Diet Coke and weight cutting

[mfgillia]

Always find this type of illogic amusing - whereby in war, food and water controls victory. biochemical warfare manufacturers create "food additives" and the fda and all their friends say its safe and gud fer u. And you buy it, hook, line and sinker. HAHAHA you deserve the death and disease and poison. I agree with these demons. You love it. You aren't worth saving or educating. You are slaves and cattle.

while you wear your pink and blue ribbons and cry your stupid tears, I'll be laughing with your tormentors. hahahahaha you are right, i made it all up. pass the diet coke, its GOOD FOR YOU HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

AHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So we will all die because of a grand conspiracy fueled by manufacturers of chemical weapons who have infiltrated the FDA in their master plan to kill off the human race. Damn, that's quite depressing news to start the day.

Thanks for the heads up though - guess I might as well skip the gym, get drunk and have unprotected sex with some random bar girls. Feeling better already...

 

[Vashgun]

@ PCypert

That is a good attitude imo. Common sense is really all you need.

Public Service Announcement: Aspartame is...

This issue has been thoroughly discussed and dismissed here so, so many times. The above topic is even in the D/S FAQ you are supposed to read before posting.

Nice Altmed links, though... we've never seen those before...

So there is a Truth Panel here in the diet forum? lol You dismissed it for everyone?

Here's a direct link to all known safety oriented aspartame research that was funded by the Aspartame food industry: http://www.dorway.com/industry.html

Here's a direct link to all known safety oriented aspartame research that was independently funded: http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

FDA has allowed ppm levels for mercury. If they say its safe its usually based on blood and urine samples. Not organ samples. Where mercury and other toxic substances will build up. especially in the brain. If aspartame impedes neurological function, then its not going to be detectable in the blood or the urine very easily.

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_brain_damage.htm

Effects of aspartame on 45Ca influx and LDH leakage from nerve cells in culture. Sonnewald, U., M

 

[Vashgun]

So we will all die because of a grand conspiracy fueled by manufacturers of chemical weapons who have infiltrated the FDA in their master plan to kill off the human race. Damn, that's quite depressing news to start the day.

Thanks for the heads up though - guess I might as well skip the gym, get drunk and have unprotected sex with some random bar girls. Feeling better already...

soft kill is for other reasons, if the military industrial complex wanted to kill a lot of people, they would. DARPA and the history of biochemical warfare should demonstrate that very well. I'm not saying they will or would.

But that doesn't mean you can pretend that poison is good. Tell me how many people you know who has cancer or ms or neurological disorders? That isnt normal. Its not about dwelling on negativity but making positive choices. Stop funding these criminals when you go shopping. At least do your part.

 

[Siderealmotion]

So there is a Truth Panel here in the diet forum? lol You dismissed it for everyone?

Well... one would assume that the reason for that thread's inclusion in the FAQ that is marked as "read before posting" is to avoid retreading the same tired subjects over and over.

Here's a direct link to all known safety oriented aspartame research that was funded by the Aspartame food industry: http://www.dorway.com/industry.html

Here's a direct link to all known safety oriented aspartame research that was independently funded: http://www.dorway.com/nonindus.html

I will ignore the fact that that's a link to a heavily biased anti aspartame website that seems to be missing a few of the several hundred studies, both industry and independently funded, that have demonstrated the safety of aspartame, and cut right to the nitty gritty. Can you find a single peer reviewed study that demonstrates dangerous or deleterious effects from Aspartame in quantities that can be realistically consumed by humans?

FDA has allowed ppm levels for mercury.

Probably because there are tons of foods that contain trace levels or higher of mercury, many of them very good for you in the grand scheme of things.

If they say its safe its usually based on blood and urine samples. Not organ samples. Where mercury and other toxic substances will build up. especially in the brain. If aspartame impedes neurological function, then its not going to be detectable in the blood or the urine very easily.

And if aspartame builds up in your organs, we are all screwed, because the metabolites from aspartame are present in much higher quantities in all sorts of foods, methanol particularly in fruits, aspartic acid and phenylalanine in proteins.

http://www.wnho.net/aspartame_brain_damage.htm

Nice opinion piece (not a study) from a man who lost his license for being "delusional" about aspartame. Too bad not a single one of the vast multitudes of studies done on aspartame, methanol, phenylalanine, or aspartic acid consumption in humans has matched his claims.

Effects of aspartame on 45Ca influx and LDH leakage from nerve cells in culture. Sonnewald, U., M

 

[Nozza]

Second, I'm sure you'll disappear once I research this for you lol. so typical that the "critic" can't use google.

I've not disappeared but I cannot do better than the last post at pointing out the logical fallacies in your position and the information you've linked, so I won't try.

If you keep reading alt-med sites you can find "evidence" to back up any belief you choose. Cherry-picking studies also has the same effect.

The European Food Standards Agency have done also a systematic review of evidence and came to the same conclusion, that it's safe. I cannot find a systematic review that shows otherwise. I'm struggling to find peer-reviewed studies showing it's not safe either.

You know, the best way to test your beliefs is to try as hard as you can to prove them wrong. If they survive that then you might be onto something.

 

[Vashgun]

I will ignore the fact that that's a link to a heavily biased anti aspartame website that seems to be missing a few of the several hundred studies, both industry and independently funded, that have demonstrated the safety of aspartame, and cut right to the nitty gritty. Can you find a single peer reviewed study that demonstrates dangerous or deleterious effects from Aspartame in quantities that can be realistically consumed by humans?

Well I won't ignore that you nor anyone else has actually linked or given any sort of evidence to contradict my premise or conclusion. Where are these several hundred studies, both industry and independently funded? Why are you clowns putting the onus on me to do research for you? Why don't you show me one peer reviewed study that demonstrates positive effects from aspartame?

Probably because there are tons of foods that contain trace levels or higher of mercury, many of them very good for you in the grand scheme of things.

yes, i surmised that you love poison and think mercury is good for you. This is my point.

And if aspartame builds up in your organs, we are all screwed, because the metabolites from aspartame are present in much higher quantities in all sorts of foods, methanol particularly in fruits, aspartic acid and phenylalanine in proteins.

That depends entirely on the course of metabolite absorption and removal; also enzymatic action in vivo. If you can demonstrate by source that aspartame metabolites have the exact same metabolic pathways as whole foods, then that would falsify any claim that aspartame metabolites are differentially harmful. However, 5-benzyl-3,6-dioxo-2-piperazineacetic acid or DKP is also a metabolite that your Wikipedia source does not cover.

Source: http://www.chem.agilent.com/Library/applications/(FD10)5988-6349EN.pdf

furthermore, you would also need to show that Aspartame entirely breaks down to these metabolites and does not accumulate in the body. I just can't help but see the metabolite argument as a red herring; having provided no sources other than an obvious regurgitation of the Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspartame_controversy

Nice opinion piece (not a study) from a man who lost his license for being "delusional" about aspartame. Too bad not a single one of the vast multitudes of studies done on aspartame, methanol, phenylalanine, or aspartic acid consumption in humans has matched his claims.

That's funny, you call my source an opinion piece by giving your opinion and nothing else. I am not representative of my sources, if they are wrong then demonstrate that with your own sources. Not just with an unsupported claim.

Furthermore, you committed a logical fallacy by poisoning the well and appealing to ridicule. It doesn't matter if the person who wrote that article was homeless. You still didn't address anything in the article or its multiple sources which are contrary to your opinion.

Even the lowest dose shown to have any effect whatsoever measures in centigrams... for an experiment conducted on mice. You should really read these, rather than copy/pasting...

The abstract concludes: "LDH leakage, a sign of severe cell damage, was observed at 1 mM concentrations of ASM after 22 h."

LDH = Lactate dehydrogenase; mM= Millimolar/L; ASM = Aspartame 1 mM is an extremely tiny amount and note that this was done in vitro. So maybe you should learn how to read an abstract lol there was no centrigrams given to any mice because there was no mice. just "murine brain cell cultures"

From the link below it, from the same study they end by saying : "Clearly the concentrations used in these studies are not likely to be
physiological, but subpopulations of neurones might be affected by
lower doses, and long term exposure to low concentrations might
produce cumulative irreversible damage."

And this is the argument that Sinister used in his post you originally linked. The argument that I acknowledged and agreed with. I never claimed that drinking one diet soda or even a lifetime of drinking diet soda would have an noticeable effect, whether good or bad.

It really calls into question the methodology used in this research that they don't even know the correct molar mass of aspartame... :icon_neut

Are you sure? lol

I would also point out that bathing cultured cells in something probably isn't going to give you a reaction that is analogous to that same thing being consumed by a living organism, especially since methanol metabolism is handled mostly by the liver.

um. that's my point. You keep bringing up aspartame metabolites as if its open and shut. I dont care about the metabolites, I'm talking about aspartame. You keep implying aspartame completely breaks down. Fine, where is your source for this? Wikipedia doesn't go into much detail, so you'll need to go read something else unfortunately.

I'm guessing you've never taken toxicology, then. Arsenic, Cyanide, and Formaldehyde are all excellent examples of substances that are poisonous in large enough quantities. They are also all vital to your health and you will die if you are deficient in them. Formaldehyde is a non essential, true, because your body makes enough of it on its own so long as it has the necessary constituents. However, this also means that your body has an entire pathway set up for dealing with excess formaldehyde... and a good thing, too, because you likely consume more formaldehyde in a day of eating fruits and vegetables than you would consume in a week of drinking diet sodas.

How surprising. Wikipedia. I don't need to enroll in any more chemistry classes to understand that basic principle. I understand your point about metabolites, you've brought it up ten different ways. People like to use this argument when trying to discredit PLANTS. like how they are afraid of nature because someone told them if they eat an unknown plant they will immediately die. A good example is belladonna.

Very cute, and an awesome example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Nobody disputes that aspartame breaks down. What's in dispute is whether the concentrations of those metabolites have any deleterious effects at doses that a human can possibly consume. Nobody has ever demonstrated such.

That's the dispute you would certainly like, because outside of that dispute wikipedia is silent. That is so obvious it shouldn't even be mentioned. The accumulative effect is what that article tries to link with the instability of aspartame. And I'm pretty sure that the study I linked is a terrible example of circular reasoning. They didn't demonstrate that aspartame was cumulative at all.

This Russell Blaylock?

Who belongs to this organization?

The Russell Blaylock who wants to save your life, but you need to sign up for his newsletter for only $48 a year, and buy his "Brain Repair Formula" for only $46.25 for a 30 day supply?

Clearly, the literally thousands of other researchers that have found aspartame to be safe over the last four decades have all been bought and paid for... but thankfully, this man is looking out for us. Clearly he has no vested interest in advancing a false narrative.

Rationalwiki huh? Anyone who disagrees with consensus is a quack apparently. Like Galileo. Whom you would be stoning in the streets and crying for his blood I'm sure. More appeal to popularity, authority and poisoning the well. Obviously you don't have a good grasp of argumentation or logic as already evidenced, so this comes as no surprise.

Actually, the main thing that threads like this make me question is why the sugar and HFCS industries, which are literally thousands of times bigger than the aspartame industry, can't buy this kind of research to save their life. They have profits that dwarf the total revenue of all aspartame manufacturers put together, after all...

Oh yes... it's a grand conspiracy and the evil corporations are trying to kill us. Thankfully, we can foil their evil plans for the low, low price of $603.00 a year (plus shipping and handling)!


:icon_neut

Sugar and HFCS are both poor for you health as well, I wouldn't disagree. And I wouldn't advocate buying any health related advice. If corporations are killing us, its most likely ancillary because of people who readily agree with the mob and cannot use their own minds to think clearly.

 

[Vashgun]

I've not disappeared but I cannot do better than the last post at pointing out the logical fallacies in your position and the information you've linked, so I won't try.

If you keep reading alt-med sites you can find "evidence" to back up any belief you choose. Cherry-picking studies also has the same effect.

The European Food Standards Agency have done also a systematic review of evidence and came to the same conclusion, that it's safe. I cannot find a systematic review that shows otherwise. I'm struggling to find peer-reviewed studies showing it's not safe either.

You know, the best way to test your beliefs is to try as hard as you can to prove them wrong. If they survive that then you might be onto something.

Nice to see you again, way to ride someone else's coattails when you couldn't respond yourself. Throwing stones behind your fortification I see... Although you might take your own advice instead of blindly following those smarter than you.

 

[Ironpants]

If you can't pronounce all of the ingredients, then it must be bad, right?

So the dumber someone is the unhealthier the food is right?

 

[mfgillia]

Well... one would assume that the reason for that thread's inclusion in the FAQ that is marked as "read before posting" is to avoid retreading the same tired subjects over and over.



I will ignore the fact that that's a link to a heavily biased anti aspartame website that seems to be missing a few of the several hundred studies, both industry and independently funded, that have demonstrated the safety of aspartame, and cut right to the nitty gritty. Can you find a single peer reviewed study that demonstrates dangerous or deleterious effects from Aspartame in quantities that can be realistically consumed by humans?




Probably because there are tons of foods that contain trace levels or higher of mercury, many of them very good for you in the grand scheme of things.



And if aspartame builds up in your organs, we are all screwed, because the metabolites from aspartame are present in much higher quantities in all sorts of foods, methanol particularly in fruits, aspartic acid and phenylalanine in proteins.



Nice opinion piece (not a study) from a man who lost his license for being "delusional" about aspartame. Too bad not a single one of the vast multitudes of studies done on aspartame, methanol, phenylalanine, or aspartic acid consumption in humans has matched his claims.



Even the lowest dose shown to have any effect whatsoever measures in centigrams... for an experiment conducted on mice. You should really read these, rather than copy/pasting...



It really calls into question the methodology used in this research that they don't even know the correct molar mass of aspartame... :icon_neut

I would also point out that bathing cultured cells in something probably isn't going to give you a reaction that is analogous to that same thing being consumed by a living organism, especially since methanol metabolism is handled mostly by the liver.





I'm guessing you've never taken toxicology, then. Arsenic, Cyanide, and Formaldehyde are all excellent examples of substances that are poisonous in large enough quantities. They are also all vital to your health and you will die if you are deficient in them. Formaldehyde is a non essential, true, because your body makes enough of it on its own so long as it has the necessary constituents. However, this also means that your body has an entire pathway set up for dealing with excess formaldehyde... and a good thing, too, because you likely consume more formaldehyde in a day of eating fruits and vegetables than you would consume in a week of drinking diet sodas.



Very cute, and an awesome example of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Nobody disputes that aspartame breaks down. What's in dispute is whether the concentrations of those metabolites have any deleterious effects at doses that a human can possibly consume. Nobody has ever demonstrated such.



This Russell Blaylock?

Who belongs to this organization?

The Russell Blaylock who wants to save your life, but you need to sign up for his newsletter for only $48 a year, and buy his "Brain Repair Formula" for only $46.25 for a 30 day supply?

Clearly, the literally thousands of other researchers that have found aspartame to be safe over the last four decades have all been bought and paid for... but thankfully, this man is looking out for us. Clearly he has no vested interest in advancing a false narrative.





Actually, the main thing that threads like this make me question is why the sugar and HFCS industries, which are literally thousands of times bigger than the aspartame industry, can't buy this kind of research to save their life. They have profits that dwarf the total revenue of all aspartame manufacturers put together, after all...

Oh yes... it's a grand conspiracy and the evil corporations are trying to kill us. Thankfully, we can foil their evil plans for the low, low price of $603.00 a year (plus shipping and handling)!



:icon_neut

Great post - you put a lot of time and energy into debunking his fallacies.

However... you do realize you are arguing with a crazy person? As a general rule, they have developed a super human resistance to logic.

 

[Vashgun]

Great post - you put a lot of time and energy into debunking his fallacies.

However... you do realize you are arguing with a crazy person? As a general rule, they have developed a super human resistance to logic.

Speaking of logical fallacies, I believe that ad hominem qualifies. Since I'm so wrong and completely delusional, it would be nice if you could point out where I went wrong in my posts instead of calling me names.

 

[bleaK]

I'm actually enjoying Vash's posts, something's wrong here..

 

[mfgillia]

I'm actually enjoying Vash's posts, something's wrong here..

I agree - they are quite entertaining actually. Its not every day one passionately argues contemporary research can't be trusted due to a grand conspiracy fueled by the nefarious industrial military complex infiltrating the FDA and yet equally mystified at how anyone could possibly conclude he is some sort of conspiracy theorist nutcase.

 

[hardheart]

I agree - they are quite entertaining actually. Its not every day one passionately argues contemporary research can't be trusted due to a grand conspiracy fueled by the nefarious industrial military complex infiltrating the FDA and yet equally mystified at how anyone could possibly conclude he is some sort of conspiracy theorist nutcase.

Vash's posts are the equivalent to Mr. Bean. You really have to be in the mood for it.

 

[Vashgun]

I agree - they are quite entertaining actually. Its not every day one passionately argues contemporary research can't be trusted due to a grand conspiracy fueled by the nefarious industrial military complex infiltrating the FDA and yet equally mystified at how anyone could possibly conclude he is some sort of conspiracy theorist nutcase.

You keep racking up the logical fallacies, keep it up and you'll have committed so many that anyone reading will have a solid grasp of what not to do. I personally like nizkor, but here's a wiki link for you as well:

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

That straw man isn't my position at all, at least not on the topic of aspartame. First, I never said contemporary research couldn't be trusted. I linked to all of the studies I could find; around half found some type of adverse effect either directly, indirectly, major or minor.

Second, skeptics often point out religion as being a form of mass control, yet seem to scoff at any other form of control such as putting flouride in the public water supply or public education. Religion seems to be the only allowable conspiracy, even though two highschool punks are spitting on your cheeseburger at your favorite fast food joint or heads of state, kings, queens and other powers are meeting behind closed doors every year which is massively illegal.

Let me end by quoting this source, that even if 1% of this is true it makes for deep consideration.

Until the acquisition by Monsanto in 1985, the firm's chairman
was William L. Searle, a Harvard graduate, Naval reservist and an officer in
the Army Chemical Corps in the early 1950s, when the same
division tested LSD on groups of human subjects in concert with
the CIA.8 The chief of the Chemical Warfare Division at this time
was Dr. Laurence Laird Layton, whose son Larry was convicted for
the murder of Congressman Leo Ryan at Jonestown. Jonestown, of course, bore a
remarkable likeness to a concentration camp, and kept a full
store of pharmaceutical drugs. (The Jonestown pharmacy was
stocked with a variety of behavior control drugs: qualudes,
valium, morphine, demerol and 11,000 doses of thorazine-a better
supply, in fact, than the Guyanese government's own, not to
mention a surfeit of cyanide.9)

Dr. Layton was married to the daughter of Hugo Phillip, a German
banker and stockbroker representing the likes of Siemens &
Halske, the makers of cyanide for the Final Solution, and I.G.
Farben, the manufacturer of a lethal nerve gas put to the same
purpose.10 Dr. Layton,a Quaker, developed a form of purified
uranium used to set off the Manhattan Project's first
self-sustaining chain reaction at the University of Chicago in
1942 by his wife's German-born Uncle, Dr. James Franck. At Dugway
Proving Ground in Utah, Dr. Layton concentrated his efforts, as
did I.G. Farben, on the development of nerve gasses.11

Source: http://www.firecommunications.com/ash/lib/aspartamebioweapon.html

 

[Nozza]

Well I won't ignore that you nor anyone else has actually linked or given any sort of evidence to contradict my premise or conclusion. Where are these several hundred studies, both industry and independently funded? Why are you clowns putting the onus on me to do research for you? Why don't you show me one peer reviewed study that demonstrates positive effects from aspartame?

I think it might be because nobody ever actually claimed positive effects. We're just pointing out the fact that the current scientific consensus is that it's safe for human consumption in the quantities likely to be used. That such a consensus exists is a simple fact.

Since you believe that the scientific consensus is wrong, the onus is on you to provide solid evidence to support that claim. Hint: conspiracy theories about the FDA or opinion pieces from alt med websites do not constitute solid evidence.

Aspartame has probably been more thoroughly tested than any other artificial food additive in history. There are literally many hundreds of studies. Some are large, well controlled ones done on humans, others are small, in vitro animal studies. Consequently there are a range of results. This is normal. The larger, better controlled studies actually performed on humans using realistic quantities show that it is safe - certainly that's what I can see. The way to evaluate them is to review a large number, throw out the really poorly conducted ones and then weight the remaining group according to how reliable they are. This is called a Systematic Review. It's a big job and often statistically complex. However it has been done several times and not just by the FDA (I already pointed out the EU one). Here is another: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184 ALL of the systematic reviews I can find conclude that it is safe.

They of course COULD all be wrong and you COULD be right. That possibility exists. However there is no good reason to believe that is the case given the evidence we have.

So over to you. Please provide peer-reviewed, controlled studies performed on humans using quantities of aspartame that are relevant to dietary use that indicate that it is not safe. I'm fully open to reading and considering them.

 

[Nozza]

Second, skeptics often point out religion as being a form of mass control, yet seem to scoff at any other form of control such as putting flouride in the public water supply or public education.

Ah...I'd not read this.

No point in arguing with someone who:

A) Doesn't like "skeptics" (people who based their beliefs on evidence)
B) Thinks fluoride in water isn't about tooth enamel but a form of "mass control".

 

[immovablestone]

Always find this type of illogic amusing - whereby in war, food and water controls victory. biochemical warfare manufacturers create "food additives" and the fda and all their friends say its safe and gud fer u. And you buy it, hook, line and sinker. HAHAHA you deserve the death and disease and poison. I agree with these demons. You love it. You aren't worth saving or educating. You are slaves and cattle.

While your first ideas are actually correct in scope, your approach is horrible... If you're just pissing into the wind because you've come to enjoy the taste, that's your own deal, but you'll never sway anyone with that attitude...

 

[Vashgun]

I think it might be because nobody ever actually claimed positive effects. We're just pointing out the fact that the current scientific consensus is that it's safe for human consumption in the quantities likely to be used. That such a consensus exists is a simple fact.

Since you believe that the scientific consensus is wrong, the onus is on you to provide solid evidence to support that claim. Hint: conspiracy theories about the FDA or opinion pieces from alt med websites do not constitute solid evidence.

Neither does proof by assertion constitute solid evidence. Safe is the key word, safe as in? It doesn't kill you immediately therefore its not as bad as rat poison? What's the definition and how is it being used?

When millions of dollars are involved and powerful political, pharmaceutical, and bioweapon manufacturers get together to fund and push through a suspect food additive, I think that warrants some real skepticism. Not blind faith in authority such as feverishly hold to.

Aspartame has probably been more thoroughly tested than any other artificial food additive in history. There are literally many hundreds of studies. Some are large, well controlled ones done on humans, others are small, in vitro animal studies. Consequently there are a range of results. This is normal. The larger, better controlled studies actually performed on humans using realistic quantities show that it is safe - certainly that's what I can see. The way to evaluate them is to review a large number, throw out the really poorly conducted ones and then weight the remaining group according to how reliable they are. This is called a Systematic Review. It's a big job and often statistically complex. However it has been done several times and not just by the FDA (I already pointed out the EU one). Here is another: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408440701516184 ALL of the systematic reviews I can find conclude that it is safe.

Again more parroting and regurgitating the same sources; more appeal to authority and selective facts. Volume does not imply facts.

They of course COULD all be wrong and you COULD be right. That possibility exists. However there is no good reason to believe that is the case given the evidence we have.

So over to you. Please provide peer-reviewed, controlled studies performed on humans using quantities of aspartame that are relevant to dietary use that indicate that it is not safe. I'm fully open to reading and considering them.

What's with this "we?" lol you haven't done anything except googled a few things that have already been gone over ad nauseum. why don't you look through the links I already provided? You want me to do your homework for you? You didn't address any of my arguments, you just assert that the "authorities" are most likely correct and that's good enough for you and so why not for me?

I gave you a template to debunk all I said, very easily. I provided all of the studies I could find for you to go through and yet you want me to go through the literature again and prove to you I'm wrong? LOL

 

[Vashgun]

Ah...I'd not read this.

No point in arguing with someone who:

A) Doesn't like "skeptics" (people who based their beliefs on evidence)
B) Thinks fluoride in water isn't about tooth enamel but a form of "mass control".

eh...skeptics are people who are skeptical of everything they don't personally believe. It's like a cult. Question everything except their sacred cows.

Yes the poor people need dental health too, flouride isn't a known poison. You know, if you stopped drinking that stuff you might be able to actually read and discern.

While your first ideas are actually correct in scope, your approach is horrible... If you're just pissing into the wind because you've come to enjoy the taste, that's your own deal, but you'll never sway anyone with that attitude...

I'm not writing an persuasive essay, i really don't care if you believe anything I say. It's better you don't, its better you hate what I say and try to prove me wrong by researching yourself. I've been doing this awhile, and amazingly people LOVE to poisoned. They love it. They want to be treated like slaves and cattle, they love being sick and tortured. They want their football and tv, they dont want the truth if its not about their sports team. They always get what they ask for. always.

 

[wrassle]

what about sugar free monster for a weight cut ? would 1-2 a day be to much?