The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
APPLES!
Balgair
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Someone set me straight on this whole controversy. IS THERE CAFFEINE IN THESE DELICIOUS ORBS OF FRUITINESS? I hear yes, no, and "there's something that does the same thing."
What r teh truth?
If they do boost ya, can the same be said for apple juice?
What r teh truth?
If they do boost ya, can the same be said for apple juice?
XBL:VOS THE VARG
Balgair on
0
Posts
B.net: Kusanku
Result: ???
An apple tree starts to grow inside your stomach and kills you from the inside out.
Or that's what I always told my little sister.
No, you've got it all wrong! You turn into an apple tree.
and here I just ate an apple in the morning because I like apples. If there's any truth to this then that's awesome!
QUICK! To the GOOGLEMOBILE!
HOWEVER. It appears studies done suggest that the element Boron may help with maintaining an alert state. As such, apples seem to have a substantial amount of Boron.
Link1
Link2
One to two cups of coffee per day is fucking fantastic for you, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not only does it increase your energy levels and help keep you awake, not only does it act as a catalyst for your metabolism giving it a boost, it's also full of the same chemicals that help out your heart that are found in red wine. Is an apple bad for you? Absolutely not. It's just good for you in different ways.
Is this still true if you're too much of a pussy to drink it black? I usually use about a teaspoon of sugar per travel mug of coffee.
tl;dr Drink a coffee with your apple.
Or conversely, eat an apple with your coffee.
Except humans chew their food before swallowing it and the outer layer of apple seeds isn't that tough.
The good news is, I've eaten apple cores, pips and all, since I was about 8 and have yet to die of respiratory failure.
What do you mean that's bad news?
http://www.longlifeclub.com/article.php?aid=518
Although in this article he compares blueberries to coffee, I'd be interested in seeing if apples have a greater amount of antioxidants as well. I was a bit perplexed as to why you referred to red wine specifically, since the main reason people like referring to red wine as a "health food" is due to the resveratrol (sp?) content. As far as I know, coffee does not have resveratrol in it.
I am not trying to disagree with you, Thanatos. If you were simply referring to coffee containing antioxidants, than you were 100% correct. However I would still recommend the above article about just how good coffee is for a person.
What? No. "Natural" sugar is no different than "unnatural" sugar.
This is fructose. It is a chemical compound called a monosaccharide. Whether or not it occurs in nature or is pieced together, Frankenstein-like, by a man in a white coat, if it has this structure, it is fructose. Your body doesn't care where it came from; your body will happily nomnom it either way.
This is sucrose, AKA table sugar. It is a disaccharide of fructose and glucose. Whether or not it occurs in nature or is pieced together, Frankenstein-like, by a man in a white coat, if it has this structure, it is sucrose. Your body doesn't care where it came from; your body will happily nomnom it either way.
There are other sugars; we can go on, but I think the point is made. "Natural" sugar is not going to "mesh better with your system" than "unnatural" sugar; your body is going to process either absolutely identically.
N.B.: This is not the same thing as saying that your body is going to have the same reaction to an apple that it has to a candy bar.
I think that would be really awesome.
i.e. fructose in HFCS is considered a more "simple sugar," which is readily broken down and absorbed, and doesn't lead the the feeling of "full" in the body, while sucrose in, say, an apple, takes longer to break down and provide energy, and correspondingly does lead the body to recognize it as energy, and make the proper chemical impulses that lead to "full."
The slightly longer answer: in order to digest a disaccharide, your body needs to break down the chemical bond between the monosaccharides, expending energy in the process. So it's slightly less efficient to eat disaccharides.
In practice? The difference between the two is next to fuckall. Certainly whatever minute energy cost there is to eating disaccharides as opposed to monosaccharides is not going to account for any difference in the satiating effects of either.
The satiety you receive from eating an apple is from the fiber and water content of the apple, not the sugar content (the sugar in an apple is, by the way, almost entirely fructose, not sucrose). Likewise, the satiety you receive from drinking a glass of milk is almost entirely from the fat, protein, and water content of the milk, not the milk sugars (lactose is a disaccharide of galactose and glucose).
In any case, none of this has anything to do with whether the sugars are natural or not.
Whaaaat? Now I really wish I wasn't allergic to the stuff!
Found mostly in milk, though I think it forms part of the sugars in beets and a few other vegetables.
Apple juice, or apples for that matter, have dick-all in terms of nutritional content. They are mostly sugar and water.
They cast a shadow like a sundial in the morning light. It was half past 10.
Also, I believe the reason "natural" sugars are often referred to as being better for you than say, sugar in sweets or cake or whatever is not actually to do with the chemical structure of the sugar itself, rather, the nutritional benefits of the food it's in. Sugars in sweets are empty calories and have no real use, and are actually a drain on your body to break down. Fruits, on the other hand, are full of all the vitamins and whatever else you need to break sugars down so that they don't really have any negative impact on you.
Disclaimer: This is a dumbed-down explanation that my biochemist girlfriend gave me a few days ago that I'm probably not even remembering that well, so it may be a bit off.
Apples don't really have much in the way of vitamins, compared to, say, oranges, or any other fruit except pears. An apple contains 10% of your RDI of vitamin C, compared to over 100% in an orange, and 1% of your RDI of vit. A. So, bascally, dick-all. They do contain fibre, yes, but then again so does wallpaper.
They cast a shadow like a sundial in the morning light. It was half past 10.
They cast a shadow like a sundial in the morning light. It was half past 10.