That's discussing fructose vs. glucose (monosaccharides), not HFCS. HFCS is a disaccharide with a ratio of 55% fructose (hence the "high" designation)/45% glucose, while sucrose (regular table sugar) has a 50/50 ratio.
"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Health_effects
"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Health_effects
There's no society in the history of mankind that has ever supported killing of random community members.
What about human sacrifice? In many ancient cultures, when a leader died, it was customary to sacrifice all his wives, servants, guards, etc. I guess it depends on your definition of "random".
This is hugely different than being completely unable to be tested, i.e. creationism or a belief in god.
Again, I respectfully disagree. Let's consider Christianity, as the religion Slashdotters are likely to know most about. Many Christians believe that there will be a literal "second coming" in which Jesus will physically appear on the Earth in great glory, overthrow Satan in front of the eyes of the world, judge mankind, and so on. In the event that that happens, is it not fair to say that at that point Christianity will have been tested and proven true?
Yes, the chances of that happening do seem rather slim. But the belief in most major religions can be proven true in a similar way, since most of them make similar prophecies (Muslims await the Mahdi, Buddhists await Maitreya, Hindus await Kalki, etc). In the absence of any of these figures appearing, the religions cannot be disproven. And - do you see a similarity yet? - alien believers await the discovery of alien life, and in the absence of that discovery, its existence cannot be disproven.
If that's the case, wouldn't a belief in any of the theories of gravity also be a "religion" since they cannot be scientifically disproven at this time?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure that's much of a consideration given the average Japanese woman.
That's discussing fructose vs. glucose (monosaccharides), not HFCS. HFCS is a disaccharide with a ratio of 55% fructose (hence the "high" designation)/45% glucose, while sucrose (regular table sugar) has a 50/50 ratio.
"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Health_effects
That doesn't necessarily make the results untrue. If you really want to know, read the paper and point out what you think was wrong with the study.
"Studies that have compared HFCS to sucrose (as opposed to pure fructose) find that they have essentially identical physiological effects. For instance, Melanson et al (2006), studied the effects of HFCS and sucrose sweetened drinks on blood glucose, insulin, leptin, and ghrelin levels. They found no significant differences in any of these parameters." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hfcs#Health_effects
What a coincidence, I just finished watching "In The Beginning".
There's no society in the history of mankind that has ever supported killing of random community members.
What about human sacrifice? In many ancient cultures, when a leader died, it was customary to sacrifice all his wives, servants, guards, etc. I guess it depends on your definition of "random".
This is hugely different than being completely unable to be tested, i.e. creationism or a belief in god.
Again, I respectfully disagree. Let's consider Christianity, as the religion Slashdotters are likely to know most about. Many Christians believe that there will be a literal "second coming" in which Jesus will physically appear on the Earth in great glory, overthrow Satan in front of the eyes of the world, judge mankind, and so on. In the event that that happens, is it not fair to say that at that point Christianity will have been tested and proven true?
Yes, the chances of that happening do seem rather slim. But the belief in most major religions can be proven true in a similar way, since most of them make similar prophecies (Muslims await the Mahdi, Buddhists await Maitreya, Hindus await Kalki, etc). In the absence of any of these figures appearing, the religions cannot be disproven. And - do you see a similarity yet? - alien believers await the discovery of alien life, and in the absence of that discovery, its existence cannot be disproven.
If that's the case, wouldn't a belief in any of the theories of gravity also be a "religion" since they cannot be scientifically disproven at this time?