This morning I was watching some news stories online, which instantly discredits this entry, I know. After the story about the standing cat, and before the one about the Kardashian Diet, was an interview that a trusted news show conducted with a man who believes sugar needs to be a regulated drug.
It was no secret that the reporter thought this guy was full of shit. And to prove the guy was full of shit, the reporter showed the counterpoint to his argument. Fair enough. That would be called good, balanced reporting. What I have a concern with is that he used The Corn Refiners Association as his counterpoint source.
What would any logical person do if they needed information on the physiological effects of a food on the body? Well, probably talk with a few more doctors, some nutritionists. Maybe even people who have personally been heavy and ask them what they did to lose the weight and keep it off.
This reporter, however, used the Corn Refiners Association as his source.
Anybody think the Corn Refiners Association would p o s s i b l y have a vested interest in assuring the public that their product is safe?
They're not evil, I'm not saying that. I'm just asking that people start living their own lives. Testing things on their own. Making their own decisions based on their own experiences. We can have people debate all day and all night whether or not sugar is "bad." I can't say that it is. For me personally, I have found that I perform better and more clearly without it. Have I completely stopped eating it yet? No. It's not completely out of my diet yet. We hang out less, but I haven't completely kicked him out of my life. But I have realized he might not be as good to me as he's claimed to be. As with people, so too in our relationships with food. Sometimes it takes a while to realize the relationship has no substance. But it gets found out eventually.
Just think. That's all I'm saying. Thanks for listening. Until next time.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment