Slashdot Mirror

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.

.

Yep.

Lemme guess, 2nd or 3rd ingredient listed on the label is gonna be HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup)??

Ah...nothing like a little boost to the old obesity rate.

Yup. Watch this presentation Sugar: The Bitter Truth (or on the UCSF site http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth-16717) by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology.

It's over an hour long and he explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Fructose gets metabolized in the liver like alcohol, but with some nasty hormonal and cholesterol-raising side-effects.

The idea that, "there's a lot more to dieting than simply reducing your calorific intake and exercising regularly", is garbage. That's all that controlling your weight boils down to. You could stick me in a room full of ice cream and pizza, as long as I don't eat excess calories I won't gain weight.

You are wrong on many levels:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

http://www.uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity/

Fruit isn't so bad, because it has fiber -- this keeps part of the sugar in your bowls, until it gets refined by bacteria and farted. Plus you need the vitamin. Fruit juice is another story: might as well drink beer.

Some videos on sugar from the UC:

http://www.uctv.tv/skinny-on-obesity/

Exactly. Why is it we have 800 channels of TV, and not one of them carries college level lectures? There are professors out there giving lectures every day. It would cost next to nothing to record them and air them, and would give the 5% of us who actually like to use our brains something to watch.

UCTV from the University of California available on Comcast, Time Warner, and other TV providers.

Or the people who practiced religions that helped them survive lived to reproduce. This caused their religious beliefs to spread, but also caused the number of people who had a natural proclivity for practicing those religious beliefs to increase. So evolution actually leads to people who cooperate and take care of each other.

For some reason, people who argue for intelligent design think evolution means everyone is selfish and there are no morals or ethics. I don't know where they get such a foolish idea.

Even a one meter rise is sea level will be devestating to many U.S. coastal cities. You can watch this video to see the effects of even a small rise in sea level and jump to 22 minutes into the lecture to see the simulations. And although the sea level is predicted to rise one meter in the next century, it isn't expected to suddenly stop rising after 100 years.

I get UCTV on my Dish Network satellite and its tech programming is excellent. Plenty to fill a DVR. Schedule here.

There is a war between the telcos and cable companies to save their monopolies. Listen to Michael Powell speak at http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=8436 to learn about the battle these corporate profits at the expense of every thing that is for the public good.

Naloxone is a opiate antagonist. That basically means it will displace a morphine molecule from its receptor, but not activate the receptor. This video (real media) explains everything.

Personally, I do not think it is just a few silent christians. I think that it is the majority of America. I see that the fundamentalists are more akin to the 1980's moral majority, 1990's Al Qaeda, the 1930's German nazi party, or the 1900's USSR communist party. That is, just a small group with a very vocal opinion carry a message of their own choosing. The vast majority of people really just want to live and enjoy life. They are not concerned with changing it.

Two points: 1. Read Nazi literature or, better yet, go to Univ. of California TV and watch "From Darwin to Hitler" and you'll discover that Nazism was applied Darwinism in the same sense that Communism was applied Marxism. Disagree with Darwin and you're automatically a foe of Nazism and indeed in Germany, Hitler's bravest foes were the Catholics and orthodox/neo-orthodox (but not liberal) Protestant pastors. Read back issues of Time magazine from the 1930s and that's very clear.

The subtitle of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Survival. Hitler and Darwin would have undoubtedly differed over a technically--whether Jews belonged in the "unfavoured" category. But they would not have disagreed over the fundamental principle of Darwinism, stated in the last paragraph of Origin, that virtually all progress is a result of struggle, famine and death.

Nor were Darwin and his colleagues reluctant to discuss in private their belief that the favoured/unfavoured races distinction applied as much to human races as it did to animals. It's merely that the optimism of the latter half of the 1800s, when Europeans dominated the world, gave them a smug confidence that white Europeans would eventually rule the world. H. G. Wells wrote of exactly that in his 1901 Anticipations which is discussed here.

2. The poster is right that if everyone wanted to merely "live and enjoy life," we'd be spared the horrors of great evils. But alas, that isn't so. Great evil must be met by an equally great set of convictions, courage and committment. There has to be a core of people who believe in doing good just as strongly as others do in evil. That's Churchill in WWII, that's Reagan and the Cold War; that's Bush and the War on Terror. And all, particularly the last two, drew strong support from the "religious right." And lest we forget, the liberal/left and their friends in the press were AWOL on the latter two. Reagan got even nastier and more biased press in 1984 than Bush does today. Even today, few liberals have shown the integrity to admit that Reagan really did end the Cold War.

Post-Christian Western Europe simply lacks the convictions or courage to stand up to terrorism, as does most of the US NPR-listening left. They want to "live and enjoy life" in utter indifference to the horrors Saddam inflicted on his people. And particularly the French want to see the Middle East ruled by tyrants and perpetually on the verge of war so they can trade arms for oil and take their lengthy August vacations. They want to "enjoy life."

In that, the US remains different. Unlike Western Europe, it still has a substantial population with the conviction and courage to stand up for good in the face an "Evil Empire" (Reagan about the USSR) or the "Axis of Evil" (Bush about terrorism and the states that support them).

And we should never forget that history has no "givens." Just because Reagan managed to win the Cold War over the resistance of France and Germany doesn't mean that the War on Terror will be won in spite of the same weasely two and cowardly liberals. Much will hinge on tomorrow's election. A guy who thinks "wounds" that can be treated with a bandaid are worthy of a Purple Heart is clearly not the sort to stan

I got Dish Network two years ago and have been enjoying The Research Channel, UCTV, and UWTV. They've got university lectures nearly around the clock. Some of the lectures are toned down for a lay scientist (lots of annual faculty lectures), and others are broadcasts of actual university classes. CSN would be a welcome addition to these networks for me.

I watch a lot of educational TV, and in that veign watch a lot of UCTV (University of Califonia TV). Recently I was watching a lecture on geriatrics, aging and genetics. The doctor giving the lecture stated that 150 to 160 years is likely the physical limit to which we can extend the lifespan of the human body. There's more to it than just growing new/ replacing worn organs. We actually need to attack the pre-programmed limits of cellular division/growth.

There are already people in the world who have lived for 120 to 130 years, but these are in societies where elders are respected both for their age, and their wisom/experience. This is most decidedly not the case in most Western societies where we toss our elderly in nursing homes and ignore them to the extent possible.

I don't have RealPlayer installed, but I think this might be the show I was watching. In any case, if you have the time, there are several very good lectures on aging, genetics and exercise on the web site in the "video on demand" section.
Of for those of you with DishNetwork (are they on DirectTV also?), add channel #9412 (and the Univ. of Washington one #9400) to your regular group, there's some fascinating stuff on these channels.

I watch a lot of educational TV, and in that veign watch a lot of UCTV (University of Califonia TV). Recently I was watching a lecture on geriatrics, aging and genetics. The doctor giving the lecture stated that 150 to 160 years is likely the physical limit to which we can extend the lifespan of the human body. There's more to it than just growing new/ replacing worn organs. We actually need to attack the pre-programmed limits of cellular division/growth.

There are already people in the world who have lived for 120 to 130 years, but these are in societies where elders are respected both for their age, and their wisom/experience. This is most decidedly not the case in most Western societies where we toss our elderly in nursing homes and ignore them to the extent possible.

I don't have RealPlayer installed, but I think this might be the show I was watching. In any case, if you have the time, there are several very good lectures on aging, genetics and exercise on the web site in the "video on demand" section.
Of for those of you with DishNetwork (are they on DirectTV also?), add channel #9412 (and the Univ. of Washington one #9400) to your regular group, there's some fascinating stuff on these channels.

http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/7153.r m

That's from the University of California Video archive. Lots of interesting stuff.