I don't think it's teaching that requires tenure, but research that encourages its use, and at least 3 reasons stick out in my mind.
1. Research can be an 80hr a week job, especially for a new professor who is encouraged to forget the definition of the word 'No' for the next 6 to 7 years. Say yes to every research project, every committee, every teaching or presenting opportunity, etc. At the end of the tenure tract many professors can be a little singed around the edges and looking to dial back a little bit. In this case, tenure is supposed to prevent Universities from using up and spitting out researchers once they've passed their peak productive output. It is the academic equivalent to union protections.
2. As other's have pointed out, there is also the concept of academic freedom to consider. Many times researchers will develop politically unpopular opinions on topics related to their field. Tenure grants them the protection against politically motivated attacks on their job security for presenting their professional opinion. This may not be relevant in all fields, but I've seen some of it in play in mine.
3. There is a belief that the greatest people to learn from are the pioneers in the field. This ignores the fact that most trained researchers are NOT trained educators, but there is some merit to this idea. Those top researchers probably have insights that students would benefit from being exposed to. In this situation, tenure allows for the researchers to gradually transition from a research focus in their early career, to an education focus in their later careers. In my experience, older tenured professors teach a disproportionate amount of the undergraduate course work. This enables them to dial back the amount of research they do while still contributing greatly to the success of their department. At my current university, our department receives more than 60% of it's total budget from undergraduate tuition. That is despite several nationally recognized and very well funded research labs in our department.
...insisting on putting their names as co-authors on all their grad students' papers (even if they didn't write a word)
Not sure what the problem is here. Maybe it's because of the field you are in, but in my field (animal science) it is expected that your major advisor be on every manuscript. Usually becasue they played a major role in designing the experiment, procuring the funding, and paying the students stipend. My advisor's primariy contribution to the writing process of my manuscripts was as an editor, but he definitely made "meaningful intellectual contributions" to the research projects described, which has always been the bar for co-authorship in my opinion.
This isn't necessarily an "either/or" senario. Writting up negative results is just as important as writing up positive ones. That way other researchers in the field know what not to try. My bias comes from the life sciences, where a lack of expected response to a product is just as important as its presence. You may not want to go out and write up a full journal article, and instead go the route of presenting an abstract at a relevent conference, but that still counts as a 'research output' most places, even if it is of lesser impact than a journal article.
We academics are hired to perform a job, and as much of a PITA as publication can be, it is one of the major job requirements. Not doing a part of your job well enough is definitely grounds for termination, assuming the academic didn't have some sort of tenure protections.
My cookie settings were as described "only accept from sites I visit". Google tricks my browser into thinking I've visited a site I did not, in fact, visit. They do this by submitting a form and intentionally making in invisible to me. At what point did I "Opt in" to this behavior??
I'm not excusing Apple's complete security failure here, but how exactly is Google not also culpable for this violation of my trust?
Apple has a responsibility to their customers (me) that the software works as described. Blocking cookies "always" should always block cookies. OTOH, Google as a service provider should accede to the wishes of their users or simply deny them services. What they did was say "ok, we'll do what you want" and then ignore that implied promise. Both sides here are covered in feathers.
As a result I'm now looking for added layers to prevent Google from working around Apple, and to ensure that what Apples software is supposed to be doing is in fact being done in the form of a Cookie manager.
According to his biography he simply denied to himself that he had cancer. He was afraid of surgery, a long time believer in the use of fad diets to reach enlightenment, cure disease and render one's body odor nonexistent, and had a near super-human ability to ignore reality (RDF). He tried a fad diet, championed by a renowned snake-oil salesman of an alternative physician, and wasted valuable time. In the end though, he aggressively pursued what ever science-based treatments were available to him and openly regretted his delay.
According to his biography, the doctors and nurses in the OR when he had his tumor biopsied the first time started crying when they realized that he had the much rarer, and treatable form of pancreatic cancer.
I have to disagree. It's only an issue if their job has some ability to affect policy on that issue. Besides, I'm of the opinion that many on both sides of divisive issues pick sides because they are forced to, not because it matters much to them.
That was why I intended to vote for Huntsman in the primaries. He was the most practical in his views on my profession, Science. He was also willing to defend that stance against fellow party members.
The extent to which the candidates bow to party demands, sponsors, and other interests is part of the calculus used to pick a candidate to support. Also important is which issues he remains strong on in the face of opposition.
That was his own fault. He decided to try homeopathic voodoo instead of sound, scientifically-validated methods to treat his cancer initially. That resulted in an early diagnosis (with high probablity of complete remission) turning into a late treatment (with far less favorable odds). The key with most agressive cancers is early diagnosis AND early treatment.
Cases like this are where homeopathy changes from being mostly harmless, and therefore not worthy of much attention, and become outright dangerous.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
The medical community has known about prebiotics and probiotics as a means of changing micrbiota populations for exactly as long as the natural medicine practitioners. The difference is that medical community does not over sell the value as a means of treating disease.
And you are only partially right about not needing to continue taking it. The point of a prebiotic like an acidophilus pill, is that it increases the population above what was present. The initially low population could be an aberration, the result of disease or sudden diet change for example. The low population could also been the "norm" for that individual based on the interation between host genetics, common environmental exposure, diet, or other factors. In the later case, continuing to take the pill would absolutely be necessary to maintain the benefits of the prebiotic. My sister is on a prebiotic regemine because she has a genetic predisposition to the development of certain instinal disorders that respond well to probiotics. Stopping taking the pills results in severe abdominal cramping, and gastric ulcers in a very short period of time.
I'd love a source for that claim. I've never before heard of the appendix described as a gut microbiota reservoir. I've also never heard of someones gut going completely sterile because of a long march.
As long as their is something to digest in your gut, their will be gut microbes. And considering that many of the gut microbes survive primarily on Host synthesized mucus carbohydrate or sloughed Host enterocytes, I'm tempted to call "Bull Shit!" on the entire premise you are suggesting.
The appendix is a regressed cecum. The cecum, in species where it is not regressed, it is a site of fermentation of dietary fiber for the production of volatile fatty acids like Acetic, Proprionic, and Butyric acid, which are then absorbed in the cecum. During fermentation amino acids and vitamins are also synthesized, but are unavailable for absorption in most species. Notable exceptions being poultry, who use reverse peristalsis to push cecal digesta back into the small intestine (primary site of nutrient absorption), and some animals like rabbits who excrete what is called a "Night pellet" consisting primarily of cecal digesta which is then ingested orally, giving the small intestine a second attempt to absorb these cecally derived nutrients.
The key being that the microbiota profile of the cecum, in species where it is fuctional, is very different from the microbiota profile of the small or large intestine.
You made assertions that I perceived to be flawed. I supplied arguments to point out the flaws in your reasoning. I was not deliberately insulting (no name calling, claims that you are evil, stupid or uneducated), and based on my rereading of my comments I found nothing that could misconstrued as such. How exactly am I to challenge what I believe to be your misconceptions without being at least a little confrontational? (honest question by the way, not sarcastic or snarky)
If your opinions can't stand up to a little healthy challenging, then you probably shouldn't be offering them up on the internet in general, and this forum in particular./. has a strong reputation for aggressive arguments (trolls, vitriol, and character assasinations), with very little by the way of polite discussion (which I maintain is what I offered), and if you were offended by my responses then I suspect you'll probably be offended by anyone that doesn't agree with you.
P.S. I really would like a response to the points I raised in my previous post as well as some indication of what specifically you found offensive outside of my disagreeing with you at all.
A couple reasons: first, why does their population need corn if it cannot be grown locally? Seems like they would have some other similar vegetable growing locally; selling them our corn seems wasteful in terms of delivery charges. Second, it seems to be making their population dependent on one of our resources. While that might be a good strategy for the producer, it's not so good for the consumer.
So you only purchase food grown in the US. You've never eaten a banana or kiwi for example. Your computer was manufactured with resources mined exclusively in the US, built in a US factory, assembled on a US based assembly line, and shipped in packing materials similarly US based?
We live in a globalized economy, and some products are just easier/cheaper to produce somewhere else. For example, almost all of the wool in the US was imported from New Zealand because it is more efficient for them to grow the sheep, harvest the wool, and then ship it to the US for manufacture than it is for the wool to be grown here. A lot of it has to do with geography. New Zealand has the ideal climate and environment for raising sheep. Similarly, the midwestern US is ideally suited to grow corn, whereas the Korean peninsula is not. Corn production requires large, relatively inexpensive tracts of land with good sun light and certain soil properties that are inherent to the US midwest. In Korea, land is RIDICULOUSLY expensive and most flat ground has been converted to homes or some other form of agriculture decades ago.
One issue with subsidies is that during surplus years, we try to find other things to do with it -- like HFCS, and fuel production.
Actually what we do during surplus years is sell the surplus to the US government. The government then Donates the corn to foreign countries experiencing widespread famine. By definition a surplus means more than you can use. Converting more corn to HFCS than can be used doesn't make economic sense because of the cost associated with refining corn to produce HFCS (along with all of the other, primary products).
Agreed, I was likely consuming more calories than I needed, and stopped doing that, so lost the weight.
This is exactly what happened.
The human brain is a connection making machine. It is why we've been able to advance as far as we have, but it is far from infallible. Religion, pseudo-science, and plenty of other phenomena can be laid at the feet of false positives in the brains attempts to make connections between two apparently connected events. If you'd never heard of HFCS you would have attributed the weight loss to calories, but because of many well meaning fear mongers, you drew the connection between a specific ingredient in the soda and your weight loss instead of the caloric content of the soda. The best method we've developed for countering our minds overzealous connection making is the scientific method, coupled with rigorous statistics. The fact is that the best science available to date does NOT back up the fear surrounding HFCS. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it.
Many brands now label their products "HFCS-free", so those who do not want to consume this substance compose a sizable market; there must be some reason for this new development.
The reason is consumer preference, not scientific evidence that HFCS is actually better for you. The same reason for the Organic movement (which, tellingly, is regulated by the FDA's product marketing division. Not it's food safety division), or Kosher food labels. People can make decisions about what they want to eat, for what ever reason they find convincing and a smart company will taylor their marketing to match the consumers perceptions. It is not the Coca-Cola companies job to educate the consumer as to the relative healthfulness of HFCS vs Sucrose. Their job is to sell consumers what they want (even if they need to be marketed in order for t
Actually you couldn't be more wrong, the planet can't even support the CURRENT population without modern agricultural techniques, never mind FUTURE population growth. Add in the fact that much of the world is currently subsisting on inadequate or barely adequate nutrition as it is, and your statement becomes even more ridiculous. One effect of globalization has been to increase the quality of life in former 3rd world nations. China and India come to mind as rapidly developing nations with HUGE populations that are going to be demanding a higher plane of nutrition than they currently get.
Yes, it's called the export market, and that popular whipping boy is becoming less relevant as more and more corn is used for ethanol production instead of being sold for export. What exactly is wrong with selling corn to other countries that can't grow it, like South Korea?
...and then convert the corn into sugars in a very toxic process that produces High Fructose Corn Syrup
The sugar is already there in the form of starch (long chains of SUGAR molecules). they are not converting corn to sugar, but extracting sugar from corn, an important distiction. Also, what part of corn refining is supposed to be toxic?
The US puts this in most everything
What do you mean by "The US"? Are you talking about the Government, the People, US based corporations, something else?
because the subsidies make the cost of HFCS lower even though it requires more processing (expense) than sugar actually does -- as is evidenced by other countries, which do not subsidize corn growers, who use sugar as sweetener.
You do realize that corn is subsidized for reason completely independent of HFCS production, right? The subsidies are designed to counteract the cyclical ups and downs of grain prices so that farmers don't go out of business when prices are low and then cause a famine when production drops off as farm land is left fallow. When prices are high, like right now, subsidies are much lower and many farmers become ineligible. The subsidies are not simply a check based on total production, but a sliding scale that includes consideration of sale prices in calculating how much, if anything a farmer gets.
Also, HFCS is 55% fructose, and 45% glucose. The table sugar you are crowing about, which is refined from sugar cane in a process not unlike that of corn refining, is 100% sucrose. However, sucrose is a disaccharide (2 sugar) molecule made up of 2 monosaccharides fructose and glucose in a 50:50 ratio. And because people have no ability to absorb disaccharides intact, all absorbed sugar has been first broken down into its component monosaccharides. Are you really saying that 5% difference in the fructose to glucose ratio is that important?
HFCS is linked to obesity, as the body is not as prepared to deal with it as the body is with sugar.
Please read what I wrote above and tell me if that 5% really makes that big of a difference. The link to obesity has only been show in rats and mice fed MASSIVE doses of HFCS that are unlike anything a normal person could consume. The fact is that EVERYTHING is a poison in a high enough dose. That does not mean it is going to kill you at a vastly lower dose.
Obesity is caused by a positive energy balance. That means that more kcal of energy are being consumed than are being used. This excess energy is then deposited as fat, the long term energy storage medium of the body. If someone wants to maintain their body weight, then they need to match their caloric intake to their caloric output. The two simple options are to increase activity, thus increasing caloric expenditure, or go on a diet and decrease caloric intake while maintaining the same level of activity and thus caloric expenditure. HFCS can only make you obese if you consume more calories than you expend, but that can be said of ANYTHING that contains nutritionally available energy!
The caloric density of HFCS is not different from that of Sucrose (table sugar), but the sweetness is higher. Therefore soda made with sugar (assuming all other things equal) will be MORE calorie dense than HFCS becuase Fructose, molecule for molecule, is sweeter than glucose (assuming they are designed to taste the same).
I've tried watching Food, Inc. at the behest of my wife. I didn't get more than 10 minutes into it before I turned it off in disgust. It is full of half-truths, lies, unfounded claims, and willful misrepresentations. Just because it is a documentary, doesn't mean it is true. Documentary film makers are not simply regurgitating reality back t you. Before they ever shoot a single frame of video they decide what story they want to tell (which is how they get financial backers if not independetly wealthy). The creators of Food, Inc. had an agenda and presented only the information that fit with their agenda of making agriculture look bad. It's political propaganda, plain and simple.
I am probably one of only a few/. members who is involved in agriculture professionally. I grew up as a kid in the burbs like most/. members. I'm NOT a farm kid, growing up around it and basing my value system on my experiences as a child. I came to agriculture as an adult with a value system probably not different from most Americans, and if I'd found agriculture to be as it is described in most documentaries like Food Inc, I never would have made it my career. The combination of mistrust, pecimism, and gullibility that is necessary to swallow their propaganda whole is asstounding too me, yet because they are the only ones making movies they are believed.
No, the "Problem" is that they've spent 30 years paying attention to the results of scientific inquiry into the issue and have decided that the recommendations were overly cautious, and decided to base their decision on the science and not on fear mongering. I don't particularly beleive that is a problem, but if you buy into the fear or the conspiracy of it all then I could see why you would.
The withdrawal period is unique for each antibiotic. Penicillin for example has a 7d withdrawal period in pigs. Some have shorter and many have longer periods. The animals are not isolated (as in kept separate from the healthy animals) necessarily, but instead cannot be sold for meat until the withdrawal period has expired. The same goes for milk production. If a dairy cow in mid-lactation is given an antibiotic with a 2 wk withdrawal period, for example, then all milk collected from that cow is poured down the drain or fed to calves. If any of it were to make it into the bulk tank, the farmer would face hefty fines and possibly a ban on selling their milk for a time.
Animals (including humans) have a requirement for amino acids, and for simplicity/convenience this is usually described as a need for protein (a product consisting almost entirely of amino acids). The relative ratio of the nutritionaly essential amino acids is important, becuase if one (or more than one) amino acid is deficient in the overall diet then the utilization of the other amino acids will be necessarily limited. This scenario usually leads to increased conversion of the amino acids that cannot be utilized for protein synthesis into lipid for storage, making the animal fatter. This fattening effect also can happen when all amino acids are present in the correct ratios, but there is too much protein consumed relative to requirement.
The key point that makes your statement wrong is that the relative ratios of amino acids in animal derived protein (including hamburger and "Meat scraps") is far closer to ideal than that in grains, including beans. Plants, including beans such as soy or lentils, are notoriously low in Lysine relative to the other amino acids. As an animal nutritionist I almost never formulate a livestock ration for a growing animal that is devoid of a concentrated Lysine supplement (usually Lysine Hydrochloride). That's not to say that you cannot satisfy a persons nutritional requirement for all essential amino acids without using meat, you most definitely can. However, it is more difficult and more expensive because you need to procure a wider variety of foods. There is also the issue of availability of nutrients, with meat derived protein being almost completely available for absorption and plant derived protein being less digestible. But of course cooking and other processing can make plant derived protein much more available.
While one source is not categorically "Better" than the other, meat is a more EFFICIENT source of amino acids. The ratios are closer to ideal, they are more available for absorption, and require less dietary variety. These qualities are not as important for most people in western society because we spend a small fraction of our total income on procuring food, and so the vegetarian/vegan diet becomes more practical as your economic status increases. In parts of the world where economics/climate/culture/etc. FORCE a primarily vegetarian diet on people, they are usually much shorter than westerners of similar ethnic background because of their poorer/less consistent access to all of the essential amino acids required for meeting their potential for maximum growth during adolescence.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's teaching that requires tenure, but research that encourages its use, and at least 3 reasons stick out in my mind.
1. Research can be an 80hr a week job, especially for a new professor who is encouraged to forget the definition of the word 'No' for the next 6 to 7 years. Say yes to every research project, every committee, every teaching or presenting opportunity, etc. At the end of the tenure tract many professors can be a little singed around the edges and looking to dial back a little bit. In this case, tenure is supposed to prevent Universities from using up and spitting out researchers once they've passed their peak productive output. It is the academic equivalent to union protections.
2. As other's have pointed out, there is also the concept of academic freedom to consider. Many times researchers will develop politically unpopular opinions on topics related to their field. Tenure grants them the protection against politically motivated attacks on their job security for presenting their professional opinion. This may not be relevant in all fields, but I've seen some of it in play in mine.
3. There is a belief that the greatest people to learn from are the pioneers in the field. This ignores the fact that most trained researchers are NOT trained educators, but there is some merit to this idea. Those top researchers probably have insights that students would benefit from being exposed to. In this situation, tenure allows for the researchers to gradually transition from a research focus in their early career, to an education focus in their later careers. In my experience, older tenured professors teach a disproportionate amount of the undergraduate course work. This enables them to dial back the amount of research they do while still contributing greatly to the success of their department. At my current university, our department receives more than 60% of it's total budget from undergraduate tuition. That is despite several nationally recognized and very well funded research labs in our department.
...insisting on putting their names as co-authors on all their grad students' papers (even if they didn't write a word)
Not sure what the problem is here. Maybe it's because of the field you are in, but in my field (animal science) it is expected that your major advisor be on every manuscript. Usually becasue they played a major role in designing the experiment, procuring the funding, and paying the students stipend. My advisor's primariy contribution to the writing process of my manuscripts was as an editor, but he definitely made "meaningful intellectual contributions" to the research projects described, which has always been the bar for co-authorship in my opinion.
This isn't necessarily an "either/or" senario. Writting up negative results is just as important as writing up positive ones. That way other researchers in the field know what not to try. My bias comes from the life sciences, where a lack of expected response to a product is just as important as its presence. You may not want to go out and write up a full journal article, and instead go the route of presenting an abstract at a relevent conference, but that still counts as a 'research output' most places, even if it is of lesser impact than a journal article.
We academics are hired to perform a job, and as much of a PITA as publication can be, it is one of the major job requirements. Not doing a part of your job well enough is definitely grounds for termination, assuming the academic didn't have some sort of tenure protections.
How so?
My cookie settings were as described "only accept from sites I visit". Google tricks my browser into thinking I've visited a site I did not, in fact, visit. They do this by submitting a form and intentionally making in invisible to me. At what point did I "Opt in" to this behavior??
I'm not excusing Apple's complete security failure here, but how exactly is Google not also culpable for this violation of my trust?
Why can't it be both?
Apple has a responsibility to their customers (me) that the software works as described. Blocking cookies "always" should always block cookies. OTOH, Google as a service provider should accede to the wishes of their users or simply deny them services. What they did was say "ok, we'll do what you want" and then ignore that implied promise. Both sides here are covered in feathers.
As a result I'm now looking for added layers to prevent Google from working around Apple, and to ensure that what Apples software is supposed to be doing is in fact being done in the form of a Cookie manager.
According to his biography he simply denied to himself that he had cancer. He was afraid of surgery, a long time believer in the use of fad diets to reach enlightenment, cure disease and render one's body odor nonexistent, and had a near super-human ability to ignore reality (RDF). He tried a fad diet, championed by a renowned snake-oil salesman of an alternative physician, and wasted valuable time. In the end though, he aggressively pursued what ever science-based treatments were available to him and openly regretted his delay.
According to his biography, the doctors and nurses in the OR when he had his tumor biopsied the first time started crying when they realized that he had the much rarer, and treatable form of pancreatic cancer.
I have to disagree. It's only an issue if their job has some ability to affect policy on that issue. Besides, I'm of the opinion that many on both sides of divisive issues pick sides because they are forced to, not because it matters much to them.
That was why I intended to vote for Huntsman in the primaries. He was the most practical in his views on my profession, Science. He was also willing to defend that stance against fellow party members.
The extent to which the candidates bow to party demands, sponsors, and other interests is part of the calculus used to pick a candidate to support. Also important is which issues he remains strong on in the face of opposition.
This graphic is worse than useless. Here is a good debunking of it from a stats focused blog I first saw it on.
http://junkcharts.typepad.com/junk_charts/2012/02/a-data-mess-outduels-the-pie-chart-disaster-for-our-attention.html
That was his own fault. He decided to try homeopathic voodoo instead of sound, scientifically-validated methods to treat his cancer initially. That resulted in an early diagnosis (with high probablity of complete remission) turning into a late treatment (with far less favorable odds). The key with most agressive cancers is early diagnosis AND early treatment.
Cases like this are where homeopathy changes from being mostly harmless, and therefore not worthy of much attention, and become outright dangerous.
I think the point should be to focus on the CANDIDATE instead of the party affiliation.
I'm registered with one party for the sole purpose of being able to vote in their primaries (Which is all ANYONE really gets for party registration unless they are a candidate). However, I've spread my vote pretty evenly across the two parties over the years because at the end of the day I vote for the best person for the job. It doesn't matter what the local comptroller or county commitioners view on abortion? global warming? evoloution? etc. What does matter is their qualification for, and ideas about topics relevant to the job they are asking me to hire them for. If that job has no chance of touching on those topics, then their oppinions are irrelevant.
WTF does creationism have to do with anything here? Not sure I see the connection.
That falls into the category of an extraordinary claim that needs some truly extraordinary evidence to back it up.
This applies to you as well as the researchers who suggested this hypothesis.
The medical community has known about prebiotics and probiotics as a means of changing micrbiota populations for exactly as long as the natural medicine practitioners. The difference is that medical community does not over sell the value as a means of treating disease.
And you are only partially right about not needing to continue taking it. The point of a prebiotic like an acidophilus pill, is that it increases the population above what was present. The initially low population could be an aberration, the result of disease or sudden diet change for example. The low population could also been the "norm" for that individual based on the interation between host genetics, common environmental exposure, diet, or other factors. In the later case, continuing to take the pill would absolutely be necessary to maintain the benefits of the prebiotic. My sister is on a prebiotic regemine because she has a genetic predisposition to the development of certain instinal disorders that respond well to probiotics. Stopping taking the pills results in severe abdominal cramping, and gastric ulcers in a very short period of time.
I'd love a source for that claim. I've never before heard of the appendix described as a gut microbiota reservoir. I've also never heard of someones gut going completely sterile because of a long march.
As long as their is something to digest in your gut, their will be gut microbes. And considering that many of the gut microbes survive primarily on Host synthesized mucus carbohydrate or sloughed Host enterocytes, I'm tempted to call "Bull Shit!" on the entire premise you are suggesting.
The appendix is a regressed cecum. The cecum, in species where it is not regressed, it is a site of fermentation of dietary fiber for the production of volatile fatty acids like Acetic, Proprionic, and Butyric acid, which are then absorbed in the cecum. During fermentation amino acids and vitamins are also synthesized, but are unavailable for absorption in most species. Notable exceptions being poultry, who use reverse peristalsis to push cecal digesta back into the small intestine (primary site of nutrient absorption), and some animals like rabbits who excrete what is called a "Night pellet" consisting primarily of cecal digesta which is then ingested orally, giving the small intestine a second attempt to absorb these cecally derived nutrients.
The key being that the microbiota profile of the cecum, in species where it is fuctional, is very different from the microbiota profile of the small or large intestine.
You made assertions that I perceived to be flawed. I supplied arguments to point out the flaws in your reasoning. I was not deliberately insulting (no name calling, claims that you are evil, stupid or uneducated), and based on my rereading of my comments I found nothing that could misconstrued as such. How exactly am I to challenge what I believe to be your misconceptions without being at least a little confrontational? (honest question by the way, not sarcastic or snarky)
/. has a strong reputation for aggressive arguments (trolls, vitriol, and character assasinations), with very little by the way of polite discussion (which I maintain is what I offered), and if you were offended by my responses then I suspect you'll probably be offended by anyone that doesn't agree with you.
If your opinions can't stand up to a little healthy challenging, then you probably shouldn't be offering them up on the internet in general, and this forum in particular.
P.S. I really would like a response to the points I raised in my previous post as well as some indication of what specifically you found offensive outside of my disagreeing with you at all.
A couple reasons: first, why does their population need corn if it cannot be grown locally? Seems like they would have some other similar vegetable growing locally; selling them our corn seems wasteful in terms of delivery charges. Second, it seems to be making their population dependent on one of our resources. While that might be a good strategy for the producer, it's not so good for the consumer.
So you only purchase food grown in the US. You've never eaten a banana or kiwi for example. Your computer was manufactured with resources mined exclusively in the US, built in a US factory, assembled on a US based assembly line, and shipped in packing materials similarly US based?
We live in a globalized economy, and some products are just easier/cheaper to produce somewhere else. For example, almost all of the wool in the US was imported from New Zealand because it is more efficient for them to grow the sheep, harvest the wool, and then ship it to the US for manufacture than it is for the wool to be grown here. A lot of it has to do with geography. New Zealand has the ideal climate and environment for raising sheep. Similarly, the midwestern US is ideally suited to grow corn, whereas the Korean peninsula is not. Corn production requires large, relatively inexpensive tracts of land with good sun light and certain soil properties that are inherent to the US midwest. In Korea, land is RIDICULOUSLY expensive and most flat ground has been converted to homes or some other form of agriculture decades ago.
One issue with subsidies is that during surplus years, we try to find other things to do with it -- like HFCS, and fuel production.
Actually what we do during surplus years is sell the surplus to the US government. The government then Donates the corn to foreign countries experiencing widespread famine. By definition a surplus means more than you can use. Converting more corn to HFCS than can be used doesn't make economic sense because of the cost associated with refining corn to produce HFCS (along with all of the other, primary products).
Agreed, I was likely consuming more calories than I needed, and stopped doing that, so lost the weight.
This is exactly what happened.
The human brain is a connection making machine. It is why we've been able to advance as far as we have, but it is far from infallible. Religion, pseudo-science, and plenty of other phenomena can be laid at the feet of false positives in the brains attempts to make connections between two apparently connected events. If you'd never heard of HFCS you would have attributed the weight loss to calories, but because of many well meaning fear mongers, you drew the connection between a specific ingredient in the soda and your weight loss instead of the caloric content of the soda. The best method we've developed for countering our minds overzealous connection making is the scientific method, coupled with rigorous statistics. The fact is that the best science available to date does NOT back up the fear surrounding HFCS. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it.
Many brands now label their products "HFCS-free", so those who do not want to consume this substance compose a sizable market; there must be some reason for this new development.
The reason is consumer preference, not scientific evidence that HFCS is actually better for you. The same reason for the Organic movement (which, tellingly, is regulated by the FDA's product marketing division. Not it's food safety division), or Kosher food labels. People can make decisions about what they want to eat, for what ever reason they find convincing and a smart company will taylor their marketing to match the consumers perceptions. It is not the Coca-Cola companies job to educate the consumer as to the relative healthfulness of HFCS vs Sucrose. Their job is to sell consumers what they want (even if they need to be marketed in order for t
Actually you couldn't be more wrong, the planet can't even support the CURRENT population without modern agricultural techniques, never mind FUTURE population growth. Add in the fact that much of the world is currently subsisting on inadequate or barely adequate nutrition as it is, and your statement becomes even more ridiculous. One effect of globalization has been to increase the quality of life in former 3rd world nations. China and India come to mind as rapidly developing nations with HUGE populations that are going to be demanding a higher plane of nutrition than they currently get.
...meaning they grow more corn than we need
Yes, it's called the export market, and that popular whipping boy is becoming less relevant as more and more corn is used for ethanol production instead of being sold for export. What exactly is wrong with selling corn to other countries that can't grow it, like South Korea?
...and then convert the corn into sugars in a very toxic process that produces High Fructose Corn Syrup
The sugar is already there in the form of starch (long chains of SUGAR molecules). they are not converting corn to sugar, but extracting sugar from corn, an important distiction. Also, what part of corn refining is supposed to be toxic?
The US puts this in most everything
What do you mean by "The US"? Are you talking about the Government, the People, US based corporations, something else?
because the subsidies make the cost of HFCS lower even though it requires more processing (expense) than sugar actually does -- as is evidenced by other countries, which do not subsidize corn growers, who use sugar as sweetener.
You do realize that corn is subsidized for reason completely independent of HFCS production, right? The subsidies are designed to counteract the cyclical ups and downs of grain prices so that farmers don't go out of business when prices are low and then cause a famine when production drops off as farm land is left fallow. When prices are high, like right now, subsidies are much lower and many farmers become ineligible. The subsidies are not simply a check based on total production, but a sliding scale that includes consideration of sale prices in calculating how much, if anything a farmer gets.
Also, HFCS is 55% fructose, and 45% glucose. The table sugar you are crowing about, which is refined from sugar cane in a process not unlike that of corn refining, is 100% sucrose. However, sucrose is a disaccharide (2 sugar) molecule made up of 2 monosaccharides fructose and glucose in a 50:50 ratio. And because people have no ability to absorb disaccharides intact, all absorbed sugar has been first broken down into its component monosaccharides. Are you really saying that 5% difference in the fructose to glucose ratio is that important?
HFCS is linked to obesity, as the body is not as prepared to deal with it as the body is with sugar.
Please read what I wrote above and tell me if that 5% really makes that big of a difference. The link to obesity has only been show in rats and mice fed MASSIVE doses of HFCS that are unlike anything a normal person could consume. The fact is that EVERYTHING is a poison in a high enough dose. That does not mean it is going to kill you at a vastly lower dose.
Obesity is caused by a positive energy balance. That means that more kcal of energy are being consumed than are being used. This excess energy is then deposited as fat, the long term energy storage medium of the body. If someone wants to maintain their body weight, then they need to match their caloric intake to their caloric output. The two simple options are to increase activity, thus increasing caloric expenditure, or go on a diet and decrease caloric intake while maintaining the same level of activity and thus caloric expenditure. HFCS can only make you obese if you consume more calories than you expend, but that can be said of ANYTHING that contains nutritionally available energy!
The caloric density of HFCS is not different from that of Sucrose (table sugar), but the sweetness is higher. Therefore soda made with sugar (assuming all other things equal) will be MORE calorie dense than HFCS becuase Fructose, molecule for molecule, is sweeter than glucose (assuming they are designed to taste the same).
I've tried watching Food, Inc. at the behest of my wife. I didn't get more than 10 minutes into it before I turned it off in disgust. It is full of half-truths, lies, unfounded claims, and willful misrepresentations. Just because it is a documentary, doesn't mean it is true. Documentary film makers are not simply regurgitating reality back t you. Before they ever shoot a single frame of video they decide what story they want to tell (which is how they get financial backers if not independetly wealthy). The creators of Food, Inc. had an agenda and presented only the information that fit with their agenda of making agriculture look bad. It's political propaganda, plain and simple.
/. members who is involved in agriculture professionally. I grew up as a kid in the burbs like most /. members. I'm NOT a farm kid, growing up around it and basing my value system on my experiences as a child. I came to agriculture as an adult with a value system probably not different from most Americans, and if I'd found agriculture to be as it is described in most documentaries like Food Inc, I never would have made it my career. The combination of mistrust, pecimism, and gullibility that is necessary to swallow their propaganda whole is asstounding too me, yet because they are the only ones making movies they are believed.
I am probably one of only a few
No, the "Problem" is that they've spent 30 years paying attention to the results of scientific inquiry into the issue and have decided that the recommendations were overly cautious, and decided to base their decision on the science and not on fear mongering. I don't particularly beleive that is a problem, but if you buy into the fear or the conspiracy of it all then I could see why you would.
The withdrawal period is unique for each antibiotic. Penicillin for example has a 7d withdrawal period in pigs. Some have shorter and many have longer periods. The animals are not isolated (as in kept separate from the healthy animals) necessarily, but instead cannot be sold for meat until the withdrawal period has expired. The same goes for milk production. If a dairy cow in mid-lactation is given an antibiotic with a 2 wk withdrawal period, for example, then all milk collected from that cow is poured down the drain or fed to calves. If any of it were to make it into the bulk tank, the farmer would face hefty fines and possibly a ban on selling their milk for a time.
You are only slightly wrong and this is why:
Animals (including humans) have a requirement for amino acids, and for simplicity/convenience this is usually described as a need for protein (a product consisting almost entirely of amino acids). The relative ratio of the nutritionaly essential amino acids is important, becuase if one (or more than one) amino acid is deficient in the overall diet then the utilization of the other amino acids will be necessarily limited. This scenario usually leads to increased conversion of the amino acids that cannot be utilized for protein synthesis into lipid for storage, making the animal fatter. This fattening effect also can happen when all amino acids are present in the correct ratios, but there is too much protein consumed relative to requirement.
The key point that makes your statement wrong is that the relative ratios of amino acids in animal derived protein (including hamburger and "Meat scraps") is far closer to ideal than that in grains, including beans. Plants, including beans such as soy or lentils, are notoriously low in Lysine relative to the other amino acids. As an animal nutritionist I almost never formulate a livestock ration for a growing animal that is devoid of a concentrated Lysine supplement (usually Lysine Hydrochloride). That's not to say that you cannot satisfy a persons nutritional requirement for all essential amino acids without using meat, you most definitely can. However, it is more difficult and more expensive because you need to procure a wider variety of foods. There is also the issue of availability of nutrients, with meat derived protein being almost completely available for absorption and plant derived protein being less digestible. But of course cooking and other processing can make plant derived protein much more available.
While one source is not categorically "Better" than the other, meat is a more EFFICIENT source of amino acids. The ratios are closer to ideal, they are more available for absorption, and require less dietary variety. These qualities are not as important for most people in western society because we spend a small fraction of our total income on procuring food, and so the vegetarian/vegan diet becomes more practical as your economic status increases. In parts of the world where economics/climate/culture/etc. FORCE a primarily vegetarian diet on people, they are usually much shorter than westerners of similar ethnic background because of their poorer/less consistent access to all of the essential amino acids required for meeting their potential for maximum growth during adolescence.