What's in A Name?

This is a public service announcement to all of my blog readers that have taken the red pill in regards to dietary and nutritional science.

CRA petitions FDA for high fructose corn syrup name change

The Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asking it to allow the term ‘corn sugar’ as an alternative label declaration for high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

HFCS has suffered from a spate of bad publicity in recent years, and food and beverage manufacturers have been increasingly switching it out of their products in preference for beet or cane sugar (sucrose).

Now why would that be? You think gout, diabetes and rampant obesity would have something to do with it?

The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) has said that the reason it filed a petition with the FDA was to be clear with consumers about what HFCS is: A sugar made from corn. The CRA – a trade association that represents the corn refining industry in the United States – has repeatedly stressed that HFCS is not high in fructose, even though that is what the name may suggest. In fact it contains proportions of fructose and glucose that are similar to sucrose.

SIMILAR is not exactly THE SAME THING.

President of the Corn Refiners Association Audrae Erickson told FoodNavigator-USA.com: “The words ‘high fructose corn syrup’ have caused confusion…This is all about consumer clarity on the ingredient label.”


She said that in much the same way that there is beet sugar and cane sugar, sugar from corn should be called ‘corn sugar’ in order to give it a name that is easily understood.

We wouldn't want the sheeple to understand the difference between monosaccharides versus disaccharides, and how one is worse than the other!

It is expected to take up to two years for the FDA to come to a decision on whether to approve the renaming.


The American Dietetic Association has also found that HFCS is "nutritionally equivalent to sucrose”, and that it is metabolized by the body in the same way as sucrose.

Right. Eating one or the other on a regular basis for a number of years will result in making you become a fat ass with diabetes, gout, and perhaps even heart disease and cancer.

Erickson said: “We hope that the FDA will act positively on our petition in the interest of consumer clarity."


This is not the first time that a name change has been sought for an ingredient that has been declining in popularity in an effort to simplify its image with consumers.

 IS that all? To "simplify it's image?" Or is it to mislead and distract the consumer so they can continue to reap their profits at the expense of the consumers health?

In November last year, Ajinomoto rebranded its aspartame ingredient ‘AminoSweet’, saying the time was right to “remind people that aspartame is made from two amino acids and brings absolutely nothing new to the diet, just sweetness without the calories”.

This just in: don't eat anything with "Corn Sugar" or "AminoSweet" listed on the ingredients.

Corporate Owned Media Wants You On a "Plant-Based Diet"

Why do you think that is?

Every single day, I watch the local morning news - for the traffic and the weather. But it seems like the whole "plant-based diet" meme permeates every aspect of the news broadcasts programming, and the food product commercials shown between segments.

It's ubiquitous.

The commercial break will feature some low fat, whole grain cereal, followed by a spot for cholesterol lowering medication, and than back to the broadcast where they are giving tips on making some tasty, low-fat, vegetarian recipe. Than they'll do a spot on how the latest studies "show" that low-carb diets "may" reduce your life span.

Sometimes I just want to yell at the TV, "quit lying, you lying liars!"

But it doesn't end there.

People in real life that know me and my dietary lifestyle will than forward me emails, txts, or tell me that "my diet" will cause me to get heart disease or cancer..even though I lost weight and have kept it off for so long, I'm still slowly killing myself.

They know this, because they saw it on TV or heard it on the radio or read it in the paper...

It never ends.

I no longer even bother trying to explain to people how "scientific" studies that "prove" low-carb/high-animal protein/high-animal fat diets are usually statistical manipulations designed to mislead people into internalizing the meme that a "plant-based diet" is the key to good health.

I just tell them, "We're all gonna die sometime. When I die, I want to go knowing I ate good food and enjoyed life to the fullest. I had bacon and a 3-cheese-tomato-fresh basil omelette for breakfast, and it tasted damn good. What did you eat? A multi-grain cereal with skim milk and a piece of whole grain toast with low-fat margarine on it?"

That usually shuts 'em up.

Anyhow, yesterday's morning news broadcast once again had a report on "the latest studies show that a low carb diet is bad for you."


Here's the latest lies put forth by the Big Ag Corporate Sponsored "studies":

Conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

When I see this on the TV, I already know it's a lie.

But than you get people like Denise Minger, who actually look into the supposed research and prove that it is in fact, nothing but lies.

She notes:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: In most cases, abstracts tell you a whole ‘lotta nothing—so don’t judge a study until you’ve read the full text.

For right now, I’ll give this study the benefit of the doubt and ignore the fact that A) the researchers used a pretty lame decile-based scoring system* and B) employed the notoriously unreliable food-frequency questionnaire to collect their data.

Questionnaires to prove a diet is unhealthy? Where have we seen this before?

Every time the researchers made multivariate adjustments to the data to account for the risk factors they did document (including physical activity, BMI, alcohol consumption, hypertension, and smoking, among other things), the hazard ratio went down for the Animal Group (meaning it got better) and it went up for the Vegetable Group (meaning it got worse). That indicates pretty clearly that the Animal Group had more proclivity to disease right from the get go, regardless of meat consumption, and the Vegetable Group may have been more health-aware than most folks. (To see what I’m talking about, look at the mortality tables under the “10″ column, and compare the “Age- and energy-adjusted HR” with the “Multivariate-adjusted HR” for each group.)

In other words, it looks like what this study really measured was a Standard American Diet group (aka Animal Group) and a slightly-less Standard American Diet group (aka Vegetable Group). Both ate sucky diets, but the latter had slightly less suckage. You can bet the farm that neither was anything close to “low carb.” And if you have two farms, you can bet the other one that neither diet group was anything near plant-based, so I’m not sure the vegan crowd has much to gloat about here.

I look forward to my grass fed steak and butter-drenched broccoli for dinner tonight.

Some Women Think Pandora Can Just Close the Lid...

...and make everything go back to the "good ole days," in which sex was bait to lure men into commitment, rather than the current hook up culture of female sexual "empowerment."

Dalrock exposed this foolish delusion found on this post, Sexual Revolution and Feminist: Wrong. Grandma: Right.

Through countless trials and tribulations of our own and those of our readers we have come to realize that the only way in which the female population is going to regain power over this city of boys (we refuse to call them men) is to no longer give them what they want. Yep, that’s right. NO MORE SEX. Seriously.

Just think about it. What if every single woman out there stopped having sex. No more one night stands. No more casual hook-ups. No more f*ck buddies. No more ex-sex. No more let’s start having sex and if it’s good then attempt to backtrack into a relationship. The boys of New York would have to start working for it!

My initial response to this idea? Hah! Pandora's box has already been opened. It is done! The demons of unrestrained female sexuality has been unleashed and they are wreaking havoc on Patriarchal civilization. Too late, ladies.

If you won't give up the milk, men are not going to suddenly be impelled to buy the cow, they'll just find another ready and willing cow giving milk away for free.

But Dalrock took them seriously for a moment, and decided to outline the scenario of what would happen if these ladies were to try and enforce this sex cartel...to restrict the availability of pussy to raise it's overall value.

Hilarity ensues:

Lets say these women are serious, and decide to form a union (a form of cartel). They will need a suitably union sounding name if anyone is going to take them seriously. I propose: Women Holding Out for Relationship Equity. But there are other women having sex with bankers out there, so we need to identify them as well. These women aren’t in it for the money, but for the pure enjoyment of the sex and the ability to exercise their sexual power. Lets call them Sisters Lusting for Unlimited Titillation. To save space, I’ll refer to each group via their acronym in the rest of the post.

So lets say the WHOREs call a city wide sex strike. Do you think the SLUTs are going to take this lying down? Of course not! They’ll just enter into a backdoor agreement with the bankers and continue as usual. In addition, not all of the WHOREs will honor the strike. Some will claim they will honor the strike (lie) and then secretly cheat on the agreement. Thats right: lying cheating WHOREs. So if you are a banker, you have all of the SLUTS and lying cheating WHOREs you can handle. This naturally will bring the golddigging WHOREs to their knees.

What the golddigging WHOREs need is a method to enforce the strike. Labor unions use a combination of social pressure and legal protection to achieve this. However, the WHOREs are not in a good position to try to shame the SLUTs, so they probably won’t get enough social sympathy to enforce the strike or have the laws changed. After all, most of the WHOREs were in all likelyhood SLUTs until very recently, and as I mentioned earlier many of them are actually lying cheating WHOREs. More importantly, feminists have been very successful in creating an aversion to shaming SLUTs. Not too long ago shaming SLUTs was commonplace. But now as a blogger with a diverse audience I for example wouldn’t consider using slut shaming language, even to make a point. Many ordinary women have come to see an insult to sluts as an insult to all women.

It is important to note that not all women are golddiging WHOREs, lying cheating WHOREs, or SLUTs. There is another category which is often overlooked in the manosphere. These women understand that marriage is something much more than a vulgar economic transaction, and they take it very seriously. Unfortunately as we saw in the beginning of the post, these women can end up paying a price for the actions of the SLUTs and the WHOREs.

Well done, Dalrock!