- High fructose corn syrup isn't significantly different than regular sugar.
Yes it is. It contains lots of fructose where as regular sugar is mostly sucrose. Trivially, that's different. It also contains a lot more glucose because you get a mix of glucose and fructose when you hydrolyse sucrose. The GI of HCFS is measurably higher than sucrose.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2008:
The glucose-to-fructose ratio in HFCS is nearly 1:1; similar to the ratio in sucrose, invert sugar, and honey. A similar ratio is also found in many fruits and fruit juices. The only practical distinction in composition between sucrose and other fructose-containing sweeteners is the presence of a bond linking fructose and glucose...
Then there's no reason to "measure" anything. Do more of what's good for you, and less of what's bad.
Measure because inexact measurements are a lot more informative over time than no measurements at all. They provide a system for making better decisions. A system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
Calorie counting, and shaming others based on what you see them eat, or exercise is silly. But that's what you get here on Slashdot.
Yeah, shaming is assholish, but that's the internet and the culture for you. You have my full support in telling people not to be assholes.
"Just eat less" said to someone who already eats half of what others do, but still gains weight just means you don't know what you are talking about.
I'm not sure what's wrong with "just eat less". It's almost always a right answer. It works for many people. What are people supposed to say: "here's a 47-point plan to micromanage your health"? If "just eat less" doesn't work, then maybe consult some physicians or other professionals.
If they're systematic, then it doesn't matter that they're guesses. Anyone can keep track and see how it goes. Getting fatter? Cut down on calories eaten using whatever system you're using. Continue for a month. Still getting fatter? Cut down again. Getting thinner? Then it works.
Inexact measurements are useful for weight loss. It's not a scientific study.
My own observation is that obese people tend to skip or have a very light breakfast. They then make up for it by having a big lunch, dinner and then snacks right up until bedtime. I've always felt that you should be a little hungry when you go to bed, then have a good size breakfast in the morning. Improves sleep, and sets you up for the day, with only a light lunch and dinner required. I also find that it prevents you from feeling tired in the afternoon.
My observation is that obese people eat snacks. Blaming it on breakfast or no breakfast is a diversion.
Any magic things you hear about food are usually false:
- Sodium isn't bad for you (unless you have a special condition). - High fructose corn syrup isn't significantly different than regular sugar. - Aspertame has no significant health effects. - Fat isn't bad for you. - You don't have old undigested meat in your gut. - You don't need 8 glasses of water per day. - [Food item XYZ] isn't "brain food" - Caffeine doesn't cause heart problems - You don't need X servings of Y food per day - Health food isn't much better for you than regular food - Eggs don't give you a heart attack - Organic doesn't mean healthy. Neither does natural. - Chemicals are not bad for you.
Who cares what (maybe) happened 30 years ago in another country? If you're a 40+ year old German, maybe you care. Is that a significant fraction of the audience of this site?
But I think he was unduly arrogant, didn't understand the limitations of his own knowledge and basically decided to usurp the authority of a democracy.
He enabled democracy by telling voters what the government was doing. It's not democracy when leaders hide their actions from voters.
We need to get the government out of the passenger screening business and let the airports do this screening. Airports actually try to do a good job serving airport customers. And airports will be no worse than the TSA at detecting threats and providing security.
The worse it gets for travelers at airports, the easier it will be to get rid of the TSA.
Socialism is not "collectivism", and the socialist countries of Europe comprise can hardly be called "small societies".
What is the point of saying something like this? Anything can be small relative to larger things. Anything can be collectivist relative to less collectivist things. You've said essentially nothing.
Smaller societies where everyone shares common values have less disagreement on what to spend their society's funds. Because of the common values. The US is large and we share almost zero common values. So things that work somewhere very different are unlikely to work here. This is not difficult to understand.
Small societies where everyone has a lot in common can sometimes succeed using some collectivist structures. The US is large and increasingly people are alienated from each other. It's the exact opposite of the sort of time and place where people might accept any kind collectivism.
(Also, were you really in Finland? There's no reason to believe you were.)
If there's any candidate who is prepared to kick Wall St in the pants
Why does everything relating to government have to be about punishing people (who are different than you and therefore apparently "fair game" for whatever ill treatment)? Why can't we ask government to make things better for all of us rather than pursuing old grievances and settling scores?
It's not just Wall St either. It's 100 different designated villains of whatever story, true or false, someone wants to tell. Hillary is "fighting for you" against the villains (a.k.a. your neighbor the banker or pharma researcher). Trump wants to expel the villains (a.k.a. your neighbors who are muslims or whomever he has mentioned in his latest tweet).
When is being nasty to people supposed to start paying off? Never? Let's stop doing it then.
It's probably somewhat correct. It's probably also somewhat incorrect. It differs from my personal experience.
These types of articles seem to consistently confuse hunger and appetite with eating. Hunger isn't eating. Appetite isn't eating. Only actual eating is eating. A hungry person can procrastinate eating a long time, especially if he or she doesn't keep anything ready to eat in the house. It doesn't even take much "will power". Just don't buy snacks (or cereal, or anything else that's edible without preparation) when you shop.
How about something on topic, or something with a technology angle, or something that directly applies to the lives of people who frequent this site in some way?
I hear a bad thing happened in a rural farming village in Indonesia. Can I expect Slashdot coverage of it? Why not?
Being nasty to prisoners doesn't actually achieve anything -- it's simply hurting people because you can't or won't control your emotional reactions, much like many of the criminals themselves have done.
You people should just say you want the death penalty for every crime. Or learn to think and solve problems rather than rage and hate.
Slashdot Mirror
This incident reminds us why Congress is supposed to make laws and determine penalties for breaking them, not unelected regulators.
Link: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
- High fructose corn syrup isn't significantly different than regular sugar.
Yes it is. It contains lots of fructose where as regular sugar is mostly sucrose. Trivially, that's different. It also contains a lot more glucose because you get a mix of glucose and fructose when you hydrolyse sucrose. The GI of HCFS is measurably higher than sucrose.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, December 2008:
The article contains much more information.
Then there's no reason to "measure" anything. Do more of what's good for you, and less of what's bad.
Measure because inexact measurements are a lot more informative over time than no measurements at all. They provide a system for making better decisions. A system doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
Calorie counting, and shaming others based on what you see them eat, or exercise is silly. But that's what you get here on Slashdot.
Yeah, shaming is assholish, but that's the internet and the culture for you. You have my full support in telling people not to be assholes.
"Just eat less" said to someone who already eats half of what others do, but still gains weight just means you don't know what you are talking about.
I'm not sure what's wrong with "just eat less". It's almost always a right answer. It works for many people. What are people supposed to say: "here's a 47-point plan to micromanage your health"? If "just eat less" doesn't work, then maybe consult some physicians or other professionals.
If they're systematic, then it doesn't matter that they're guesses. Anyone can keep track and see how it goes. Getting fatter? Cut down on calories eaten using whatever system you're using. Continue for a month. Still getting fatter? Cut down again. Getting thinner? Then it works.
Inexact measurements are useful for weight loss. It's not a scientific study.
Specific substances are bad in specific doses -- and sometimes for people with specific conditions.
My own observation is that obese people tend to skip or have a very light breakfast. They then make up for it by having a big lunch, dinner and then snacks right up until bedtime. I've always felt that you should be a little hungry when you go to bed, then have a good size breakfast in the morning. Improves sleep, and sets you up for the day, with only a light lunch and dinner required. I also find that it prevents you from feeling tired in the afternoon.
My observation is that obese people eat snacks. Blaming it on breakfast or no breakfast is a diversion.
Any magic things you hear about food are usually false:
- Sodium isn't bad for you (unless you have a special condition).
- High fructose corn syrup isn't significantly different than regular sugar.
- Aspertame has no significant health effects.
- Fat isn't bad for you.
- You don't have old undigested meat in your gut.
- You don't need 8 glasses of water per day.
- [Food item XYZ] isn't "brain food"
- Caffeine doesn't cause heart problems
- You don't need X servings of Y food per day
- Health food isn't much better for you than regular food
- Eggs don't give you a heart attack
- Organic doesn't mean healthy. Neither does natural.
- Chemicals are not bad for you.
Because historical revelations regarding distant lands aren't considered important news?
Advocacy journalism is almost always misleading -- because informing people isn't really the goal.
Citation needed.
What's the answer to the question? Why should non-40-year-old-Germans care? Enlighten us.
Who cares what (maybe) happened 30 years ago in another country? If you're a 40+ year old German, maybe you care. Is that a significant fraction of the audience of this site?
He enabled democracy by telling voters what the government was doing. It's not democracy when leaders hide their actions from voters.
Have you ever been to a farm? Just wondering.
The proper amount of funding for the TSA is $0. Only a TSA fan would argue they should get increased funding instead of being eliminated.
We need to get the government out of the passenger screening business and let the airports do this screening. Airports actually try to do a good job serving airport customers. And airports will be no worse than the TSA at detecting threats and providing security.
The worse it gets for travelers at airports, the easier it will be to get rid of the TSA.
You aren't listening. The societies we're talking about are not "smaller societies" and not everyone in them shares common values.
I'm not listening to someone trying to tell me Finland isn't smaller and less culturally diverse than the US.
Socialism is not "collectivism", and the socialist countries of Europe comprise can hardly be called "small societies".
What is the point of saying something like this? Anything can be small relative to larger things. Anything can be collectivist relative to less collectivist things. You've said essentially nothing.
Smaller societies where everyone shares common values have less disagreement on what to spend their society's funds. Because of the common values. The US is large and we share almost zero common values. So things that work somewhere very different are unlikely to work here. This is not difficult to understand.
I was in Finland last summer...
Small societies where everyone has a lot in common can sometimes succeed using some collectivist structures. The US is large and increasingly people are alienated from each other. It's the exact opposite of the sort of time and place where people might accept any kind collectivism.
(Also, were you really in Finland? There's no reason to believe you were.)
If there's any candidate who is prepared to kick Wall St in the pants
Why does everything relating to government have to be about punishing people (who are different than you and therefore apparently "fair game" for whatever ill treatment)? Why can't we ask government to make things better for all of us rather than pursuing old grievances and settling scores?
It's not just Wall St either. It's 100 different designated villains of whatever story, true or false, someone wants to tell. Hillary is "fighting for you" against the villains (a.k.a. your neighbor the banker or pharma researcher). Trump wants to expel the villains (a.k.a. your neighbors who are muslims or whomever he has mentioned in his latest tweet).
When is being nasty to people supposed to start paying off? Never? Let's stop doing it then.
You're equating imagining someone might do something with people who actually did it and got caught doing it?
It cites self-help books, not scientific studies.
It's probably somewhat correct. It's probably also somewhat incorrect. It differs from my personal experience.
These types of articles seem to consistently confuse hunger and appetite with eating. Hunger isn't eating. Appetite isn't eating. Only actual eating is eating. A hungry person can procrastinate eating a long time, especially if he or she doesn't keep anything ready to eat in the house. It doesn't even take much "will power". Just don't buy snacks (or cereal, or anything else that's edible without preparation) when you shop.
How about something on topic, or something with a technology angle, or something that directly applies to the lives of people who frequent this site in some way?
I hear a bad thing happened in a rural farming village in Indonesia. Can I expect Slashdot coverage of it? Why not?
Being nasty to prisoners doesn't actually achieve anything -- it's simply hurting people because you can't or won't control your emotional reactions, much like many of the criminals themselves have done.
You people should just say you want the death penalty for every crime. Or learn to think and solve problems rather than rage and hate.