had more''), but has a bit of FridgeHorror, since the name could from there be changed to just "sugar" and if you had an objection or allergy to it, you'd be unknowingly ingested it. For that matter, given enough leeway, food companies could put any ingredients, including rat poison, in what appears to be simple and healthy food, and you'd never know...

to:

Deleted line(s) 58 (click to see context) :

Deleted line(s) 64 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 66 (click to see context) from:

to:

Deleted line(s) 68 (click to see context) :

Changed line(s) 70 (click to see context) from:

to:

3rd Sep '12 9:42:06 PM mlsmithca

Send mlsmithca a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Removing wick to Did Not Do The Research per rename at TRS.

Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from: