Slashdot Mirror
Longevity Gene Found
quixote9 writes "Calorie restriction while maintaining nutrient levels has long been known to dramatically increase life spans. Very different lab animals, from worms to mice, live up to 50% longer (or even more) on the restricted diets. However, so far, nobody has been able to figure out how this works. Scientists at the Salk Institute have found a specific gene in worms (there's a very similar one in people) that is directly involved in the longevity effect. That opens up the interesting possibility that doctors may someday be able to activate that gene directly and we can live long and prosper . . . without giving up chocolate."
Give me immortality, or give me death!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
I am of two minds on this. I'd like to enjoy a longer lifespan than I would otherwise expect and I would want my loved ones (and everyone in the world for that matter) to have it too. But if according to the wikipedia we are well over SIX THOUSAND MILLION people alive at the moment, the world would find itself in a much worse position if we stopped dieing and clearing the way for younger generations.
+Raider of the lost BBS
If we do live longer to say 150 and you retire at say 70 would you really want to spend 80 years doing nothing..
Cheap UK and US VPS
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
(That is going to hurt my karma but I am still no bored of that joke...)
(OK, maybe a little over it)
:(){
Who would want to live more than say, 70 years? You don't want nurses to take you to toilet etc. because you're too old to be able to do that yourself. I say 70 years is enough.
The longevity gene would be the one we DON'T need.
Give it a year or two and these'll be in pill form, no doubt. Interesting research though.
ilovegeorgebush
Our current life expectancy is already putting such a burden on our social security system. When will people realize that quality of life != quantity of life? How is our great-grandkids' generation supposed to support millions of supercentenarians?
Yes, "... without giving up chocolate."
As someone who is self-unemployed, I wouldn't want to live a lot longer just to pay an additional 30-50 years of medical insurance premiums. Can't imagine what premiums would be after you passed 100-years old.
Just to correct you - retirement age in Finland is 63.
actually that is not the case, calorie restriction (CR) makes you live longer with a positive impact on your health - including heart diseases. the only issue is the social and psychological impact such a restrictive diet has on your life. the alternative is going on an alternate day diet, or using these longlivety genes turn-on's, like resveratol. these have non of the problems - instant extra 30 years!
How long do we really want these worms to live? Till they become sentient long-lived invertebrate overlords?
u-bend
Being close almost past 40, I'd take that deal. ;-)
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
See e.g. Scientific American, March 2006: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colI D=1&articleID=000B73EB-3380-13F6-B38083414B7F0000
You know that there will be some sort of biological trade-off for this. Our bodies are complex systems and it is almost never a simple case of 'turn-this-gene-on-and everybody-lives-longer'. Since this seems to be related to diet, I can't imagine how bad things will turn out for the way some people eat now. We already have people that are obese without some longevity gene in the mix! (INAGBIPOOSD- INA geneticist but I play one on \.)
CNN did a special report about this a few weeks or month ago. There was a couple on there who' daily calorie count could not exceed 640 I think it was. They showed them eating tomato's for dinner along with something else, I think if was just leafy greens. Personally I could never eat that little. I only eat 2 meals a day, and sometimes skip my lunch, so I get most of my calories in one or two sittings. Even then, since I can't really cook, I either eat easily prepared food (Aka pizza rolls and hotpockets!) or grab something out on the way home. I probably only take in maybe 1600 calories, but it's the saturated fat that's going to kill me eventually. That's assuming smoking three packs a day doesn't kill me first. What was really interesting about that CNN program was they didn't talk about just living longer, they talked about improving the standard of living during your later years. After all, what goes is living another 50 years if you're strapped to an oxygen tank or bed bound? Speaking of, the moment some doctor tells me I have lung cancer, I'm going to do what the Duke did....grow gils and breathe like a fish ;)
- You can not control life - NEVER! Even if you have all the money in the world you can not control your life.
- You should aim to become retired as soon as possible. Life is ment for living, not working.
If I could get a few more years earlier in life while I still have gobs of energy and relatively no responsibilities... Suddenly four years for a degree wouldn't seem like a huge investment. A year of study abroad in Japan wouldn't be an issue. I might have two hobbies. Long term investments would make more sense. I would take more time to learn more things, aquire more skills, and experience a broader life.
In short, I think living longer would make it a lot easier to live sensibly. As it is, if I have to weight the risks of investing time or taking something I can do now, I end up taking the most courageous and risky courses possible.
I don't think it's a relative thing either. Not in the sense that, regardless of whatever time-span I had, I would always wish, "Wow, if only I had twice as much." In an absolute sense, I just don't think I'll ever have the years to do all the things I want to. It makes it seem really pointless to invest eight years into something (for instance, undergrad + med-school) when it's such a large investment that, by the time I get done, I will have lost many opportunities of youth, but I couldn't put such a thing off because, who wants to invest eight years in something that will only pay off for twenty?
Humanity is robbed. People live crazy lives because we are going to die too soon to live fully, so life is futile. Damn whatever you recognize as the determining factor of our longevity. The light is green to research like this.
"There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell them." ~ Louis Armstrong
It's not the drugs that are the problem, it's our never-ending population growth! The more land we turn into farmland, the more kids we have, that again will need to turn new land into farmland, or squeeze even more out of what is allready there to stay alive, and have more kids that needs more farmland... and so on, so forth...
Seriously, we know that we will crack the secrets to long life at one point or another. We know that we want to maintain a high standards of living, and achieve self-realiszation. We want there to be wild nature left. We want there to be more species that rats, cockroaches, dogs and cats living alongside us.
It doesn't take a genious to see that a major pieces in the puzzle that is our long-term survival is population control, and we need to enact it now. Global warming is a small piece in comparison.
To those who wish to endulge, I'd stornly reccomend Daniel Quinn's excellend books 'Ishmael', and 'The Story of B'.
Healthy food does not prolonge life, it just make it seem so long and boring you want to die.
Essentially a living organism is like a machine; and machines come with a certain lifespan.
You could potentially reduce 'usage' and increase life
I would think there is only a certain amount of resources that an organism can consume before it wears out.
Isn't the gene that the article refers to a regulator that moderates the efficiency with which resources are utilized to maintain life?
So we might be able to doctor the gene to process chocolate with greater efficiency
But for some reason I cannot intuit that we are going to be able to consume unlimited quantities of food and not die from it.
Why do I have the feeling that this study was funded by the Ira Howard foundation?
"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
"Found", indeed! I've had this gene for a lifetime!
Nuffsaid
________
Don't know about his cat, but Schroedinger is definitely dead.
Only if they could find a gene to make me look athletic without working out and despite the junk food and despite sitting in front of a computer 15 hours a day.
"Very different lab animals, from worms to mice, live up to 50% longer"
Ah yes, i remember reading about the long cat before.
We have a breakfast (Suhur) before dawn and do not eat or drink until sunset. After sunset we have a usual meal (Iftar). The only difference to the diet described in this BBC article is that we do not drink while Mr. Cavanaugh does.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Live long, procreate, deplete, fight, repeat...
Hopefully, respective legislation limiting the number of dogs per family will be implemented...
Hey, don't worry - pretty soon heart disease won't be too much of a problem either.
The commonly accepted path to immortality is to get rid of all the things that kill you, one at a time. This is just another step.
The greatest single piece of SciFi I ever read was James Blish's _They Shall Have Stars_, from the assembled epic _Cities in Flight_. Always interesting to see the RILLY good stuff have a little traction in the real world. Antiagathics first - Now on to the Spindizzies! CW
that when confronted with the possibility of a greatly increased lifespan, say a hundred years extra, so few actually want it. Ask some people and watch their initial reaction. The ones I've queried have almost invariably argued that it would become boring.
IMHO this stems from a belief that zest for life is NOT a biological effect, but rather a result of inexperience.
People grow jaded with age, many even grown comfortable with their own mortality.
I am inclined to believe that the biological decay of our bodies is a main cause of declining appetite for life.
It does not mean that FOXA family does not do something for our longer lives, it just mean that article does not prove that via sequence similarity. Since I enjoy "trolling" I would add that (once again) Nature capitalizes on the subject importance and publishes articles with overstretching conclusions.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
"You can have my extended life gene when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
Seriously, if you want to extend life, ban fructose as a sweetener. Unlike regular sugar, fructose blocks the hormones that make you "feel full" so you continue eating and drinking (esp. soda pop). 2/3 of the population is overweight, and a LOT of those are obese. Of course, a fructose ban would result in lower sales of all junk foods (because you'll "feel full" sooner), so expect it to be fought by the manufacturers, who're just fattening you up fo the slaughter.
Wait 'till you're 80, pensions have long since been abandoned, and you have to compete for food with twenty year-olds who have chips in their heads, and no sense of what it means to slow down and enjoy life. Longer lifespans aren't such a nice prospect, in a capitalist culture.
they are also healthy and vibrant
so your calorie restricted 90 year old is like your uncalorie restricted 60 year old
in other words, you don't just extend lifespan, you extend the period of robust physical ability to continue working and earning a living
in a hypothetical society where these longevity genes were activated somehow in a large segment of the population, it wouldn't be crazy to imagine retirement ages of 90 or 100
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So, can we expect long lifes like vulcans have?
...
Does this gene transforms our ears in pointy ones?
The only way that this could possibly be good is if the action of flipping that switch on (or off) turns off a persons ability to reproduce (retroactively, if need be!)
Now we can have worms that live FOREVER!
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
The article is light on any real scientific information, so for the few people that are interested in what Pha-4 is about, checkout the following link:
pha-4 Gene Information
Just stop working on jobs/things you don't like once you become financially secure enough. Better yet, start your own business or if that is too much stress just work what you like. That doesn't even have to be your field - could be charity or whatever.
Waiting around to die would suck.
But I LIKE Twinkies!!
And those immortals will go around chopping each others heads off since "there can be only one".
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Except that you forget if your client dies early then his death is a lost sale unto you, therefor
you should try and keep them coming longer, not shorter....I think what you meant to point out was that the McDonalds model is based on making the most money with the least expensive ingredient.
However, if you notice after many people have made their point of view clear to them (the guy with the supersize movie) it helped put a few better things on the menu, althoutg they charge an arm and a leg for it, 8.00 a salad...sheesh....thats criminal!
but fructose has less calories than the equivalent sweetness of sugar, and I think it doesn't cause tooth decay (though I may be wrong on that one)
The best answer would be to put a bit of speed in with sweet drinks so that you don't feel so hungry.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
<spinal_tap_mode> :^)
Big Deal. You should see what the pha-11 gene can do!
</spinal_tap_mode>
They're maximizing their profits - a dollar in hand today is worth more than a prospective dollar a year down the road, plus, over your (now shorter due to obesity) life-span, you'll end up spending several times more on pop and junk food because the fructose turns off the production of the "I'm not hungry any more" hormones.
A government-mandated switch from fructose back to ordinary sugar would cost them more than half their sales, but it would save tens of billions in health-care costs every year ...
Oh great, now George W. Bush will live forever! The survivors will envy the dead.
http://timcol6.freehostia.com/
So if we live 50% slower (because of energy deprivation), we actually live 50% longer. Whoah, what a great dicovery... It's exactly the opposite of Achilles' choice: either to be a great and famous hero and die young or to live a long happy life without any lasting fame. We all know how it ended.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
All sugars promote tooth decay.
Also http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?ne wsid=65470, http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/6 /2963, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/05050 3152956.htm
Fructose depresses leptin and insulin levels. Leptin is normally produced when you eat, and this triggers the "ok, I'm no longer hungry" signal in your brain so you stop eating. Lowering the leptin level causes you to still feel hungry, even after you've eaten. Switching from fructose to sucrose will allow your body to regulate itself better.
Its probably going to take some major lawsuits (and bankruptcies) to fix this problem ...
Two days ago, in a regular newspaper, I read that "A Gene Involved in Aging Has Been Found" and now, two days later on slashdot, I learnt that we have also discovered a longevity gene !
Science really goes at a fast speed nowadays.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
I remember seeing a documentary with some guy who was on one of those low carb diets that supposedly make you live longer. He spoke painfully slow, about half the speed of what most people do. I figured if he's living twice as long he's making up for it by going at half speed through life.
The population is 6.5 billion and exploding... if everyone lived even just 10% longer, it would seriously exacerbate that problem.
I'd rather they figure out a way to make the years we have healthier and happier.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Don't eat junk food; you'll die. Don't people get tired of finding things that kill them? Every day on the BBC I see either "gene found that makes old people back out of their driveway too quickly" or "toasters linked to prostate cancer".
The life expectancy these days is longer than it has ever been, so how about spending that time doing something other than wondering how you're going to die?
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
The first thing I think of when you mention fructose is fruit - a healthy source of fructose. Of course, most people probably get their fructose from high fructose corn syrup - not so healthy. I'm just pointing out that although we probably consume too much fructose, you don't want to avoid fruit in an effort to cut fructose out of your diet altogether - just try to avoid all products that contain high fructose corn syrup. Combine that with avoiding all products that contain partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and trans-fats (the two are highly correlated but not 1:1), and you'll not only be healthier, you'll feel and look healthier too! Also, if you're a typical consumer, you'll have cut out many foods from your diet, so you're likely to lose weight to boot.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"Time is the fire in which we burn. My time is running out...."
"Time is a predator. Oh, you can delay it with medicines and doctors, but in the end it pounces and makes the kill...."
From memory, from ST: Generations MMP, Malcom McDowell.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Besides, I don't want to live for ever. 90 years or so is enough. After that things will probably get boring and repetitive anyway.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
"The life expectancy these days is longer than it has ever been,"
Wanna bet? Nothing has changed in the 3 years since this, except that people have continued to get fatter ...
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/testimony/child obesity03022004.htm
Interesting study, but I'm always a bit leery of aging studies done in these worms (C. elegans), especially those which involve caloric restriction. Worms have the ability to follow an entirely different developmental path under certain conditions. Thus, normally, worms progress to adulthood and live a couple weeks. But if they are STARVED, at a young stage they shift into what is called a "dauer" state--they stop growing and can live for months and months. This is totally different than just living longer or stopping aging at a normal state--they are entering an entirely different developmental stage, which they normally would never see. Humans, of course, have no such developmental path. So with aging studies dealing with caloric restriction in worms, you have to wonder if they're studying something relevant to mammals, or if they are manipulating this worm-specific dauer pathway. It almost seems more likely to me that they would be affecting something to do with this dauer state. It will be interesting to see what happens when they follow up in mice.
Seriously, if you want to extend life, ban fructose as a sweetener. Unlike regular sugar, fructose blocks the hormones that make you "feel full"
So people still fall for this one, eh?
Newsflash - Plain ol' table sugar (aka "sucrose") contains nearly the same amount of fructose as that big-bad-boogeyman, High Fructose Corn syrup!
Sucrose has a 50/50 mix of fructose and dextrose, while HFC contains from 43 to 55% fructose.
But by all means, keep blaming American's fat asses on HFC rather than admitting that we simply eat way too much and exercise way too little...
Someone I had worked with at the National Institutes of Health had looked in to those starvation diets, and saw that the animnals total oxygen use, be it the starved rat, or non-starved rat, were roughly the same at the end of their life. The fatter rats just used theirs up faster.
Remember, oxygen is a fairly corrosive molecule, and is not necessarily good for you.
..........FULL STOP.
Hum i seem to recall (sorry for my lack of tech words) that cell regeneration which decreases and ultimately stop entirely is due to specific cells burning slowly.
I once saw a depiction of those cells like small rod, strangely looked liked matches, that slowly wither and dies, they havent found a way to prevent the decay of those cells which are linked to old age.
Diet is O.K but if you cant stop the aging process, you wont extend your life over 120 unless you live in space to lower the effect of gravity on bones.
And dieting for the rest of your life aint a solution, healthy people die at young age as well as fat people dying at 95, we all know that fat will lower your lifespan but will it make you go over the age limit of what your body can go? i dont think so
- I assume that I will continue to get at least 8% annual return on my investments (on average).
- I assume that COLAs will be no more than 2% per annum - or, more specifically, that the difference between my ROI and COLAs will be at least 6%.
- I assume that my insurance will cover any drastic expenses that arise.
In reality, any one of these assumptions could be violated, of course.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Read this.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
You don't even need a mandate to use real sugar; just remove all sugar tariffs and corn subsidies.
As I understand it, those studies were done on rats. If you let a rat eat all it wants, the rat eat itelf to death in a very short time. That's where they got this calorie restriction idea.
Thing is, rats that have a normal diet live as long as rats that have calorie restricted diet.
Or, that's how I understand it.
Imagine suffering through one of those CR diets for a few decades, then someone makes a cheap pill that does the same thing while allowing you to eat whatever you want. You'd feel like such a dumbass.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Only until Americans realize getting rid of things that kill you also means getting rid of guns, then they'll go all Second Amendment on you.
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
I guess this article narrows it down a bit, but we've known for decades that the longevity gene was somewhere in the 12th chromosome pair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long/
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
After reading James Patterson's When the Wind Blows, the topic of gene and longevity creeps me out.
- Alice, @acarback
The OP is thinking of Aspartame.
In other news, the Tobacco Processors Association notes that there is still some disagreement among researchers as to whether or not there's a direct connection between smoking and cancer.
No one seems to have hit on the one benefit of being able to live that long... It would enable us to travel deep into space (assuming we overcome physical problems of space travel) and truly go where no man has gone before! Everyone here seems to be thinking of a long life as one spent on the couch playing the latest video game!?! Think big and imaging the good we could all do in our extended lives.
"ooh, yeah, life goes on
long after the thrill
of living is gone"
my doc called it anhedonia, and i'm sure it's related to my deteriorating bod:-(
You know what? Eating healthy takes a little more effort and attention, but it actually tastes a hell of a lot better.
Just walking into a fast-food place now actually makes me a little nauseous. I know tastes vary -- hell, I used to love that stuff myself. But now it's, "Ye gods, how did I ever choke that crap down?"
It's like using real maple syrup after being raised using Maple-Flavored Pancake Topping. "Oh, this is what that other stuff is pretending to be."
I used to be able to gobble down a half-pound of M&Ms, easy. Now, a small square or two of, say, Green & Black Mayan chocolate is great. Any more is overkill.
It's like the difference between drinking lots of cheap beer, or one pint of really good beer. With quality, there's no need for quantity. (Unless the whole point is getting trashed rather than a little buzzed.)
Sucrose is a polysaccaride, a polymer of glucose and frutose. So it has to be broken down into glucose and frutose, and metabolised more slowly.
HFCS has alot of free frutose.
Also there are published studies showing that HFCS inhibits leptin. Which is what the OP is probably talking about.
Now probably more studies would show its the frutose, but they do show that HFCS inhibits leptin so you need to get upto date.
ANYTHING can kill you if you try hard enough...
But I think a good first step would be to ban Chuck Norris. Now who wants to tell him?
"But this one goes to 11!"
The US price of sugar is something like five times what it is on the world market.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
"you should try and keep them coming longer"
I got an e-mail yesterday that says there's a pill that can do this...
Sucrose is 50/50 fructose and glucose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
y rup
HFCS in foods is largely 90/10. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_s
Only in sports drinks is the glucose content of HFCS higher than that of in sucrose.
The wikipedia article also mentions that the most common sweetener for processed foods and soft drinks is HFCS 55 (55/45), which isn't much greater in fructose content than the 50/50 of sucrose. However, they don't mention whether HFCS 90 or HFCS 55 is cheaper to process, which would make that the more prevalent variety. Regardless, it's safe to assume that HFCS foods have more fructose than if they were to have used sugar instead.
I'm not disagreeing that obesity is a result of eating too much and exercising too little. But what we eat also contributes to our health. And consuming large amounts of HFCS through processed foods doesn't help.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
While guns increase average deaths, in specific cases, ownership of a gun increases life span.
If two sane people had had guns at VT or Kileen, Tx Luby's, a lot less people would have died.
However, the average citizen tends to get angry, or has a clever child that gets a hold of the gun, or is just joking around, etc. etc. and so we get more total deaths from having a lot of guns out there.
---
All that being said. The reason for the second amendment is to protect us from the government when it *inevitably* goes evil on us. They always do. They always will. When they do- hundreds of thousands or evil millions of people die really fast.
So it is just a question of how long before you need guns to protect yourself.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Maybe cyborgs will become a reality. Human brain with a human like robotic body. (or like that general guy from star wars, mostly robotic body with a little bit of organic on the inside) If they find a way to replace joints and limbs with stronger mechanical ones it would help all those who lost a limb. As well as people with nerve disorders who lose the use of their arms, legs, etc. (I am hoping for the second one, losing the use of the left side of my body is not fun)
First, I thought HFCS was between 50%-75% fructose. I'm not sure.
I use Blue Agave Nectar as a sweetener in my cup of tea in the morning. The particular product I use does not indicate the fructose level, however, a formerly used product indicated it is 83% fructose. Both products proclaimed theirs to be low Glycemic Index sweeteners. I don't feel full after having a cup of tea, however, I most certainly do not feel hungry. Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I also dip 4-5 biscuits (Bordeaux cookies made by Pepperidge Farm) in the tea and eat them. In general, I try to avoid HFCS-containing foods as I've found they cause me to feel "yucky" afterwards.
Is the higher level of fructose in the Blue Agave Nectar worrisome? Also, as info, the tea is Yerba Mate, which is often touted as a dieting aid.
At the core of the gun ownership idea is the false premise; "I am better than average."
While the static's on gun ownership state "Owning a gun increases your chances to be killed by firearms" people have the mistaken idea that out of 300,000,000 Americans they are likely to be involved in an attack where owning a gun will save their life. It's much the same reason people think its ok to drive 85MPH in a 65MPH zone or play the lottery.
PS: We have already had a civil war that failed badly and now that the military has tanks, aircraft, nukes, and chemical weapons etc owning some hand guns is going to let US over through the government? Are you insane or just stupid?
You either LIVE in the world of Slashdot, or you're just one of those kooks living inside their own head. ;) I've done things from photography to Unifill machine mechanics to computer technology to medical training, and I STILL get bored, especially when finding out that about 80-90% of my assumptions are entirely correct.
Sometimes being a major bookworm to escape boredom isn't all it's cracked up to be, and I refuse to watch even the news on television.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
War against what? Disease and famine combined have killed far more than any war on terrorism or fascism ever has when combined Yay influenza and smallpox! Come back to us soon!
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
For some reason, I thought your government had gone evil on you a couple of years ago. Nobody has done anything with his guns to change that though. I'm still waiting for the show
Gun nut: I don't want no PATRIOT act or the gov'nment 'tapping my phone. Let's take our guns and head to the White House!
Crowd of gun nuts: HURRAY!
FBI: Yeah... I don't think it's gonna happen
After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
- The Tao of Programming
The problem is that the people who desire to carry guns around on a daily basis (i.e., not as a part of their occupation) generally turn out to be mentally or morally incompetent to do so. Ergo, even though it sounds like allowing people to carry guns around would make things safer for all of us, it doesn't work out that way in the real world.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
As for the slowdown of metabolism, that may be true, but what evidence is there to suggest that this is unhealthy? It may actually be an intrinsic part of the mechanism that extends lifespan.
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
As an AC sibling points out - sucrose is a polysacharide.
;}
While it is quickly broken down by enzymes into fructose and glucose, this takes place more gradually and thus has less of an effect on satiety than direct fructose consumption from HFCS.
Yeah, folks don't exercise enough and eat too much. You'd think we were born with some kind of urge to be lazy - as if there was selective pressure to be efficient with energy, even.
The FDA doesn't (I hope) have the mandate to enforce that folks eat less and exercise more. It *could* do something about HFCS, but the lobby is strong, and the case weak. Besides, HFCS is a US problem only, and the rest of the world has no shortage of obesity (and classic-er tasting coke).
(I think there are some studies that didn't show the effect for certain strains or under certain conditions, which may be what you're thinking of.)
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
I just want to to die at 80-90 looking and feeling like I'm 30. THAT would be awesome.
I also use a Blue Agave product in my morning orange juice. I do not believe it contains any fructose.
I hadn't had a fast food sandwich in a few years; I had a bite of my car-mate's, and I was amazed at how mushy it was--as if it had been designed to require as little chewing as possible. I mean, I eat sandwiches, but I usually have to chew them, you know?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I wouldn't expect any other than american scientists to figure out how to live longer while stuffing their face to their hearts content.
Now we just need anti-gravity belts to fulfill the stereo-type of americans as a nation of Vladimir Harkonnens.
The short answer is no. Calorie restriction has not been debunked.
The long answer is "pubmed", search calorie restriction.
Not necessarily.
Have a look at Xylitol
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
what people are going to need to learn is that decreasing CALORIE intake and getting out of the house once in a while will help them lose weight. It is really sad that society doesn't understand that the problem is simple, more in than out = gain weight, more out than in= lose weight- it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Just asking.
I just learned that Wonderbread contains HFCS.
No, I will not work for your startup
That kind of puts an end to any geriatric astronaut movement.
"If two sane people had had guns at VT or Kileen, Tx Luby's, a lot less people would have died."
Of course. The trick is sorting out who's sane. Somehow Cho slipped through the cracks. I don't know how you can be confident that more won't.
Also, incidentally, EVEN FEWER people would have died at VT if NO ONE had guns.
Of course, why didn't I think of that. It worked so well in britain and germany where guns were outlawed. Those massacre's didn't happen.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't spout your perfect company line that if only guns didn't exist no one would kill anyone with poison, knives, by gang beatings, choking, cars, setting you on fire, etc.
Fact is, when society breaks down in those big riots, the gun owners do better than average against mobs who do not have guns.
However, riots, government turning bad, breakdown in social order are all rare events. Catastrophic but rare. We forget about them. And we do pay a daily cost in accidental deaths- a little less than 2 deaths per day.
Now 12,000 people a year die from accidents- about 20 times as many as that total. And lord knows the nanny staters want to outlaw each and everyone of those causes of accidental death until we are smothered with so much protection that it is impossible to die accidentally. And that's ignoring things like smoking which are not considered accidents.
So it comes down to: Is it worth 2 accidental deaths a day to reduce the effects of riots and tyranny when they occur once in a blue moon? It was high on our founders minds- but maybe governments going over to tyranny was more common back then. At least 30 to 40 countries including a couple big ones had this issue in the last century but less so far this century but this century is still pretty young.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
That doesn't change the basic reasons why the provision is there. We have lots of provisions and laws that become dated. Unfortunately, I agree with you that, despite their original intentions, at this point the combination of surveillance cameras, weaponry, and a fine sense of just how much they can take from us before we object means it is unlikely we could do anything.
On other hand- if you have a gun, you can probably get a machine gun. And indirect attacks so successful in Iraq would be equally effective here. And, the army is no where near big enough to take on an entire population armed even with hunting rifles and being sneaky.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's kinda relative. Some places like Darfur, it's pretty obvious.
But even in Germany, a lot of the populace had no problem with 2-3% of the population being slaughtered.
The powers that control large first world countries currently prefer to coerce rather than outright kill people. We are essentially all slaves though through a combination of tax and health methods which mean we have to do their work every day of our life until we are too old to enjoy life.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
There may be a way to activate those genes without caloric restriction... someone noted that in the original experiments with mice, calories were restricted by only feeding the mice every other day. Someone decided to see what effect the timing would have if the mice were allowed to eat the same amount as the control group, but half as often: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/10/6216
The only way that 3% of the richest people in any given population would be mainstream, is when the average discrepancy (of money/income) between the poorest and the richest people would be marginal when measured at the fifth percentile of that population curve, and thus one has a population where the vast majority of the people is equally rich. It is higly unlikely that 50% (in numbers) of the populace would be within the 3% of the richest percentile (in money).
Even communism didn't achieve that, and capitalism certainly didn't. Even populations with a big middle-class have an average discrepancy that is hundreds of percentages wide. In fact, I never heard of any society like that. When we look at 'The Structure of Social Stratification in the United States' we see that the upper class (with a networth of more then $5.000.000 for an individual) is estimated between 4-6% of the populace (in numbers). This is orders of magnitudes more then the rest of the populace at the fifth percentile. So, no, they are NOT mainstream, and no, I do not know 4-5 multi-milionaires fairly well, let alone the name of their dog.
In more socialised countries (like in europe) it may include the higher middle class, but in the USA it definately would mean only the upper-class would get the treatement. And the upperclass is by definition not mainstream, nor is it ever a large part of the populace, and thus, most people will not know 4 or 5.
Ofcourse, I don't know the kind of circles you move in, so I can't speak for you, but as a general statement, your argumentation and conclusion was wrong.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Sugar from sugar cane and beets are dissacharides - fructose is a monosaccharide. Dissacharides don't depress insulin and leptin levels - they increase insulin levels.
So please don't buy into the food industry bullshit about fructose not being responsible, and being benign. Its making you fat.
More food industry bullshit - sugar made from sugar cane and beets is a dissaccharide - fructose is a monosaccharide. The body treats them differently - disaccharides don't depress the levels of insulin and leptin - monosaccarides do - which is why you continue to feel hungry even though you've taken in a gazillion calories in fructose.
Almost everything does - its cheaper, thanks to farm subsidies for corn.
Hey, maybe we can get Celine Dion to split a loaf of Wonder Bread with Ally McBeal?
Except people on an (appropriate*) calorie restricted diet can't EVER do any significant physical activity. Even at 20 years old, they can't run, lift anything remotely heavy, or any other physical exertion. First, because they'll pass out, and second because the calorie restriction means they have extremely little muscle mass.
*The 2000 calorie diets being mentioned don't count, unless you're more than 7 feet (2.2 meters) tall. The life-lengthening benefits of calorie restriction require almost 50% lower (than ideal/accepted) caloric intake, not 40% lower than an obese person's diet.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
That's so horribly, completely, and totally incorrect, I can't imagine where you even got that idea from.
Not true, at all.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Bullshit. The number of deaths due to car accidents is astronomical compared to deaths by firearms. Deaths by knives are far higher than deaths by guns, and as much as I'd like not to die, I'd much more like to be able to cut up and prepare food while I'm alive... Accidents with tool cause more deaths than with any weapons. Hell, otherwise innocuous (heavy and blunt and/or just pointy) objects cause more deaths than weapons.
I can't wait until someone tries to outlaw stairs. You'll have to pry them from my cold, dead, feet.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Chocolate in itself isn't bad for you; all the sugar (and often milk) that is put in is hte bad stuff.
+1 TMBG Reference
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
This article is missing some points so I guess I'll fill in for ye. When you lower your food intake it turns on a dormant ability we all must surely have, but we never use it. Food is too plentiful so we overeat. In overeating we deny ourselves from turning this "engine" within us to On. Call it the I WANT TO LIVE ENGINE. When we cut back on our food intake our body begins to consume whatever we breathe in, so when we breathe in viruses, molds, bacteria our body becomes a food scavenger and consumes all the little critters for food.
That's why this article is misleading. It is saying those people are not getting the food energy required, but they are. The beauty of it is though that in consuming the airborne microorganisms those people are burning the infectious disease organisms as a Food Source. hahahaha Their body isn't just eating well, it is giving them a longer lifespan of Freedom from Diseases caused by the consuming of disease organisms that are proliferating inside the rest of us.
Now you take these cancerous growths & malignancies. People have been conditioned to fear cancer. But what if those cancers are the normal cells that are trying to LIVE FOREVER and have discovered the way to overgrow? Our entire medical healthcare community is killing the cells that have discovered the superenergy secret that could give us everlasting life. It isn't about Anger; it's about Peace. An afraid mind is a closed off mind. Open yourself to the possibilities that the old dude sitting in the cell next to yours for the past 40 years has the map of escape > http://www.newpath4.com/40yearstolife.htm by facing your enemy, facing your greatest foe. Sometimes, many times, our greatest foe is us, our quiver-load of preconceptions about religious folk for instance.
Ever since I fell out of the truck in 1986 because a pharmacist left the Warning Labels off a new drug called Meclofenamate, and then got hit by a 1,000 lb. bale 3 times because it bounced on me, I've been trying various nutrition products in an attempt to get some body energy back, maybe return to work, make a few bucks, help my family some. The answer I have found is to try and restore cellular function. Several months ago I found out that Acetyl-L-Carnitine helps restore cell mitochondria. I've been taking it about 2+ months and it has helped a good deal. I've been able to do more housework. At 55 years of age after a lifetime of serious accidents and a drowning, I try to not get upset if I never get my energy back then so be it. In 2006 I tried Nitroxy 3. It hit me with an awesome tiredness in my neck and shoulder muscles that was indescribable. I felt so incredibly WASTED that even now I still feel it, 15 months later. I recently bought a piece of bungey cord and using it for stretches. Yesterday I was researching about products that would give my body more Oxygen. Maybe the shortage of oxygen is why I have not been getting the energy needed to drag this 280 pound body around eh? Here's the link > http://www.healingedge.net/store/more_oxyoxc.html and another one > http://www.rense.com/products/oxy-c1.htm . A low oxygen state could very well be why the Acetyl-L-Carnitine has had a limited success so far. Those pages have plenty of product information. It seems there's a product called Magnesium Peroxide that has peroxide and some ozone {H2O2 & O3} locked and binded with Magnesium, so when you take a capsule and it hits the stomach it releases those inside and it enters the bloodstream. It is unfortunate for us living today, eating all this tasty food, thinking we have EVERYTHING, when it is the everything that robs us of what oxygen we have. Eating excess food instead of breath-consuming the airborne disease organisms robs us
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
Whew, left out a few important facts. The Magnesium Peroxide releases hydrogen peroxide and ozone into the stomach on contact with water but they do not enter the bloodstream as that. The ozone converts to hydrogen peroxide and both peroxides release an atom of Oxygen, which enters the bloodstream. After it of course also kills a whole bunch of germs. On those pages I referenced there are testimonials of people who got an immediate increase of energy the very day they took the first pills.
Like I said, I haven't ordered it yet. Wouldn't matter anyway since we are into the weekend already... I have been pursuing this hydrogen peroxide answer to low body energy for over a year now. These webpages say Magnesium Peroxide capsules each contain the equivalent of 12 drops of Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide... and is a better source of it than drinking the liquid. I plan to find out.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
Ah! but we have the option to raise ourselves above this. While most people are perfectly happy to work at a "job" their entire life to obtain "retirement" (which means less and less everyday), some of us work hard to set a life up that is not tied to a "job". We, as Americans, are fully entitled to buy a small farm in the hinterlands and exclude ourselves from "society" and "pop-culture".
Mr. Marley said it right:
"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds."
Oh, and to maintain topic, die when we damn well please
I'm fighting The War on Drugs!
> Sugar from sugar cane and beets are dissacharides - fructose is a monosaccharide. Dissacharides don't depress insulin and leptin levels - they increase insulin levels.
Dissaccharides have to be broken into monosaccharides before they can be digested, so you're getting fructose anyway. The other ingredients you are eating at the same time (assuming you're not eating pure sugar) will cause an insulin spike anyway. HFCS by itself is not going to keep you feeling hungry after you've eaten.
> So please don't buy into the food industry bullshit about fructose not being responsible, and being benign. Its making you fat.
Sorry, the science says otherwise.
Be careful with hydrogen peroxide. Read the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS). If you get abdominal cramps, you've likely swallowed too much peroxide.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Inositol - considered by some to be a B vitamin - tastes just like sugar and doesn't promote tooth decay. I believe it is actually an alcohol, not a sugar, but it looks like sugar.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Dylan Thomas
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Thank you Chris! I ordered magnesium peroxide, which is dehydrated liquid peroxide bound to a fine magnesium powder til the capsule dissolves. The page says each of the capsules has the equivalent of 12 drops of hydrogen peroxide. It has a little ozone (O3) in it and when it breaks down it reverts to peroxide also. Both sources of peroxide release one atom of Oxygen, a so-called singlet atom, per each molecule. There is one possible side effect they say of getting some loose bowel effect. I don't plan to take but one at a time possibly twice a day til I find out what it does exactly. I'm sure it won't be as bad as that stomach virus that hit me in the Spring of 1979, if you ever heard of it. It hit Richmond Virginia like a toilet paper convention. Thanks for the concern. You're good people.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
Personally, I have hard time understanding why many people would not apparently accept a longer life than the current default. After all, one doesn't have to look back very far in time for the period, when just a few people even lived up to the age of 70 years and average life expectancy was around 30 years. Currently, most people in your average industrialized country can look forward to seeing that milestone and even still having a few good years left before the risk of needing nurses for everything becomes very probable.
While a significant portion of the increased average can be explained by the massive decrease in infant mortality, the improvements in medical care have also increased the length of healthy lifespan noticeably. In medieval times, I'd by now (I'm in my mid-thirties) probably be missing several of my teeth, have caught several more potent sicknesses, and in case of accidents, have higher probability of suffering the rest of my life from the effects of poorly mended injuries. I'd assume that given the option of probably having almost twice longer life with several decades of actually reasonably healthy additional time, quite a few medieval people would have gladly accepted the offer. So, as long as the additional time also increases the length of reasonably healthy life, why should I limit myself to the current figures?
(Regarding the idea of not really being able to figure out what to do with the additional time, that's completely weird concept to me. I've personally felt for a long time that there is far more to do than I seem to have time for. Perhaps I would change my mind after a few thousands of years, but almost certainly not with a few more decades.)
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
Again ... the process of breaking down the dissacharides raises the levels of leptin and insulin, whereas ingesting fructose does the opposite. The science is clear - your defense of fructose by saying its a byproduct is "junk science" - studies show the body doesn't act the way you assume it does.
Your theory sounds good, but it flies in the face of facts, facts that clearly show that fructose should not be used as a food additive.
"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Health_effects
I'm not interested in watching TV on my phone for the same reason I'm not interested in having a shit in my tumble drier
Try this on for size:
= Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15181085&dopt=Citatio n>?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Dietary fructose reduces circulating insulin and leptin, attenuates postprandial suppression of ghrelin, and increases triglycerides in women.
Teff KL, Elliott SS, Tschop M, Kieffer TJ, Rader D, Heiman M, Townsend RR, Keim NL, D'Alessio D, Havel PJ.
Monell Chemical Senses Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA.
Previous studies indicate that leptin secretion is regulated by insulin-mediated glucose metabolism. Because fructose, unlike glucose, does not stimulate insulin secretion, we hypothesized that meals high in fructose would result in lower leptin concentrations than meals containing the same amount of glucose. Blood samples were collected every 30-60 min for 24 h from 12 normal-weight women on 2 randomized days during which the subjects consumed three meals containing 55, 30, and 15% of total kilocalories as carbohydrate, fat, and protein, respectively, with 30% of kilocalories as either a fructose-sweetened [high fructose (HFr)] or glucose-sweetened [high glucose (HGl)] beverage. Meals were isocaloric in the two treatments. Postprandial glycemic excursions were reduced by 66 +/- 12%, and insulin responses were 65 +/- 5% lower (both P < 0.001) during HFr consumption. The area under the curve for leptin during the first 12 h (-33 +/- 7%; P < 0.005), the entire 24 h (-21 +/- 8%; P < 0.02), and the diurnal amplitude (peak - nadir) (24 +/- 6%; P < 0.0025) were reduced on the HFr day compared with the HGl day. In addition, circulating levels of the orexigenic gastroenteric hormone, ghrelin, were suppressed by approximately 30% 1-2 h after ingestion of each HGl meal (P < 0.01), but postprandial suppression of ghrelin was significantly less pronounced after HFr meals (P 0.05 vs. HGl). Consumption of HFr meals produced a rapid and prolonged elevation of plasma triglycerides compared with the HGl day (P < 0.005). Because insulin and leptin, and possibly ghrelin, function as key signals to the central nervous system in the long-term regulation of energy balance, decreases of circulating insulin and leptin and increased ghrelin concentrations, as demonstrated in this study, could lead to increased caloric intake and ultimately contribute to weight gain and obesity during chronic consumption of diets high in fructose.
That's discussing fructose vs. glucose (monosaccharides), not HFCS. HFCS is a disaccharide with a ratio of 55% fructose (hence the "high" designation)/45% glucose, while sucrose (regular table sugar) has a 50/50 ratio.
I'm not interested in watching TV on my phone for the same reason I'm not interested in having a shit in my tumble drier
Ummm.... no. HFCS is not a disaccharide, it contains a mixture of glucose, fructose, and other ingredients. You understand that a disaccharide is a molecule of two bonded monosaccharides, right?
You can bond glucose with glucose, fructose with glucose, or galactose with glucose. AFAIK, HFCS doesn't contain any galactose, so any disaccharides in it are probably sucrose molecules.
Interestingly enough, a study was just published which investigated fruit juice and obesity in children. They found that "contrary to popular belief, drinking pure 100 percent fruit juice does not make young children overweight or at risk for becoming overweight," even among kids who drank a LOT of juice.
Fruit juice is loaded with fructose, yet it's not making the kids fat. If your claims about fructose are true, then why is this the case?
These kids weren't drinking "a lot" of fruit juice
Did you even READ the article?
"The average daily consumption of pure fruit juice in the study population was 4.1 ounces (about half a cup) -- an amount in line with recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
.. half a cup - that's 45 calories. Not even half an Oreo cookie.
Even if they were to drink 4x as much, that's still pretty much nothing in comparison to what the average kid is drinking in terms of soda pop ... a 2 litre bottle of coke is 770 calories - and a lot of kids are drinking a 2 liter a day.
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sept04/popkin0916 04.html
The study is from 6 years ago .. and even then, it notes that under-reporting of soft drink and "sweetened beverages" - another term for junk calorie drinks like gatorade and "sports drinks" that contain little if no "real fruit juice" is a problem.
Fat people lie about how much they eat. They loie to themselves, they lie to their friends, their doctors. There was a study published in Scientific American (before the web) where they placed FREE vending machines in a room and let people eat as much as they wanted. They monitored who ate what, and the fatties continually SEVERELY under-reported whatthey ate.
Why not stop trolling (4 or 8 ounces of OJ is NOT a lot) and look in the real world ... take a visit to your local supermarket checkout and look at all the fat people and what's in their shopping baskets. Then look at their kids ... the next generation of over-sugared, over-salted fatties.
Some of these people are so fat I can't imagine how they take care of basic bodily functions like wiping after they've used the toilet. How can they reach when they're so BIG and their arms are like overstuffed sausages. How does the toilet not break under all that weight?
Or maybe they don't, and these are the people who are buying all those adult diapers.
Think about the damage heavily sugared and equally heavily salted soft drinks are doing. Who's defending this shit? Just follow the money ... fast fod joints, soda pop manufacturers, others who are already fatty faty 2 by 4's, can't get through the bathroom doors, and want some (preferrably even fatter) company, so they don't look so fat themselves in comparison.
Its easier to feed the kids dogs, tater tots, and a coke and not miss that "must see" crap on the tube than it is to actually take 20 minutes to make a decent meal.
What's served for breakfast in most homes is a crime. A bowl of cereal is not breakfast. Take the time to start with a decent, REAL breakfast, and maybe kids (and adults) won't be so interested in scrounging for those extra junk calories all day.
Because the kids are drinking a lot of soda and eating a lot of junk food, of course they are getting fat. Stop trying to blame it on HFCS.
All that happened here is that people (like Dr. Robert Lustig) have pointed the finger at fruit juice as a reason for increased childhood obesity, and this study debunked it. Lustig says it's not our fault that we and our children are getting fat, it's the food products. He's wrong; the reason is that we're not limiting the calories we and our kids take in, whether they contain HFCS or not.
Oh, I beg your pardon. When I started arguing facts, I mistakenly assumed I was dealing with a rational person and not a fitness Nazi.
Your hatred of fat people is palpable. You must be terrified of becoming one some day. I'm sure you won't rest until all fat has been eliminated from our purified society.
</godwinslaw>
You're ignoring the fact that HFCS depresses the "I'm full" signal, which is why taking in lots of HFCS makes people eat more junk food - they feel hungry because their bodies tell them they aren't full even when they've already eaten enough. Taking in the equivalent of 60 glasses of OJ of fructose is going to screw up anyone's metabolism.
I'll repeat it: Think about the damage heavily sugared and equally heavily salted soft drinks are doing. Who's defending this shit?
The junk food manufacturers like HFCS because it makes you feel even more hungry. Eliminate the HFCS and people will start getting healthier. Or do you think that people actually WANT to be overweight? What sort of fucktard are you?
And yes, people ARE responsible for what they put in their mouths. When
- you have more chins than Mount Rushmore,
- you were offered a starring role in "The Titanic" - as the iceberg,
- you're one of the landmarks on both Google Maps AND Visual Flight Rules charts,
- the scale says "one at a time, please",
- people get nervous when you get on an elevator,
- you can't see your feet,
- you can't reach around to wipe your arse properly,
- you have to literally roll out of bed in the morning,
- you have to have your steering wheel changed to a small custom wheel because otherwise you don't fit,
- your shoes split after a week,
- the "all-you-can-eat" says "no - you take doggy bag and go home now",
- you can't get clean because a shower only gets the top half (the rest is in "fat shade land"),
- the post office issues you TWO zip codes - one for each "cheek",
- you suntan and people complain about the smell of rancid cooking oil,
- the police give you a ticket for not having a backup alarm - and you were walking,
- Jabba the Hut asks you to stand beside him, so he'll look skinny by comparison,
- you have more garbage each week than any three other families on the street,
- you drive an SUV because that's the only vehicle that you fit in,
- you cannonballed into the pool - and emptied it,
- you cannonballed into the ocean - "SURFS UP!"
- the escalator grinds to a halt when you step on it
...
you have to take part of the blame too, because you didn't just "get that way" suddenly. You ATE that elephant, one mouthfull at a time.People want to lose weight but they don't want to do the ONE thing that would succeed - shutting their pie-holes. Go in line at the supermarket and see what the fat people buy. Shit I wouldn't feed my dogs. Nobody's got a gun to their heads forcing them to spend their money on it. They're so fat that they have a hard time breathing, but don't you get between them and their Doritos.
When I see a family of four, and together they weigh more than 3/4 of a ton (I kid you not - I couldn't believe it - wish I had had my cell phone with me so I could take a video) and they have 3 shopping carts overflowing with JUNK JUNK JUNK, they are part of the problem. They want their "fix", same as any other crackhead. But for the lesser cases, removing HFCS from the diet would be the deciding factory in getting their weight back to normal.
> You're ignoring the fact that HFCS depresses the "I'm full" signal, which is why taking in lots of HFCS makes people eat more junk food
There's only circumstantial evidence that HFCS makes people eat more junk food. There is direct evidence that using HFCS instead of sugar makes NO DIFFERENCE in the amount of calories people consume, or how much weight they gain.
You're forgetting why they started using HFCS in the first place -- it's essentially the same glucose/fructose ratio as table sugar, and is much cheaper. Dieticians (at NIH, no less) have said that your body cannot tell the difference.
Maybe the reason people are eating more junk food is that HFCS made it cheaper to buy more?
> Taking in the equivalent of 60 glasses of OJ of fructose is going to screw up anyone's metabolism.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but a 12 oz. can of soda has about 40g of sugars, and 55% of that is about 22g of fructose. By contrast, 12 oz. of orange juice contains about 32g of sugars, about half of which is fructose (16g). That means 60 glasses of OJ of fructose is about 43 glasses of soda, and I don't think even your "fatties" are drinking that much.
> Eliminate the HFCS and people will start getting healthier.
Fine, except that obesity is also increasing in some countries where they don't use HFCS, plus obesity continues to rise as HFCS consumption decreases. Why is that?
> And yes, people ARE responsible for what they put in their mouths.
Then why are we having this argument? Do you want to put the blame for obesity on the food manufacturers or not??
> do you think that people actually WANT to be overweight? What sort of fucktard are you?
Hey, I'm not the 'fucktard' making fun of fat people. You're not only blind to facts, you are a thoroughly insensitive asshole zealot.