So that high starch high sugar culture was actually lean off eating a lot of fructose so there goes another mechanism.
I think the question is "what is different from honey than other sources of fructose, like fruit juices without the pulp" - and again, your "high starch high sugar" culture was really a "low glycemic, high fructose culture", so again, the model fits.
Except they were also eating a lot of berries, starchy tubors, and fruit.
I find it hard to believe they were actually low glycemic. And the other culture eating white sugar sweetened beverages along with fruits. The model doesn't fit.
When faced with a complex system like biology starting from the ground up is going backwards.
Sorry, not bothering. And I have no idea what you're talking about with the god thing.
You start by observing the system, seeing how it responds to various stimuli, and then you start working out how the low level mechanisms work in that system.
You don't start with a low level mechanism (like insulin), decide the role it must play, they build up your understanding around it then start making excuses when things don't apply.
You're creating a caricature of my position. Insulin is the mechanism for fat accumulation. Differential insulin resistance is the mechanism for insulin causing obesity, gluttony and sloth. I'm open to the question "where does differential insulin resistance come from?"
It's not a caricature, you're convinced insulin resistance is the driver of obesity and if something like sugar or starch isn't correlated with obesity you add a new qualifier so you can still blame insulin resistance.
I simply can't disagree more. An observational study shows you nothing - you've got to approach it with clear, falsifiable, foundational mechanisms to determine causality.
And I think maybe that's your essential beef - you're angry with Taubes because he's approached the problem from one direction, and you're *positive* that it must be approached from the other.
You can disagree but you'll be wrong.
You naturally want to understand the foundational mechanisms as well as you can, but if you want to understand the system you have to actually study the system, otherwise you'll never understand how that mechanism works in that system.
And it has nothing to do with my beef with Taubes, I only realized he was making this mistake recently. My actual beef is he's ignored decades of very high quality research and knowledge in favour of a pet theory they already studied, and soundly discarded. And he's done it using some very dodgy methods, both intellectually, and in presenting his data.
There's a reason the nutrition community thinks he's a crank, it's because he fits the definition.
It sounds like she was incorrectly assessed as DOA, does this change the proper ordering? I could see containing a potentially dangerous fire as a higher priority than a potentially dangerous body retrieval, though I don't know if it would have been dangerous in this case. Either way I could see a "dead body" being forgotten easier than an injured person.
Yes, but if I'm sleeping naked in my bedroom and my house is on fire and a firefighter comes in to rescue me, I sure as hell do not want footage of me naked being in government computers. This would fall under MY privacy or the individual who the government agent is trying to save's privacy. I'd say that, in general, emergency response (firefighters and paramedics), really probably shouldn't be filming everything.
And what if you felt the firefighter did something very inappropriate when they found you naked and you were looking for proof?
To an extent the current issue is that the tech is immature and departments are doing their own ad-hoc deployments.
Done properly the video stored on the memory card is encrypted and access to the keys is strictly controlled. The only way anything gets decrypted is in response to a court order or at least an official logged procedure so neither officers or the public have to worry about random people snooping through the videos.
"First, there's no reason to think that the relationship between sugar(s) consumption and health endpoints is one to one or linear. So maybe a little bit of added sugar pushes us over a threshold, or maybe there's some exponential thing going on due to, say, epigenetic effects."
He offered offhand speculation, once, but I don't think you can claim it's a critical part of his model, and he brought it up in the context of explaining the exponential increase in obesity, but not the whole picture. And he certainly didn't offer any evidence.
That's mostly what I was interested in, a) is there any evidence? No. And b) is it always part of the model, or only when you need to explain away contradictory evidence.
You can have type 2 diabetes with or without differential insulin resistance - I've known some type 2 diabetics to remain thin and fit, while others are grotesquely obese.
Do you have a cite for the differential insulin resistance, or was that circular reasoned anecdote supposed to be it?
And I'm not sure that citation is saying what you want it to: Patients with diabetes who take certain types of medications to lower their blood sugar sometimes experience severe low blood-sugar levels, whether or not their diabetes is poorly or well controlled
[...]
"Many clinicians may assume that hypoglycemia is not much of a problem in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes given their high average blood-sugar levels,"
[...]
The researchers surveyed patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with medications to lower their blood sugar and asked about their experiences with severe hypoglycemia.
It sounds to me like they're saying that type 2 diabetes patients have high average blood sugar, but either because of their meds, or because their bodies ability to regulate sugar is screwed up, they sometimes get very low blood sugar.
Remember a while back when I brought up the example of the tribe eating a lot of honey, and you mentioned it didn't count because honey has a low glycemic index?
You know why that was? Honey has a lot of fructose, and fructose has a low glycemic index. So that high starch high sugar culture was actually lean off eating a lot of fructose so there goes another mechanism.
When faced with a complex system like biology starting from the ground up is going backwards. If you start from the lowest component you'll oversimplify because you're missing so much of the pictures, and thus you're doomed to extrapolate in the wrong directions. That's the fundamental problem with your position, insulin is basically the one mechanism you know, so everything basically happens as a result of insulin. And when the data doesn't fit you start adding resistance, fructose, epigenetics, and all these other qualifiers to try and make it fit.
Given a complex system with multiple confounders you need to approach it observationally. Learn how the system works, and only then you can try to figure out how the low level mechanisms actually work in that system. Even nutritionists don't know the full picture of mechanisms, but they know from experiments how it behaves, and you have to start from there.
For years, Viacom continuously and secretly uploaded its content to YouTube, even while publicly complaining about its presence there. It hired no fewer than 18 different marketing agencies to upload its content to the site. It deliberately "roughed up" the videos to make them look stolen or leaked. It opened YouTube accounts using phony email addresses. It even sent employees to Kinko's to upload clips from computers that couldn't be traced to Viacom. And in an effort to promote its own shows, as a matter of company policy Viacom routinely left up clips from shows that had been uploaded to YouTube by ordinary users. Executives as high up as the president of Comedy Central and the head of MTV Networks felt "very strongly" that clips from shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report should remain on YouTube.
Viacom's efforts to disguise its promotional use of YouTube worked so well that even its own employees could not keep track of everything it was posting or leaving up on the site. As a result, on countless occasions Viacom demanded the removal of clips that it had uploaded to YouTube, only to return later to sheepishly ask for their reinstatement. In fact, some of the very clips that Viacom is suing us over were actually uploaded by Viacom itself.
Given Viacom’s own actions, there is no way YouTube could ever have known which Viacom content was and was not authorized to be on the site.
Although summary judgment was granted to Google on other grounds, I'd say this argument has at least a fair chance of success.
I'm not sure the Viacom situation applies. Legally Viacom would have been well within its rights to upload a clip, then demand YouTube take down an identical clip uploaded by a user, it's their content. The argument Google made is that Viacom made it unclear when it was uploading clips, even a take down request could turn out to be targeting legit content, making it impossible for YouTube to ensure only authorized content remained.
I think the difference is the people sharing the files never had any expectation that the uploaded Prenda content was legit, so they weren't in the same dilemma as Google. Of course that doesn't mean a judge will be ok with the honeypot idea.
The media gets dozens, hundreds, of documents. They slowly release them one or two at a time. Why? Not to make them easier for the public to digest. Not because they need to spend time reviewing them, writing articles, or gather sources. Not even because they enjoy being the gatekeepers of desired information.
No. This is almost entirely about making money and a major ego trip. The writers enjoy getting off on being the center of a public spectacle. You put a few articles out a week and you get more viewers. You keep stringing everyone along and keep those numbers up for more advertising revenue and to try to attract more subscribers. You keep your own name in the papers and get a higher profile for a book release. That's what this game is all about. Snowden leaked his information to people who are using it as leverage to manufacture news.
The reporters that Snowden contacted could easily release everything tomorrow. Total transparency. It would eliminate them being part of the story. But they get off on the attention. Glenn Greenwald wants to BE THE STORY. We've seen this repeatedly with Assange who comments on himself as often as he comments on the news. They don't want to report on some of the most relevant news and whistleblowing in the last decade. This is a chance for Greedwald to make a lot of money, a low of news appearances, some Real Time with Bill Maher, and maybe even a Howard Stern Show appearance. If he releases all of the documents then he's no longer important. His ego can't take that.
I know at Slashdot that people are upset when the news media focuses on Snowden and Greenwald not the major revelations that Snowden has given us regarding the U.S. government's total war on privacy. But this is not new territory for Greenwald. He loves being the center of attention. Look at his news appearances regarding this case. He talks about himself and his involvement far too much in my opinion.
I think that the U.S. citizenry has a right to know about the government's war on privacy. Show us everything. Be transparent the way Obama said he would be when he campaigned. Let us judge. Stop being the gatekeepers of information that you don't have a right to hide from us like the government did. Enough of the games. I can't take anyone in the media seriously anymore. If Greenwald and Snowden want less attention then give the world the information to help people combat the government's overreach.
Any 'great man' (and probably great woman) is going to have issues. Normal well adjusted people live normal well adjusted lives and don't do anything noteworthy. If you want to do something extraordinary you either need an extraordinary talent, or a personality quirk that causes you to do something that no one else is doing.
Manning is gay, possibly transgendered (which is fine, but not at home in the military), and had some psychological issues, if he was well adjusted and the military was accepting he probably wouldn't have leaked.
Assange is a self-righteous attention whore asshole. If he wasn't you probably wouldn't have heard of wikileaks.
I don't know Snowden's deal but he's a bit of an asshole to dump that on his girlfriend without warning, and he didn't plan his escape that well.
Greenwald is a nicer self-righteous attention whore, good on him since it stops him from being intimidated.
You're not going to get flawless human beings doing stuff like this, and if you want to make a difference you don't necessarily want any.
It could be a lot of things. You need actual evidence to back up your claims. Biological systems are notoriously complex and filled with feedbacks and confounders, theories and thought experiments tend to die unseemly deaths.
Which would imply to me that it's not about the food, it's about the hormonal imbalance of fat people. Again, gluttony and sloth being *effects* of obesity, rather than causes.
More likely a positive feedback.
As for the Kuna, I think you've got to watch the population for a few more generations before the diseases of civilization kick in. Differential insulin resistance gets worse generation after generation when ancestral cultures are introduced to refined sugar.
So now epigenetics are a necessary component in your model? Does Taubes use epigenetics? Do you have any evidence for that claim?
That's not the kind of partitioning you get with differential insulin resistance - the sugar in the blood stream gets pounded to fat, and both the blood stream and the muscles are low in energy.
And that would be the kind of thing I would look for - take a food we've seen as generally harmless, find someone who is off the charts on a satiety index with it, and see if it can possibly get them obese. Until that's demonstrated, the whole satiety thing seems more like a 2nd or 3rd order effect than a core reason for obesity.
Palatability, not satiety (satiety is how filling it is).
The better test would be to have people rate the relative palatability of different foods. Build them a diet around those foods, and see how well the palatability tracks with weight change.
But even then there's the difficulty carrying out the study, changing palatability preferences (and what that means), maybe the fat prone people find everything tastier, etc. It sounds like a study with a lot of moving parts that's hard to do properly.
I leave it to Lustig to talk further on that, especially regarding the difference between fructose taken in juice form versus whole fruit (he seems to imply there is a difference in digestive process that mitigates the deleterious effects in that case).
Or that's the only way he can get rid of most of the non-industrial populations. After all how many non-industrial cultures drink a bunch of juice sweetened with refined sugar? Oops, found one (the Kuna)
I just thought of something - we could test this stuff on someone with no taste buds. By the satiety hypothesis, such a person would be unable to overeat, because nothing is tasty. The insulin hypothesis supposes that given insulin resistance, even if the tongue doesn't recognize that something is tasty, the muscles will know if they are being starved or not, and drive hunger.
Palatability not satiety.
I couldn't find anything on that but there seems to be an inverse correlation between taste bud sensitivity and weight. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Sweet and sour lower but bitterness, saltiness, and unami were depressed the most, I don't even know if that would balance out into increasing total palatability (less bitter) or decreasing (less salt). Could be a result of overstimulus, a defensive measure to reduce palatability, or causal somehow.
This nature article seems to imply we become less sensitive to flavours after eating a lot, though I'm not certain how that would related to palatability or satiety.
Morality? The first few that are unfrozen will insist on a matter of principal that the remainder be revived. Besides, isn't it more ethical to resume an existing life than create a fresh one?
Or you could use the pragmatic argument that there probably won't be many people frozen. And the handful who are will have very valuable historical knowledge and insight (imagine talking to someone from the 1800s).
On the other hand, you'll find out immediately after you die if they have figured all of this out and not gone bankrupt. You'll wake up in the future. Medical care and insurance and longevity treatment covered for at least 2 years plus anything related to the cryo better be included, though.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll have universal healthcare by then.
And jet packs. Don't thaw me out if you don't have jet packs.
No. It lists its authority when they did nothing worthwhile during the Rwanda genocide and the Bosnia genocide. TWO genocides and they did nothing.
The UN deserves to be laughed at and not be taken seriously.
The excuse is it wasn't really their job at the time.
The primary role of the UN to avoid war. They do this by being a place for international diplomacy and by arbitrating international discussions around trade and borders.
A country committing genocide within its own borders isn't really part of the original job description. It's only now that active international conflicts are virtually extinct that we have the opportunity to start contemplating the UN taking the role of an international police and stabilization force. Rwanda and Bosnia are two of the main reasons we made that decision.
I'll say I don't know that insulin resistance in the obese couldn't be a contributing factor to further obesity (I simply don't know that area of the research), and if that were true insulin stimulating foods could be particularly bad for those people. But it's a result of the obesity, not the cause.
Instead of hunger through muscle starvation insulin resistance could suppress hunger by keeping more sugar in the blood stream (type-1 diabetics could test this), long way from saying I agree with you, but there's hypothetical room in that direction.
So you're asserting that there is in fact, some universal addictive properties that berries simply don't have? You deny the possibility of someone being addicted to berries because they find them so tasty?
Maybe if there is in fact certain things that cannot possibly be addictive (in this case, taking the Hazda diet, apparently by the tastiness hypothesis, nothing they eat can possibly be addictive since they don't get overweight), we can identify the biological mechanism of addiction.
Surely, my experience has shown sugar to be a particularly addictive substance, and it may be that simple...but I'd be interested in other proposed biomechanisms.
For some people maybe they are addictive enough to cause obesity, but for non-industrial cultures this doesn't seem to be a problem and even for industrial I don't think unprocessed berries are a signficant cause of obesity.
Well, you can separate the two - Lustig claims that a certain amount of fructose is what develops the carbohydrate allergy (aka, insulin resistance). Whether or not "non-industrial cultures can eat any macronutrient balance they want" begs the question as to the insulin response from those foods. Perhaps it's better to say "non-industrial cultures can eat low glycemic in any macronutrient balance they want".
Except we answered that question and they can eat rice and root crops that are high GI.
The only plausible mechanism you have left is fructose causing a 'carbohydrate allergy' in industrial populations, but even this is contradicted by non-industrial populations eating a lot of fruit and berries.
You only took a partial quote. The full quote is "The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates", and as shown by the lack of sugar consumption in Japan, they don't have more refined carbohydrates.
So again, no disagreement with Taubes except perhaps in the semantics of "easily digestible and refined" versus "easily digestible or refined".
Outside of increasing the GI what else does refining do other than making food more palatable? By adding refinement on top of GI you're conflating it with patabability for no reason, if you want to test his insulin hypothesis then look at less palatable foods that cause a high insulin response like plain rice.
Refuted elsewhere - the error bars on both porridge and fish for the 40 out of 41 subjects who didn't actually test all the foods were so large as to easily encompass fish being lower than porridge.
Ahh yes, that single pairing of carb vs protein shows porridge might have a slightly higher insulin response, devastatingly refuted.
But, they don't. They're innocent victims of insulin resistance and elevated insulin levels. You're trying to implicate protein and fat when they're just along for the ride. (Well, fat is certainly along for the ride - protein does have some insulin response, but that pales in comparison with that of carbohydrates - caveat that I know you still disagree on the 41 person fish study).
Exactly what do you think happens to the fat we eat?
Insulin resistance means that insulin, that stores excess blood sugar, leaves no blood sugar for muscles to use and inhibits the fat cells from release alternate energy (ketone bodies) for the muscles to use.
If your muscles are starving, why wouldn't you feel hungry?
Shouldn't type - 1 diabetes patients, before treatment get fat not thin then?
I noticed you didn't quite say that insulin causes hunger and extra eating
All depends upon insulin resistance - as from the first title, "Elevated postprandial insulin levels do not induce satiety in normal-weight humans." As noted before, obesity is a sign of carbohydrate allergy, and if your body properly partitions energy, you're fine.
If under the influence of insulin, your body partitions more energy to fat than to muscle, you will feel hungry, and you will be driven to eat more.
Unfortunately the abstracts for the second two cites didn't have any note as to the subjects, but my guess is that they were normal weight.
So your uncited claim is that insulin only causes hunger when the cells no longer respond to it? Fascinating. I wonder how that works.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the question is "what is different from honey than other sources of fructose, like fruit juices without the pulp" - and again, your "high starch high sugar" culture was really a "low glycemic, high fructose culture", so again, the model fits.
Except they were also eating a lot of berries, starchy tubors, and fruit.
I find it hard to believe they were actually low glycemic. And the other culture eating white sugar sweetened beverages along with fruits. The model doesn't fit.
So we start with God, and work backwards from there? Watch this series, especially lecture 2 regarding cells: https://itunes.apple.com/us/itunes-u/cognitive-ubiquity-evolution/id464839816
Sorry, not bothering. And I have no idea what you're talking about with the god thing.
You start by observing the system, seeing how it responds to various stimuli, and then you start working out how the low level mechanisms work in that system.
You don't start with a low level mechanism (like insulin), decide the role it must play, they build up your understanding around it then start making excuses when things don't apply.
It's not a caricature, you're convinced insulin resistance is the driver of obesity and if something like sugar or starch isn't correlated with obesity you add a new qualifier so you can still blame insulin resistance.
I simply can't disagree more. An observational study shows you nothing - you've got to approach it with clear, falsifiable, foundational mechanisms to determine causality.
And I think maybe that's your essential beef - you're angry with Taubes because he's approached the problem from one direction, and you're *positive* that it must be approached from the other.
You can disagree but you'll be wrong.
You naturally want to understand the foundational mechanisms as well as you can, but if you want to understand the system you have to actually study the system, otherwise you'll never understand how that mechanism works in that system.
And it has nothing to do with my beef with Taubes, I only realized he was making this mistake recently. My actual beef is he's ignored decades of very high quality research and knowledge in favour of a pet theory they already studied, and soundly discarded. And he's done it using some very dodgy methods, both intellectually, and in presenting his data.
There's a reason the nutrition community thinks he's a crank, it's because he fits the definition.
Ok thanks, I was just trying to understand where the screwup was.
It sounds like she was incorrectly assessed as DOA, does this change the proper ordering? I could see containing a potentially dangerous fire as a higher priority than a potentially dangerous body retrieval, though I don't know if it would have been dangerous in this case. Either way I could see a "dead body" being forgotten easier than an injured person.
Yes, but if I'm sleeping naked in my bedroom and my house is on fire and a firefighter comes in to rescue me, I sure as hell do not want footage of me naked being in government computers. This would fall under MY privacy or the individual who the government agent is trying to save's privacy. I'd say that, in general, emergency response (firefighters and paramedics), really probably shouldn't be filming everything.
And what if you felt the firefighter did something very inappropriate when they found you naked and you were looking for proof?
To an extent the current issue is that the tech is immature and departments are doing their own ad-hoc deployments.
Done properly the video stored on the memory card is encrypted and access to the keys is strictly controlled. The only way anything gets decrypted is in response to a court order or at least an official logged procedure so neither officers or the public have to worry about random people snooping through the videos.
Sure, why not?
And yes, Tabues has mentioned this before, in both his examples of increasing obesity over generations during the spread of the "diseases of civilization", as well as explicitly: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/10/gary-taubes-sugar-reddit-ama-halloween-candy
"First, there's no reason to think that the relationship between sugar(s) consumption and health endpoints is one to one or linear. So maybe a little bit of added sugar pushes us over a threshold, or maybe there's some exponential thing going on due to, say, epigenetic effects."
He offered offhand speculation, once, but I don't think you can claim it's a critical part of his model, and he brought it up in the context of explaining the exponential increase in obesity, but not the whole picture. And he certainly didn't offer any evidence.
That's mostly what I was interested in, a) is there any evidence? No. And b) is it always part of the model, or only when you need to explain away contradictory evidence.
You can have type 2 diabetes with or without differential insulin resistance - I've known some type 2 diabetics to remain thin and fit, while others are grotesquely obese.
Do you have a cite for the differential insulin resistance, or was that circular reasoned anecdote supposed to be it?
And I'm not sure that citation is saying what you want it to:
Patients with diabetes who take certain types of medications to lower their blood sugar sometimes experience severe low blood-sugar levels, whether or not their diabetes is poorly or well controlled
[...]
"Many clinicians may assume that hypoglycemia is not much of a problem in poorly controlled type 2 diabetes given their high average blood-sugar levels,"
[...]
The researchers surveyed patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with medications to lower their blood sugar and asked about their experiences with severe hypoglycemia.
It sounds to me like they're saying that type 2 diabetes patients have high average blood sugar, but either because of their meds, or because their bodies ability to regulate sugar is screwed up, they sometimes get very low blood sugar.
I'm not sure how that really disagrees with me.
Remember a while back when I brought up the example of the tribe eating a lot of honey, and you mentioned it didn't count because honey has a low glycemic index?
You know why that was? Honey has a lot of fructose, and fructose has a low glycemic index. So that high starch high sugar culture was actually lean off eating a lot of fructose so there goes another mechanism.
When faced with a complex system like biology starting from the ground up is going backwards. If you start from the lowest component you'll oversimplify because you're missing so much of the pictures, and thus you're doomed to extrapolate in the wrong directions. That's the fundamental problem with your position, insulin is basically the one mechanism you know, so everything basically happens as a result of insulin. And when the data doesn't fit you start adding resistance, fructose, epigenetics, and all these other qualifiers to try and make it fit.
Given a complex system with multiple confounders you need to approach it observationally. Learn how the system works, and only then you can try to figure out how the low level mechanisms actually work in that system. Even nutritionists don't know the full picture of mechanisms, but they know from experiments how it behaves, and you have to start from there.
Not true. Viacom wasn't suing YouTube users, it was suing Google, and Google knew that Viacom was behind many of the "illegitimate" files.
Prenda is suing TPB users who never had reason to think the content was legit.
Although summary judgment was granted to Google on other grounds, I'd say this argument has at least a fair chance of success.
I'm not sure the Viacom situation applies. Legally Viacom would have been well within its rights to upload a clip, then demand YouTube take down an identical clip uploaded by a user, it's their content. The argument Google made is that Viacom made it unclear when it was uploading clips, even a take down request could turn out to be targeting legit content, making it impossible for YouTube to ensure only authorized content remained.
I think the difference is the people sharing the files never had any expectation that the uploaded Prenda content was legit, so they weren't in the same dilemma as Google. Of course that doesn't mean a judge will be ok with the honeypot idea.
The media gets dozens, hundreds, of documents. They slowly release them one or two at a time. Why? Not to make them easier for the public to digest. Not because they need to spend time reviewing them, writing articles, or gather sources. Not even because they enjoy being the gatekeepers of desired information.
No. This is almost entirely about making money and a major ego trip. The writers enjoy getting off on being the center of a public spectacle. You put a few articles out a week and you get more viewers. You keep stringing everyone along and keep those numbers up for more advertising revenue and to try to attract more subscribers. You keep your own name in the papers and get a higher profile for a book release. That's what this game is all about. Snowden leaked his information to people who are using it as leverage to manufacture news.
The reporters that Snowden contacted could easily release everything tomorrow. Total transparency. It would eliminate them being part of the story. But they get off on the attention. Glenn Greenwald wants to BE THE STORY. We've seen this repeatedly with Assange who comments on himself as often as he comments on the news. They don't want to report on some of the most relevant news and whistleblowing in the last decade. This is a chance for Greedwald to make a lot of money, a low of news appearances, some Real Time with Bill Maher, and maybe even a Howard Stern Show appearance. If he releases all of the documents then he's no longer important. His ego can't take that.
I know at Slashdot that people are upset when the news media focuses on Snowden and Greenwald not the major revelations that Snowden has given us regarding the U.S. government's total war on privacy. But this is not new territory for Greenwald. He loves being the center of attention. Look at his news appearances regarding this case. He talks about himself and his involvement far too much in my opinion.
I think that the U.S. citizenry has a right to know about the government's war on privacy. Show us everything. Be transparent the way Obama said he would be when he campaigned. Let us judge. Stop being the gatekeepers of information that you don't have a right to hide from us like the government did. Enough of the games. I can't take anyone in the media seriously anymore. If Greenwald and Snowden want less attention then give the world the information to help people combat the government's overreach.
Any 'great man' (and probably great woman) is going to have issues. Normal well adjusted people live normal well adjusted lives and don't do anything noteworthy. If you want to do something extraordinary you either need an extraordinary talent, or a personality quirk that causes you to do something that no one else is doing.
Manning is gay, possibly transgendered (which is fine, but not at home in the military), and had some psychological issues, if he was well adjusted and the military was accepting he probably wouldn't have leaked.
Assange is a self-righteous attention whore asshole. If he wasn't you probably wouldn't have heard of wikileaks.
I don't know Snowden's deal but he's a bit of an asshole to dump that on his girlfriend without warning, and he didn't plan his escape that well.
Greenwald is a nicer self-righteous attention whore, good on him since it stops him from being intimidated.
You're not going to get flawless human beings doing stuff like this, and if you want to make a difference you don't necessarily want any.
Well all I can say is google has thrown a wrench into my international smuggling scheme
It could be a lot of things. You need actual evidence to back up your claims. Biological systems are notoriously complex and filled with feedbacks and confounders, theories and thought experiments tend to die unseemly deaths.
Which would imply to me that it's not about the food, it's about the hormonal imbalance of fat people. Again, gluttony and sloth being *effects* of obesity, rather than causes.
More likely a positive feedback.
As for the Kuna, I think you've got to watch the population for a few more generations before the diseases of civilization kick in. Differential insulin resistance gets worse generation after generation when ancestral cultures are introduced to refined sugar.
So now epigenetics are a necessary component in your model? Does Taubes use epigenetics? Do you have any evidence for that claim?
That's not the kind of partitioning you get with differential insulin resistance - the sugar in the blood stream gets pounded to fat, and both the blood stream and the muscles are low in energy.
Type 2 diabetes: The basics seems to disagree with you (troubling since it's the basis of your theory).
Maybe you'll just be more tired. Maybe you'll excrete extra glucose through your urine (this is a symptom of diabetes).
It's easy to make a 'just-so' story, you need experiments and evidence to figure out what's actually happening.
And that would be the kind of thing I would look for - take a food we've seen as generally harmless, find someone who is off the charts on a satiety index with it, and see if it can possibly get them obese. Until that's demonstrated, the whole satiety thing seems more like a 2nd or 3rd order effect than a core reason for obesity.
Palatability, not satiety (satiety is how filling it is).
The better test would be to have people rate the relative palatability of different foods. Build them a diet around those foods, and see how well the palatability tracks with weight change.
But even then there's the difficulty carrying out the study, changing palatability preferences (and what that means), maybe the fat prone people find everything tastier, etc. It sounds like a study with a lot of moving parts that's hard to do properly.
I leave it to Lustig to talk further on that, especially regarding the difference between fructose taken in juice form versus whole fruit (he seems to imply there is a difference in digestive process that mitigates the deleterious effects in that case).
Or that's the only way he can get rid of most of the non-industrial populations. After all how many non-industrial cultures drink a bunch of juice sweetened with refined sugar? Oops, found one (the Kuna)
I just thought of something - we could test this stuff on someone with no taste buds. By the satiety hypothesis, such a person would be unable to overeat, because nothing is tasty. The insulin hypothesis supposes that given insulin resistance, even if the tongue doesn't recognize that something is tasty, the muscles will know if they are being starved or not, and drive hunger.
Palatability not satiety.
I couldn't find anything on that but there seems to be an inverse correlation between taste bud sensitivity and weight. I'm not really sure what to make of it. Sweet and sour lower but bitterness, saltiness, and unami were depressed the most, I don't even know if that would balance out into increasing total palatability (less bitter) or decreasing (less salt). Could be a result of overstimulus, a defensive measure to reduce palatability, or causal somehow.
This nature article seems to imply we become less sensitive to flavours after eating a lot, though I'm not certain how that would related to palatability or satiety.
Morality? The first few that are unfrozen will insist on a matter of principal that the remainder be revived. Besides, isn't it more ethical to resume an existing life than create a fresh one?
Or you could use the pragmatic argument that there probably won't be many people frozen. And the handful who are will have very valuable historical knowledge and insight (imagine talking to someone from the 1800s).
On the other hand, you'll find out immediately after you die if they have figured all of this out and not gone bankrupt. You'll wake up in the future. Medical care and insurance and longevity treatment covered for at least 2 years plus anything related to the cryo better be included, though.
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll have universal healthcare by then.
And jet packs. Don't thaw me out if you don't have jet packs.
No. It lists its authority when they did nothing worthwhile during the Rwanda genocide and the Bosnia genocide. TWO genocides and they did nothing.
The UN deserves to be laughed at and not be taken seriously.
The excuse is it wasn't really their job at the time.
The primary role of the UN to avoid war. They do this by being a place for international diplomacy and by arbitrating international discussions around trade and borders.
A country committing genocide within its own borders isn't really part of the original job description. It's only now that active international conflicts are virtually extinct that we have the opportunity to start contemplating the UN taking the role of an international police and stabilization force. Rwanda and Bosnia are two of the main reasons we made that decision.
You've got a hypothesis but no evidence (for something that should be testable).
Maybe the improper partitioning leads to higher blood glucose (I suspect this but haven't confirmed) which suppresses hunger.
I'll say I don't know that insulin resistance in the obese couldn't be a contributing factor to further obesity (I simply don't know that area of the research), and if that were true insulin stimulating foods could be particularly bad for those people. But it's a result of the obesity, not the cause.
Instead of hunger through muscle starvation insulin resistance could suppress hunger by keeping more sugar in the blood stream (type-1 diabetics could test this), long way from saying I agree with you, but there's hypothetical room in that direction.
I'll give you that (and it does explain the type-1 diabetes thinness) but I still disagree that the resistance is driving hunger.
So you're asserting that there is in fact, some universal addictive properties that berries simply don't have? You deny the possibility of someone being addicted to berries because they find them so tasty?
Maybe if there is in fact certain things that cannot possibly be addictive (in this case, taking the Hazda diet, apparently by the tastiness hypothesis, nothing they eat can possibly be addictive since they don't get overweight), we can identify the biological mechanism of addiction.
Surely, my experience has shown sugar to be a particularly addictive substance, and it may be that simple...but I'd be interested in other proposed biomechanisms.
For some people maybe they are addictive enough to cause obesity, but for non-industrial cultures this doesn't seem to be a problem and even for industrial I don't think unprocessed berries are a signficant cause of obesity.
Well, you can separate the two - Lustig claims that a certain amount of fructose is what develops the carbohydrate allergy (aka, insulin resistance). Whether or not "non-industrial cultures can eat any macronutrient balance they want" begs the question as to the insulin response from those foods. Perhaps it's better to say "non-industrial cultures can eat low glycemic in any macronutrient balance they want".
Except we answered that question and they can eat rice and root crops that are high GI.
The only plausible mechanism you have left is fructose causing a 'carbohydrate allergy' in industrial populations, but even this is contradicted by non-industrial populations eating a lot of fruit and berries.
You only took a partial quote. The full quote is "The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates", and as shown by the lack of sugar consumption in Japan, they don't have more refined carbohydrates.
So again, no disagreement with Taubes except perhaps in the semantics of "easily digestible and refined" versus "easily digestible or refined".
Outside of increasing the GI what else does refining do other than making food more palatable? By adding refinement on top of GI you're conflating it with patabability for no reason, if you want to test his insulin hypothesis then look at less palatable foods that cause a high insulin response like plain rice.
Refuted elsewhere - the error bars on both porridge and fish for the 40 out of 41 subjects who didn't actually test all the foods were so large as to easily encompass fish being lower than porridge.
Ahh yes, that single pairing of carb vs protein shows porridge might have a slightly higher insulin response, devastatingly refuted.
But, they don't. They're innocent victims of insulin resistance and elevated insulin levels. You're trying to implicate protein and fat when they're just along for the ride. (Well, fat is certainly along for the ride - protein does have some insulin response, but that pales in comparison with that of carbohydrates - caveat that I know you still disagree on the 41 person fish study).
Exactly what do you think happens to the fat we eat?
Insulin resistance means that insulin, that stores excess blood sugar, leaves no blood sugar for muscles to use and inhibits the fat cells from release alternate energy (ketone bodies) for the muscles to use.
If your muscles are starving, why wouldn't you feel hungry?
Shouldn't type - 1 diabetes patients, before treatment get fat not thin then?
All depends upon insulin resistance - as from the first title, "Elevated postprandial insulin levels do not induce satiety in normal-weight humans." As noted before, obesity is a sign of carbohydrate allergy, and if your body properly partitions energy, you're fine.
If under the influence of insulin, your body partitions more energy to fat than to muscle, you will feel hungry, and you will be driven to eat more.
Unfortunately the abstracts for the second two cites didn't have any note as to the subjects, but my guess is that they were normal weight.
So your uncited claim is that insulin only causes hunger when the cells no longer respond to it? Fascinating. I wonder how that works.
smugglers to drop ... illegal immigrants.
I'm not sure you thought this all the way through. This is the arctic circle we're talking about, not Vancouver.
Illegal immigrants from Siberia?