Slashdot Mirror

Lastly, caffeine levels and it effects may be extended by consuming grapefruit or grapefruit juice (1,5). There is a chemical in grapefruit called naringin that extends the half-life of caffeine. Naringin, which is the substance that gives grapefruit its unique bitter taste, slows the breakdown of caffeine into its metabolite, paraxanthine, in the liver. Consuming canned grapefruit juice is the best strategy because it has much higher concentrations of naringin. The maceration of fresh grapefruit releases the active ingredient which is otherwise locked in (18). This may allow athletes to consume smaller dosages of caffeine and still get the same results and extend the effects later in a long endurance event.

If the Government didn't subsidize stuff like milk (prop up the price) it would be too expensive to make.

(Quick point of fact: A subsidy does not prop up prices. It artificially lowers them, by paying part of the cost "behind the scenes". A price support does the opposite; it artificially raises them, through tactics such as the imposition of tarrifs, and paying domestic producers to destroy supply.)

I find it interesting that you changed the example commodity in use within this thread from sugar to milk. The cynic in me wonders if you did this because milk is deemed a necessity by many people, whereas bulk sugar isn't. If that was your primary reason for switching, then you'd be potentially guilty of exploiting fear to help support your argument. However, I'll assume that your switch to milk as an example was benign. Regardless, "you may be surprised to learn that most of the human beings that live on planet Earth today do not drink or use cow's milk."

In any case, I'll continue with your milk analogy.[1]

That would result in an immediate monopoly, or worse, nobody making it at all.

If the subsidy suddenly disappeared, then...

• (A) there'd be a near-instantaneous spike in the price of milk. Then...

• (B) Demand for milk would fall.

• (C)Supply would greatly outstrip demand, causing suppliers to compete for sales by reducing prices.

• (D)Many milk producers would go out of business (either by choice, or by default).

• (E)Thus supply is reduced to the point where the wholesale price of milk exceeds the cost to produce it by an acceptable margin of wholesale profit, commensurate with the risks to capital one incurs in the business of milk production.[2]

Would this process, particularly steps (A) and (D), be disruptive? You bet! But, that's the fault of the government baffoon that decided to subsidize the price of milk in the first place. I am tempted to use the analogy of crack cocaine here: going through withdrawal is always a bitch. (Perhaps this is why welfare recipients tend to stay on welfare, making it a perpetual hand-out rather than the temporary hand-up that it ought to be.)

Could step (D) result in a hegemonic monopoly? Doubtful. You could end up with a monopoly in the sense of "only one supplier", but not in the sense of "exclusive power or privelege of selling." Milk is sooo commoditized, that there really is little barrier to entry by competitors. Said monopoly would have no pricing control at all. Any attempt to jack up prices would be inviting competition. (Hmm, is that the influence of some Invisible Hand, that I'm feeling right now? "A little lower, please... a little to the left... aah, that's the spot.")

Thus, I would conclude this particular retort by saying you have confused cause with effect. If the government's milk subsidy disappeared, milk would indeed become temporarily "too expensive to make", but that's the fault of the government encouraging oversupply through the very subsidy that you claim is saving us from high milk prices. In fact, the currently lower price you think you're paying for milk is an illusion. You're still paying the difference; either in the form of taxes, or inflation due to the printing of new $$$ to pay for the subsidy.

Next you said:

But since we have milk on the shelves you haven't been a victim of such a shortage, so you probably think it couldn't happen.

I'm not really sure how the present subsidy eliminates the risk of said shortages. What are you thinking of here? Natural disasters? Some pathogen obliterating our stock of dairy cows? Transport infrastructure crumbling? In New Orleans, August 2005, you probably couldn't buy a gallon of milk for $1000. And, that's wi

Oh, and what kind of scientific discourse would be complete without anecdotal evidence?

So don't drink milk for health.

Milk is generally THOUGHT to be a good source of calcium, but in fact is not: http://www.afpafitness.com/articles/MILKDOC.HTM
The information in the above source seems reasonable enough, and well-backed with scientific reports. Please read it, I assure it is worth it.

The body needs, IIRC, 3 grams of linoleic acid a day, plus some trace amounts from other sources. Most people get MUCH more than that.

You'll find that excessive carbohydrates will do you more harm than anything.

It's important, and you allude to it later, that the quality of carbohydrate is critical. Most Americans eat lots of WHITE processed flour and sugar. It's stuff that INSTANTLY triggers an insulin reaction, and after a couple of decades of it the body just gets resistant to the insulin. Sadly, they've stopped calling it "Adult-onset diabetes" in the US because it's becoming more prevalent in teens and even younger.

And a lack of protein is more dangerous than too much. You can eat 200g of protein a day without ill effect, but eat less and you end up losing significant strength.

I would counter that a lack of protein is almost unheard of in the developed world. There's a published figure of 56g per day for a 75kg man, but actual studies indicate that it can be even lower, and that rat studies are NOT indicative of human studies. See the results of some studies here. The results of a diet too high in protein, esp. animal protein, usually are an increased load on the kidneys and bone calcium loss, primarily through extra acidtiy in the body. This is part of the reason the USRDA for calcium (1000mg) is almost double that recommended by most other governments (I belive the UK has an RNI number of 700mg for adult men.)

It's probably notable that human breast milk - the food that makes a baby double its weight in one year, is only about 10% protein by calories. If 10% is good enough for a newborn baby, it should be good enough for anyone.

Just drink about a litre of milk a day.

Milk - especially cow's milk - should be taken in moderation or not at all. Many adults have some degree of lactose intolerance; the concentrated protien of milk (and other animal products) is detrimental to proper calcium balance; milk is commonly contaminated with pus and with drug residues; it's high in fat and low in iron. The high milk consumption in the U.S. is a marketing triumph, not a healthy habit.

The symptoms of a caffeine overdose ("caffeinism") will
vary, according to individual differences and the amount consumed. Doses ranging from 250 to 750 mg (2 to 7 cups of coffee or tablets of NoDoz) can produce
restlessness, nausea, headache, tense muscles, sleep disturbances, and irregular heart beats. Doses of over 750 mg (7 cups of coffee) can produce a reaction similar
to an anxiety attack, including delirium, ringing ears, and light flashes. (See Caffeine)

Geek-grrl in training