Slashdot Mirror

Water in Vegetables

Quote:

"A variety of vegetables have a water composition above 90 percent. Cucumbers and iceberg lettuce contain the highest amount because they're 96 percent water. Ninety-four percent to 95 percent of celery, tomatoes and zucchini consists of water. You can choose from broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, sweet peppers and spinach for vegetables composed of 91 percent to 93 percent water. Carrots are rated as having 87 percent, while green peas are 79 percent water."

I wonder though if its more likely to be related to other hobbies, such as cycling, or running where people drink coffee along with a physical task that involves a coffee break.

Who is going to get all hot and sweaty doing a physical activity, and then go drink a hot cup of coffee as a refreshment? That is a rather silly idea. Caffeine actually increases your thirst.

Caffeine is also included in sports drinks, and energy gels. It increases your tolerance of pain.

Every cycle club that I've been a member of normally has a half way coffee stop, or a coffee stop at the end of the ride. It's the done thing. It's very refreshing in the winter and in the Summer I normally let the coffee cool down first and have it at the very end.

I wonder though if its more likely to be related to other hobbies, such as cycling, or running where people drink coffee along with a physical task that involves a coffee break.

Who is going to get all hot and sweaty doing a physical activity, and then go drink a hot cup of coffee as a refreshment? That is a rather silly idea. Caffeine actually increases your thirst.

Yeah, but small price to pay to be able to start smoking again!!!

Apparently you never heard of other conditions which cause severe and irrecoverable damage to the lungs that have nothing to do with smoking.

At least smokers' lungs can potentially heal (providing they haven't developed COPD).

And what the heck is up with that someone is sitting on you or holding you down as you transition from sleep to being awake.

You're not alone... The sleep paralysis wiki page caught my eye some time ago. The picture is very appropriate for the unusual sensation of an outside force, when the unexpected lapse exerting our "inside" force is more accurate.

I've heard the threshold of sleep can come with the experience of auditory and visual hallucinations as the brain is countering sensory deprivation.

Panic attacks can happen at night at the waning edge of sleep, and instances of all three (paralysis, hallucinations and panic attacks) are mentioned on this source https://www.livestrong.com/art...

You know that the Shao-Lin monks, who are the most powerful athletes in the world, eat strict Vegan diets, right? Source.

Turkey is the best, most flavorful, most nutritious meat available, if it's done correctly.

Bison is a bit more nutritious than turkey, both in the good stuff it contains more of and the bad stuff it contains less of (this source is a bit more neutral in their comparison). If you like beef, bison tastes really good, and is much healthier than beef as well.

10% of U.S. adults were classified as obese during the 1950s. In 2011 to 2012, however, the CDC reported approximately 35%. Source: https://www.livestrong.com/art...

Just eat healthy (Oh, yes I know, most people don't know what that means)

You don't know how right you actually are. Even doctors and nutritionists have been conned into believing lies about healthy eating. Just look at the newest research that completely blows the notion salt/fat cause heart disease. In fact fat may just be healthier than carbohydrates.

Probably both techniques can be used to lose and maintain weight. The difference is essentially that constant fat and protein intake will kill you off early whereas less food and more exercise has a net benefit to your long-term health.

You'll be a marvel if you live to be 90.

He can still drink (unfiltred) beer.

Low carb means you'll be absorbing more protein and fat but it doesn't increase the amount of waste.

The facts disagree with you. A lack of fiber from protein is why I'm passing more waste. I'm also shedding — and drinking — more water.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/418121-changes-to-bowel-habits-with-a-low-carb-diet/

You are merely moving the stuff out as an actual object instead of a paste.

My poop comes out like soft yogurt. If the cone-shaped top is above the water line, it's a Mt. Everest. One time I pooped a Olympus Mons that filled the bowl. Fortunately, it flushed without incident.

I distill my tap water before drinking it, using one of these.

That doesn't solve this problem, of course, but it does give me an extra layer of protection against failings of the water treatment process.

Contrary to strangely-popular belief, distilled water is only barely acidic (thousands of times less acidic than soda pop, slightly less acidic than a banana), and does not leech minerals from your body. It's water. It is perfectly healthy, and it tastes good.

God dammit, not this again. No people, distilled water is not safe to drink. It will try to balance out that PH, it will sap minerals and electrolyres from your water, and it will shorten your lifespan.

Here's a link

And here's another.

Distilled water was a health trend in the 70's, right along with the "don't vaccinate because of autism" trend in the 2000's. It's a clever troll if you want to give someone serious health problems or so, if you really find that funny, but as soon as you crack open a high school chemistry textbook it becomes pretty obvious why it's a bad idea. Did you, sir, ever take Chemistry?

Size of a football for us that aren't North American.

Same.

An association football ("soccer") ball is 22-23 cm in diameter

An American football ball is 28 cm from tip to tip on the long axis, and 18 cm in diameter.

This article is about order of magnitude, and these two numbers are identical to well within order of magnitude.

http://www.football-bible.com/...
http://www.livestrong.com/arti...

A person who gets half their calories from a meat like beef increases their caloric load by biking wherever they go instead of driving; they'd be better for the environment driving a large SUV without any passengers.

So much fail here.

Let's see. A 190 lb. person riding a bicycle at 15 mph uses about 58 calories per mile.. Gasoline contains about 31,000 calories per gallon.. Suppose the large SUV gets 20 mpg. That's 1550 calories per mile, or more than 26 times as much.

See also here.

Agreed. It's mostly bullshit reporting too. 65% of cancers are not caused by "bad luck". They are caused by yet unknown reasons. Unknown reasons is not "bad luck". Bad luck is getting hit by a meteor.

http://www.medscape.com/viewar...

In the United States, 1 in 3 cancer deaths is related to obesity, poor nutrition, or physical inactivity, and the problem will only increase as more countries and regions adopt the diet and lifestyles of more economically developed economies.

Nearly 20% of the world's adult population smokes, and worldwide tobacco is killing around 6 million people each year from a variety of smoking-related diseases, the report estimates.

Precise figures are given for the year 2000, when 4.38 million premature deaths globally were attributed to smoking, with causes listed as cardiovascular disease

Still under-recognized, and not acted on, is the association between drinking alcohol and cancer.

The IACR has labeled alcoholic beverages as "carcinogenic to humans" (and placed them in group 1, alongside ultraviolet light and chronic infection with hepatitis B). This classification was first made in 1988, and then confirmed in 2007 and 2010.

http://www.livestrong.com/arti...

33% is from obesity, and inactivity. 20% of the population is succeptible to smoking related cancers. In the US that is 60m people and 200k got cancer from it. And 1.6m total cancers a year. So, 12% of all cancers are tobacco.

http://seer.cancer.gov/statfac...

So, WTF? 100% - 33% - 12% = 55% remaining

so *how* do you even get to 65% with just tobacco and obesity/inactivity accounting for 55% already? We haven't even accounted for external chemical factors like record usage of RoundUp alone, never mind the rest of the crap.

Quick back-of-the-napkin math.

Assuming 100% of your output goes to powering the thermoelectric cooler at 680 watt-hours per liter.

You generate 100 watt hours of power from 360 Cal and for every Cal you need to consume 1ml of water (or more) - then to make 1 liter of water, you need to use up 1.76 liters of water.

I'm going to have to pass on any diet that includes raw chicken.

Sorry, I guess I described it wrong. Foods were added back to the diet slowly, from only raw fruits and vegetables and nuts to cooked foods like some brown rice, squash, to eventually adding cooked meats, starting with chicken and eventually beef. This was always organically-raised, pasture-fed chicken and grass-fed and finished beef. Cooking was done very carefully, ensuring meats are cooked to a safe temperature. Of course, eating raw chicken is VERY dangerous for ANYONE!!!

I'm also very skeptical of the claim that drinking juice has any benefits that aren't present in just eating whatever the juice came from. Bottled juices are convenient because of the shelf life. If you're sticking a fresh item into a juicer you could have gotten all the same benefits by just sticking it directly in your mouth. Your stomach liquifies everything anyway.

If you're getting juice from a bottle, it's been pasteurized (cooked), which means it doesn't have the same nutrients. The fresher the food is, the more nutrients it contains. Cooking to the high temperatures required for canning (bottle) destroys a lot of essential nutrients. And I'm afraid you're wrong that just eating it outright results in the same ability to absorb nutrients from food. Birds feed their babies pre-digested food because it is easier to digest. Juicing breaks down the cells and makes the food easier to absorb, and it provides a denser amount of nutrients meaning you can take in more raw juiced food than you can eat whole.

If you've got a GI disorder that prevents you from digesting or eliminating then you'll need to be on clear fluids and IV but for non-GI disorders the rest of your body doesn't care whether the food was solid or liquid when it entered your mouth. Either way it was broken down into its fundamental constituents before it passed into your bloodstream.

The human body doesn't have a "on/off" switch in the GI tract that allows it to work perfectly or not at all. It's a very complicated ecosystem requiring symbiotic relationships with various types of bacteria and phages. It's a delicate balance. malabsorption syndrome runs the gambit from a single nutrient can't be absorbed to what you've described where almost all nutrients pass through without the body being able to process them. For instance, pernicious anemia is often caused lack of the ability to absorb vitamin B12. You may be able to absorb everything else, but this single malabsorption issue can cause lots of problems, and is often misdiagnosed. There are many others commonly recognized.

The assertion that everything you eat is "Either way it was broken down into its fundamental constituents" simply shows a fundamental misunderstanding of nutrition. Sure, that happens before it enters your bloodstream, but the process getting to that point is very complex, and if nutrients you need are simply passing through, or are being used up by the wrong mix of bacteria and phages in your gut, it can cause all kinds of health issues.

Juicing raw foods can help, as can the process of the raw food cleanse that can help purge overgrowth of bacteria that can cause issues. Here is some information on the benefits of juicing your food vs. simply eating it raw. And if you're really interested in finding out why a bottled juice is not going to provide the same benefits as fresh foods juiced and consumed immediately, this article lays it out pretty well.

s/your/you're/. Duh. And I don't even have the excuse of Vitamin D deficiency.

People have been smoking tobacco for about 1000 years now. Why do you think they started doing that? How far up your own ass would you have to be to deny even the possibility of a pleasant neurochemical effect?

Here's a quote an article:

This chemical enters the blood and after about seven seconds, it enters the brain, affecting exactly the same dopamine receptors, giving the brain the message that a rewarding activity has just been performed. Smokers report a feeling of calmness and mild euphoria when they have a puff of a cigarette.

Actually, "Shrimp contains so little fat of any kind that it will have almost no effect on your cholesterol levels" Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/450300-does-shrimp-contain-good-or-bad-cholesterol/#ixzz2nDByRn8F The point, however, was what people claim with no underlying science.

So are you saying that orders for "Currywurst mit Pommes" or döner are no longer heard on the streets of German cities, or from the fine soldaten of the Bundeswehr, American army, and other NATO allies when given the opportunity for that or other such local food?

I take it that you lack familiarity with the habits of soldiers? Or are you just being over sensitive about something? In either case I think you are showing a failure of imagination since the KGB or GRU would have been able to develop a suitable menu and assist in preparing such trucks if it had been an actual plan rather than a tongue in cheek comment.

As to obesity, Europe is catching up.

RIP: Kadir Nurman

I stand corrected. I assumed it was mostly fructose due to it being fruit.

But
http://www.livestrong.com/article/267094-natural-sugars-in-oranges/

Let's take the Hazda:

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf

None of those starches or sugars is refined at all, which likely reduces the amount of effect that it can have on insulin levels, much less insulin resistance. Hell Baobab is even advertised as low glycemic: (http://baobab-fruit.com)

Even honey is a relatively low glycemic index: http://www.livestrong.com/article/270875-honey-vs-sugar-glycemic-index/

Using the Hazda to refute the insulin hypothesis, given the low glycemic values of their diet, seems inappropriate.

There's still a lot of berries and starch. And the very low fat content.

You can examine what happens when you eat specific foods in detail and that very valuable. But obesity is caused by our entire lifestyle and can't replicate their lifestyles in a metabolic ward.

"caused by our entire lifestyle?" So for example, if one person watches the news for 30 minutes, and another watches a sitcom, you're going to assert that this lifestyle difference could cause a difference in obesity? By what possible mechanism?

The science of fat accumulation cannot simply be stated as "thou shalt do no measurements, and rely on self reported diet and exercise numbers". Until you get someone in a metabolic ward (where you can test all kinds of hypotheses on what may or may not add to fat accumulation), you're not collecting very good data.

That's a pretty lame reductio ad absurdum. How many times do people go out drinking with friends in a metabolic ward? Go to a potluck, head out for lunch, play a soccer game, go for a walk, have a chat with friends, or work late and hit the snack machine or food stash in their desk? Social cues and depression both affect eating. Routine is a huge factor in eating habits and is something that's probably impossible to maintain in a metabolic ward.

You can test specific hypotheses in a metabolic ward, but it's not a magic bullet.

You've shown data you believe contradicts him, but doesn't.

Lets forget the tribesmen he implied used a fattening ceremony based off carbs, but really did it with fat. And how he just changes the subject when it comes to Japan and tons of other places that are high carb and even starch without being obese. And how injecting insulin into mice doesn't cause obesity, and replacing fat calories with sugar calories 1-1 doesn't cause obesity, and insulin resistance seems to be a mechanism to keep excess glucose out of cells so it doesn't poison cells (don't think I linked this one). And how obesity in the US shows no relationship to carbohydrate consumption.

And lets just concentrate the fact that GI isn't really correlated to insulin after all. So all that carbohydrate evidence he thinks he has doesn't even exist.

Let's take the Hazda:

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP07601616.pdf

None of those starches or sugars is refined at all, which likely reduces the amount of effect that it can have on insulin levels, much less insulin resistance. Hell Baobab is even advertised as low glycemic: (http://baobab-fruit.com)

Even honey is a relatively low glycemic index: http://www.livestrong.com/article/270875-honey-vs-sugar-glycemic-index/

Using the Hazda to refute the insulin hypothesis, given the low glycemic values of their diet, seems inappropriate.

You can examine what happens when you eat specific foods in detail and that very valuable. But obesity is caused by our entire lifestyle and can't replicate their lifestyles in a metabolic ward.

"caused by our entire lifestyle?" So for example, if one person watches the news for 30 minutes, and another watches a sitcom, you're going to assert that this lifestyle difference could cause a difference in obesity? By what possible mechanism?

The science of fat accumulation cannot simply be stated as "thou shalt do no measurements, and rely on self reported diet and exercise numbers". Until you get someone in a metabolic ward (where you can test all kinds of hypotheses on what may or may not add to fat accumulation), you're not collecting very good data.

I've shown real data he's misrepresented. I've shown counter examples he's ignored.

No, you actually really haven't. You've shown data you believe contradicts him, but doesn't. You've shown examples that you believe contradict him, but don't.

Moreover, you seem to think (although perhaps this isn't what you intend) that the insulin hypothesis simply has no value whatsoever, and must be replaced by a nebulous, undefined "palatability" hypothesis. You then clearly treat this favored hypothesis as immune to the same sort of critique you give to the insulin hypothesis, doing much of what you accuse taubes of - misrepresenting data and ignoring counter examples.

So sure, there certainly is a lot more to be learned about what drives insulin resistance, and perhaps, for some small fraction of obese, what alternative method (MHO) might be causing a hormonal imbalance in fat accumulation. But frankly, Guynet and his wishful thinking about palatability and tastiness just doesn't stand up to the same level of scrutiny that he'd like us to place on the insulin hypothesis.

Many things that are "just common sense" are utterly wrong. You'd be amazed the crap people believe, and pass down as "just common sense" for generations.

What you need to remove are the sugar carbs... (sugars like sucrose, fructose, etc added to processed food products)..

Keaping the starch carbs is just a start.. Exercise, watching your pH balance are some other items you need to add to the list.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TekWar http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droud

But there are probably other stories, as this technology has been used in various ways for decades. Although this is interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_center
"More recent research has shown that the so-called pleasure electrodes lead only a form of wanting or motivation to obtain the stimulation, rather than pleasure."

See also my comment below:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3862853&cid=44004193

In a book reference there, "The Pleasure Trap", the authors talk about multiple brain systems for pleasure that work in different ways to different ends (dopamine vs. serotonin).
http://www.livestrong.com/article/175158-dopamine-vs-serotonin/

There are so many situations human need to navigate where you could start down a slippery slope... Part of the problem is that it takes time for society to adjust as people learn about each new one technology is making possible...

Of course, potatoes can't be produced from material free of radioisotopes..... http://www.livestrong.com/article/303878-a-list-of-the-most-radioactive-foods/

Potatoes contain gobs of potassium, which has a naturally occurring radioactive isotope (K40). Bananas have the same issue. Unlike C14, K40 is primordial, so everywhere you have potassium, you have essentially the same concentration of K40.

America, land of the obese,

Don't worry, Europe is competitive - especially certain countries.

Obesity in America Compared to Europe

Europe is competing with the U.S. for first place in the obesity crisis. According to a report issued by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development out of Paris, more than half of European adults are overweight or obese. Obesity rates have doubled in the past 20 years for the 27 member states of the European Union. It is estimated that 1 in 7 children in these states is obese. The disparity among countries is significant, however. The prevalence of obesity is less than 10 percent in Romania and Italy, but greater than 20 percent in the UK, Ireland and Malta

-------

home of the gun NUT

Tough Targets - When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens
Stories That Happened In MI

In some countries, the following two people would likely be dead or badly injured. Can you figure out why they aren't?

80-year-old Flint man fires shots at five robbery suspects
Elderly Woman Shoots at Intruder

A rather different picture than what has happened in the UK.

Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control

Self-Defense: An Endangered Right

The withdrawal of a basic right of Englishmen is having dire consequences in Great Britain, and should serve as an object lesson for Americans. Today, in the name of public safety, the British government has practically eliminated the citizens’ right to self-defense. That did not happen all at once. The people were weaned from their fundamental right to protect themselves through a series of policies implemented over some 80 years. Those include the strictest gun regulations of any democracy, legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to carry any article that could be used for personal protection, and restrictive limits on the use of force in self-defense. . . .

-------

Yea, without huge-sodas and the ability to blow away your neighbours, America would have fallen to those commie-liberal-bastards a long time ago.

It might be too soon to tell.

The IRS’s Tea-Party Targeting

Cheers

Could you please supply the exact number of children's deaths over a 3 year period that you believe would justify banning the product. Thanks.

For perspective, on average 25 kids die every year from plastic bags. On average, 350,000 kids require emergency room care and 200 kids die every year from bicycle accidents, and that's a toy designed for use by kids. I can't give you an exact number, but it should certainly be several orders of magnitude greater than the number of kids injured or killed by Buckyballs.

Either that or ban all bicycles and plastic bags, including garbage bags.

Could you please supply the exact number of children's deaths over a 3 year period that you believe would justify banning the product. Thanks.

For perspective, on average 25 kids die every year from plastic bags. On average, 350,000 kids require emergency room care and 200 kids die every year from bicycle accidents, and that's a toy designed for use by kids. I can't give you an exact number, but it should certainly be several orders of magnitude greater than the number of kids injured or killed by Buckyballs.

Either that or ban all bicycles and plastic bags, including garbage bags.

Umm 1 can of Mt. Dew is 170 calories. http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/generic/mountain-dew/. Still not great but 700 is a bit off.

That's (presumably) half the bottle/can. Who only drinks half?

From https://www.mountaindewenergy.co.uk/drinks/ the 'serving size' is 250mL, but the bottle is 500mL. 500mL has 240kcal, from 60g of sugar.

One can of mountain dew has 700 Calories.

Bullshit.

Umm 1 can of Mt. Dew is 170 calories. http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/nutrition-calories/food/generic/mountain-dew/. Still not great but 700 is a bit off.

I agree with one point, too much crappy food is the problem. People are getting too much of certain types of fatty acids (saturated and trans-fatty) while not getting enough of others (poly and monounsaturated) . Plus people are getting too many of the wrong carbs. How many people have enough soluble fiber in their diet? How many people have enough insoluble fiber in their diet? Whole grains are not necessarily the problem. Oats have a great number of nutrients. One such benefit is soluble fiber. Oats also contain the amino acids phenylalanine and tryptophan. The problem comes with all of the sweeteners being added to the oatmeal. Is the oat the only source of these nutrients? No they are not. The key to getting as many of the proper nutrients as possible is balance and of course trying to balance a diet is too much work for quite a few people. They would rather consume to what some corporation or some conspiracy theorist tell them to while not using critical thinking skills to decide on their own.

Sources :
http://www.livestrong.com/article/73628-foods-increase-norepinephrine-production/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/323157-foods-that-increase-dopamine-and-norepinephrine/
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/what-eat-deep-sleep?page=3

I agree with one point, too much crappy food is the problem. People are getting too much of certain types of fatty acids (saturated and trans-fatty) while not getting enough of others (poly and monounsaturated) . Plus people are getting too many of the wrong carbs. How many people have enough soluble fiber in their diet? How many people have enough insoluble fiber in their diet? Whole grains are not necessarily the problem. Oats have a great number of nutrients. One such benefit is soluble fiber. Oats also contain the amino acids phenylalanine and tryptophan. The problem comes with all of the sweeteners being added to the oatmeal. Is the oat the only source of these nutrients? No they are not. The key to getting as many of the proper nutrients as possible is balance and of course trying to balance a diet is too much work for quite a few people. They would rather consume to what some corporation or some conspiracy theorist tell them to while not using critical thinking skills to decide on their own.

Sources :
http://www.livestrong.com/article/73628-foods-increase-norepinephrine-production/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/323157-foods-that-increase-dopamine-and-norepinephrine/
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/what-eat-deep-sleep?page=3

That's not actually accurate. First of all, there are LOTS of professionals against the use of HFCS. It isn't even corn syrup. It stopped being that during the process that converted it to a foreign type of sugar. Is gasoline still crude oil? Of course not. It's very processed... it's not even oil.

Also, HFCS isn't as sweet as real sugar or any of the alternatives such as stevia. This means in order to get the desired flavor, they have to add lots more of it. And that's part of the draw. Not only is it a sweetener, it is also a filler. (The "meat" at taco bell, for example, has so many fillers added, it can't even be considered meat. I'm not compaining about taco bell... I like it actually.) In contrast, try comparing Dr. Pepper with HFCS with the original recipe. In Texas, I used to be able to get the original recipe for Dr. Pepper with real sugar. The level of sweetness is actually unbearable. A similar experiment/demonstration can be had with CocaCola imported from Mexico. It frequently uses natural sugar instead of HFCS. You can compare the taste as well as the content. The short of it is that HFCS is less sweet and contains a much larger ratio in the mix.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/29276-problems-high-fructose-corn-syrup/ http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588 http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/ http://www.healthiertalk.com/10-worst-food-ingredients-you-should-avoid-plague-4066 -- look here too

This is a longer list of things to avoid. I have to say when I actively seek to avoid these things, my general sense of well being increases. My energy level, my motivation, my thinking... they all increase or improve in some way. Problem is, I like the foods I know are bad. I like ice cream... haven't had any in a few months but I want it. Taco bell, mentioned before... Wendy's too... they all offer inexpensive foods even if they are bad for me, cost is a serious consideration these days.

I know what's good for me. But the cards are stacked very much against me. I hold that there needs to be regulation and standards similar to these other "crank" nations who enjoy healthier lives... out of mere coincidence.?

reducing stress, being thankful, and more simple things that help prevent, and sometimes cure, cancer: http://www.changemakers.com/discussions/discussion-493#comment-38823

Example: http://www.livestrong.com/article/251358-vitamin-d-and-brain-cancer/
"Another study found that three out of 11 patients with tumors went into complete remission after being treated with vitamin D."

See especially:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/cancer/brain-cancer/
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article24.aspx

"except put more aluminum in people's bodies"

Correction: that should have said, "except put more mercury in people's bodies".
http://www.livestrong.com/article/72306-flu-vaccine-ingredients/

I've heard nothing but good things about Kefir.
If I didn't travel as much I'd be trying home made Kefir, but some days I just just want to take a pill.
So your plan A:
1) Acquire goat, sheep or buffalo milk.
1.5) Acquire Kefir starter culture (I think you left this step out based on what I've read: "For more information on the starter culture,").
2) Ferment for 24 hours
3) Drink 3x day
4) CDiff gone.

Plan B:
1) Pop some probiotics pills
1.5) skip
2) skip
3) skip
4) CDiff gone probiotics-c-diff

It's not bullshit. If you ate nothing but salad every day, you're not going to get the same nutrition that you would from eating a lot of meats.

The vegetarian/vegan forums are all full of people who go on a fad vegan diet and end up not feeling well or having other issues because they did not adjust their diet properly.

While most people eat terribly, meat is a very easy source of calories and protein. To get the same from veggies you need to pick out the right stuff. A lot of people don't understand that.

It can be very hard to get vitamin B12 from a strictly vegan diet. You pretty much need supplements to get the vitamin B12 you need when you don't eat meat or at least eggs and dairy. Of course most people are deficient in other necessary vitamins also, so it seems to be a typical problem with our modern diets. The fear of the sun hasn't helped either as vitamin D deficiency is rampant and a likely cause of many major diseases.

reference

Vitamin B12, also called cobalamin, is a vitamin that is necessary for body functions, according to Dr. James Balch and Phyllis Balch, authors of "Prescription for Nutritional Healing." This vitamin is found in meats, eggs, milk and cheeses, but does not occur naturally in plant-based foods. Strict vegetarians who do not consume vitamin B12 fortified foods or take B12 supplements may be at risk for vitamin B12 deficiency.

However if we follow your logic to its natural conclusion, we also have the right to force people to maintain a BMI equal or below 25, not smoke, not eat trans-fats, and so on.

That's a mighty slippery slope you are standing on there, CPU.

After all, unhealthy persons affect & cost society a great deal of money. "Your right to [be fat, smoke, etc] ends when you [cost me thousands of dollars in healthcare taxes]."

Perhaps a better analogy is a person with AIDS. This person wants to engage in sex with other people, but does not want to use a condom. Who is the government to tell this person that they are infecting other people with this virus. "Government is already telling people what to do way too often., and they have no right to tell me how to live my sex life. Besides, some people have gotten anaphylactic shock from chemicals used in condoms"

http://www.livestrong.com/article/265290-allergies-and-condoms/

And now, wait for it, because here is where the analogy hits home WRT the anti-vaccine people.......

"Besides, AIDS doesn't come from that. Aids is caused by a drug that escaped from Government labs, or AIDS comes from poor hygiene, or even the drugs to "combat AIDS - and all those treatments are just ways to get people to spend tens of thousands of dollars for drugs by Big Pharma."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_conspiracy

Denialism, looking for conspiracies, not accepting conspiracies as such even in the face of insurmountable truth. Even denying there is a problem in the first place.

Therefore we MUST force them to live healthy lifestyles (for the good of civilization). We have the right not just to mandate vaccination for all persons, but also mandate clean living for all persons. PER YOUR own logic.

Remember though, you inserted the "unhealthy persons affect & cost society a great deal of money." straw-man. My logic is not that that at all, because a person does have a right to be fat, or drink themselves to an early grave - as long as they don't hop in a car drunk and kill other people. Or any other self destructive activity. But as long as they are killing other people with their odd behavior, then I and a whole lot of others have a real issue with it.

Re: tepples, They do this already...even in pre-school. My bosses kids were exposed to sign language, since it's been documented that children can learn sign language prior to learning to speak and thus speeding up their cognitive development. It is unfortunate the first response for many parents when they found out their child is deaf, to try to fix it and force them to learn speak and hearing, while they are losing ground already from not being exposed to sign language. If anyone needs a citation on this, just google it. Here's one article that explains the benefits of sign language at an early age: http://www.livestrong.com/article/93181-effects-language-cognitive-development/

http://www.livestrong.com/article/22015-dangerous-additives/

Exposure to TV/Computers is dangerous for kids because synapses develop incorrectly: Because of the incorrect audio/video synchronisation and the lack of feedback -- as opposed to real objects where feedback is immediate -- poor connections form. And those can not be corrected later anymore.
This is well known to neuroscientists, and by large horizontal studies (average TV usage 5.5 hours per day), it has been shown that there is a very strong correlation between TV usage (hours per day) during childhood and intelligence, success, social life, obesity, health, etc.. The point is that the content does not matter, and even a little causes this form of brain damage.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPQ4C5RdUr4 (Neuroscientist Prof. Dr.Dr. Spitzer, talk in German) (I'd like to have a english talk by a scientist on the topic)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-david-perlmutter-md/television-and-the-develo_b_786934.html
http://www.brainy-child.com/article/tvonbrain.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182830.htm
http://www.livestrong.com/article/226572-the-impact-of-television-on-early-childhood-brain-development/

I would not let my kids near TVs or computers until grown (they may watch at their friends place, that's social), and I recommend you have your parents come over to play with your kid, and give it toys/animals/people to play and interact with. Unfortunately, people are lazy and prefer to have the TV/screen babysitter.

The thing is, when you consume regular sucrose, it splits during digestion into 50% glucose and 50% fructose. HFCS is 55% fructose and 45% glucose. I agree it could make some difference, but the observed effects seem to be more than one might expect from that small difference.

But it's not a small difference - sucrose digests slowly in the small intestine, fructose in fruit is bound up in fiber which slows digestion, while the fructose from HFCS hits the small intestine ready to be absorbed, which means the liver gets it all at once instead of gradually (it absorbs less quickly than glucose, but it's relatively quick). The liver can't cope with the volume for the normal 5-to-6 carbon mechanism, so it converts to fat with the excess.

It's largely the same effect whether it's 12oz of Coke or 3oz of Jack. You notice it more if you pound back 2 shots of Jack, because you have a feedback mechanism to your brain. If you sipped a couple beers over a period of two hours you probably wouldn't notice that because the liver would be able to handle it (people are familiar with its maximum processing rate when it comes to ethanol). But most people don't take two hours to drink a can of Coke, and most people would know they had a serious problem if they drank 3/4 of a fifth of whiskey every day (~= a sixpack of Coke as far as the liver is concerned).

In fairness, ordinary sugar (50% Fructose, 50% Glucose, as a disaccharide that gets cleaved by enzymes) is more or less the same thing as HFCS (55% Fructose, 45% Glucose, as a syrup of the component monosaccharides)

No. You can't compare molecular composition of two foods and ignore the metabolic processes that operate on them. Sucrose is poorly cleaved by stomach acid - that's why the small intestine produces sucrase.

The fructose in HFCS arrives in the small intestine ready to be quickly absorbed, and gets to the liver in a short time frame and can overload the liver (and thus be converted to fats and blood-borne lipids). Sucrose fructoses aren't great but they arrive much more slowly. Fructose bound up with fiber (fresh fruit) is similarly slowed down. But still, take it easy on the latter two. Fruits at least have beneficial phytochemicals - table sugar has no redeeming value.

agreed. but the lack of inhibition that alcohol provides, (and the anger tendency it brings out in some people -- we all know a "belligerent drunk" friend or relative) increases the frequency of these kinds of abuse. http://www.livestrong.com/article/154423-spousal-or-child-abuse-caused-by-alcohol/

Frozen vegetables can be more nutrient rich than fresh, especially if the fresh vegetables were flown in from another country or stored in a warehouse before making it to the supermarket.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2902223.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_vegetables
http://www.livestrong.com/article/71064-fresh-versus-frozen-produce-which-healthier/