Poisons and sugar are very different and processed a lot differently.
The whole point here is that fructose is processed by the liver very much like alcohol, which is a known poison that leads to disease when chronically over-consumed. Lustig talks about the similarities in processing here.
In fact, you need sugar to live.
You are using the term "sugar" here, but sugar is made up of glucose and fructose. Your body burns glucose as its main fuel. However, you don't need the fructose component, and you almost certainly shouldn't be consuming it in massive quantities. Also, just because something is found in nature and nutritious doesn't mean it can't be poisonous. A simple example is vitamin A.
Also, kidneys tend to process poisons, not your liver. Your liver matabolizes food.
It also metabolizes poison, in particular alcohol.
That's a good point, but I was thinking about the obvious toxic effect of feeling drunk. If people got drunk on fructose like they did on alcohol, they wouldn't doubt it's toxicity and feed it to their children as a treat.
That's a 90 minute talk. Perhaps you could reference the times so we can be concrete on what he actually said.
Also, from the article you linked: To be precise, the F.D.A. reviewers said that other than its contribution to calories, "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." [..] This was in 1986, well after the Yudkin book that you mention.
Yes, I understand the mainstream American medical position, and I already said as much: "If you mean not yet accepted in mainstream medicine as proven, then I would agree with you, but it's a rather sad state of affairs since there is now much more evidence than there ever was when the medical establishment went on the anti-fat crusade decades ago [..]"
But since you're quoting the article I referenced, let me give you some more quotes:
"When Glinsmann and his F.D.A. co-authors decided no conclusive evidence demonstrated harm at the levels of sugar then being consumed, they estimated those levels at 40 pounds per person per year beyond what we might get naturally in fruits and vegetables [..] But 40 pounds per year happened to be 35 pounds less than what Department of Agriculture analysts said we were consuming at the time -- 75 pounds per person per year -- and the U.S.D.A. estimates are typically considered to be the most reliable. By the early 2000s, according to the U.S.D.A., we had increased our consumption to more than 90 pounds per person per year. "
"That this increase happened to coincide with the current epidemics of obesity and diabetes is one reason that it's tempting to blame sugars [..] This correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes is what defense attorneys call circumstantial evidence. It's more compelling than it otherwise might be, though, because the last time sugar consumption jumped markedly in this country, it was also associated with a diabetes epidemic."
"In 1970, Keys published the results of a landmark study in nutrition known as the Seven Countries Study. Its results were perceived by the medical community and the wider public as compelling evidence that saturated-fat consumption is the best dietary predictor of heart disease. But sugar consumption in the seven countries studied was almost equally predictive. [..] In 1971, Keys published an article attacking Yudkin and describing his evidence against sugar as "flimsy indeed." He treated Yudkin as a figure of scorn, and Yudkin never managed to shake the portrayal. "
"By the end of the 1970s, any scientist who studied the potentially deleterious effects of sugar in the diet, according to Sheldon Reiser, who did just that at the U.S.D.A.'s Carbohydrate Nutrition Laboratory in Beltsville, Md., and talked about it publicly, was endangering his reputation."
"physicians and medical authorities came to accept the idea that a condition known as metabolic syndrome is a major, if not the major, risk factor for heart disease and diabetes."
"By the early 2000s, researchers studying fructose metabolism had established certain findings unambiguously and had well-established biochemical explanations for what was happening. Feed animals enough pure fructose or enough sugar, and their livers convert the fructose into fat -- the saturated fatty acid, palmitate, to be precise, that supposedly gives us heart disease when we eat it, by raising LDL cholesterol. The fat accumulates in the liver, and insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome follow."
"When Tappy fed his human subjects the equivalent of the fructose in 8 to 10 cans of Coke or Pepsi a day -- a "pretty high dose" he says -- their livers would start to become insulin-resistant, and their triglycerides would go up in just a few days. With lower doses, Tappy says, just as in the animal
Robert Lustig's claims are as yet unsubstantiated. He himself admits this.
Do you have a reference where he says that? Because I highly doubt he would use that word, as there is ample evidence that sugar is the problem.
If you mean not yet accepted in mainstream medicine as proven, then I would agree with you, but it's a rather sad state of affairs since there is now much more evidence than there ever was when the medical establishment went on the anti-fat crusade decades ago, back when Yudkin was saying no, it's not the fat, it's the sugar. Americans changed their diet and to low-fat high-sugar, and look what happened.
He makes a compelling case for his theory and there's no reason why you shouldn't follow his advice, but you should not just assume him to be correct and above all you must not pass this on to other people as though it were fact.
Everything I said was a fact regarding the way fructose is processed by the liver, the way it is found in nature, and the staggering amounts that Americans eat. The only thing that wasn't a fact was the link to diabetes and obesity, and there I said "almost certainly". I think it's a crime to underplay all the evidence given the scope of the problem, and I encourage anybody who cares about health to take this issue very seriously.
This is exactly the danger in reporting unpublished papers and why Lustig is the only one making the television circuit, despite being in a pretty broad field.
Lustig provides references to peer-reviewed papers that show correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes. If you have counter evidence to show that he's wrong on any of his evidence, please reference it.
It is, in the same way that alcohol is a poison. Alcohol can be burned for energy, and in moderation it even has health benefits, but it has to be processed by the liver as a poison.
Sugar consists of glucose and fructose. Fructose is processed by the liver much like alcohol, but the brain isn't affected by fructose so you don't feel the same effects.
Before modern agriculture made sugar so cheap, we primarily got fructose from fruit, which also contained fiber to fill us up and other nutrients. Now sugar is cheap and abundant, and the amount Americans eat per year is staggering, and it almost certainly is the cause of the twin epidemics of diabetes and obesity.
Maybe they defend Java because it has benefits over other languages and the performance aspersions cast against Java were last true in the 1990s.
I learned and used lots of languages before Java, including C and C++. Those latter languages force you to spend a lot of time dealing with low-level issues, are in general dangerous, and yes, C++ is a rat's nest -- even most C++ programmers will admit this.
Post some evidence instead of "Java still sucks". There's plenty of evidence for performance improvements in Java (yes, it's a Wikipedia link, and yes, it has references).
I was simply using college kids and teens as short-hand for people that have a lot of time on their hands (a non-age specific quality) and subsequently can put up with the rough edges of new products.
Yet no mention of retired or out of work people. You chose a young demographic for a reason.
I certainly will be "along for the ride" once most of the bugs are worked out.
You originally said, "The last thing I want is to be more plugged in."
Bill Gates waited a long time before he started to give his money away, and he got that money by running an abusive monopoly.
Even near the end of his career, when he was involved with his charity, he was still running Microsoft when they undermined the effort of One Laptop Per Child because they weren't running Windows.
Even after he "retired" as head of the company, when he bought and put the Feynman Lectures online he did it in Silverlight format as a way to push Microsoft's proprietary web plugin.
So fuck Bill Gates. I'm glad he's doing some good with his money, but I'm not going to forget all the other stuff.
Hell, even though the article couches it in terms of "stunning demands" and "outsized claims", it admits that it's a novel application of existing technologies (OFDM, FEC, and interleaving) that nobody else had gotten to work and was accepted into the standards by the IEEE Working Group.
The article does not "admit" that. What it does is present both sides of the issue as claimed by its proponents. Here's the contra:
"All of the elements of the "unique combination" CSIRO proffered in court as a breakthrough weren't merely old by tech standards, they were decades old. "Multicarrier modulation," used in WiFi as OFDM, was described as early as the 1950s. Papers had been published on interleaving in the 1960s. Forward error correction, Intel's lawyer told the Texas jury, "was used when NASA sent the Mariner mission to Mars in 1968." Harris Semiconductor had actual working products incorporating these techniques by the 1980s and the company was selling its modems to the US military. The lead defense attorney for Intel, Robert Van Nest, even showed one of those Harris modems to the Texas jury during the 2009 case. [..] "The problem wasn't putting these radio technologies together. Everybody had that... The problem was, how do you take something like the Harris modem and turn it into a chip that I can hold in my hand? That's a problem that the CSIRO patent doesn't even address.""
And the pro:
"One of O'Sullivan's partners, Australian inventor Terrance Percival, spoke on the stand. He acknowledged his team hadn't invented any of the core elements of its wireless strategy. But he insisted their solution to the "multipath problem"--that is, interference that gets in the way of radio waves indoors--was uniquely successful and speedy.
"We had those concepts, but we had to work out how to glue them together, which is a term we use," Pervical said. "There were all these parameters I talked about, that you had to fine tune and adjust to make sure you got the best possible performance out of the system.""
The fact that I did have the same attitude in college is proof that it is not age-based.
No, it only proves that you felt differently (or claim, since I can't verify how you felt or acted "back in the day").
not age-based
Talking about teens and college students is based on age, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
I am sorry you were offended by being lumped into that category but you haven't done much to change my opinion.
Wrong assumption. I'm neither a teen, in college, or offended by your remarks. I just find your stance amusing and typical of how people act when they age.
About a year before the housing bubble Canada and the US passed new laws that required Photo ID and proof of citizenship (via photoID) to purchase property (I know since I had to go through this). This means that illegal's would have had to jump through a lot more hoops, and increase their chances of getting deported, to buy property (thus, in a way, sort of supports what I said)...
This doesn't support what you said, since you say both the US and Canada enacted the laws at the same time.
and about 5-6 months ago Canada hit the same debt level ratios that the US did before their market burst, but it still has not happened here yet (and our debt ratio continues to grow)....
It's hard to time exactly when a bubble will burst, and I'd be a little surprised, though not terribly, if Canada didn't at least learn something from the US housing crash, in particular about lending standards and bad loans being hidden by derivatives.
I believe this is one of the reasons why Canada didn't have the same "housing" crash the US did; the simple fact we kept allowing enough people in that demand stayed constant while the US significantly reduced the number of immigrants and thus had more supply than demand.
The US housing crash was based on a speculative bubble fueled by shady financials, not a lack of demand. Given the amount of illegals we have entering from Mexico, the US hardly has a problem with too few immigrants.
What was the last Windows virus to go mainstream? The word "virus" has become synonymous with widespread malware, whether it's a trojan, driveby, or worm.
That there are 600k Macs infected is a big number, so Mac users can stop clinging to technicalities and admit Macs can get widespread infections and become part of botnets.
I didn't say you should "buy into the hype machine", but your attitude is clearly one of the conservative, older generation, an attitude you've adopted without even realizing it. I'm not saying it's wrong or right.
The people complaining are always the wealthy land owners thinking their property values will drop, which has been proved false.
This is one of the reasons why I hated Ted Kennedy and his Martha Vineyard NIMBY cronies. Suck it up, and accept a minor change to your precious view. The common person puts up with so much more.
Given that SC2 went out of it's way to make the online connection obtrusive, even though the game was distributed as a whole, it's clear that what they really care about is preventing piracy.
Considering that Java was one of the reasons that Oracle bought Sun for a good price, and that the Solaris and Sparc platforms were dying off anyways, in the end Java paid for itself and did Sun well by it.
As for Oracle, they have no need to fixate on Java because they already make immense profits on their database and related software.
Slashdot Mirror
Poisons and sugar are very different and processed a lot differently.
The whole point here is that fructose is processed by the liver very much like alcohol, which is a known poison that leads to disease when chronically over-consumed. Lustig talks about the similarities in processing here.
In fact, you need sugar to live.
You are using the term "sugar" here, but sugar is made up of glucose and fructose. Your body burns glucose as its main fuel. However, you don't need the fructose component, and you almost certainly shouldn't be consuming it in massive quantities. Also, just because something is found in nature and nutritious doesn't mean it can't be poisonous. A simple example is vitamin A.
Also, kidneys tend to process poisons, not your liver. Your liver matabolizes food.
It also metabolizes poison, in particular alcohol.
you are going to have to take my word for it
Why would I do that when you've gotten basic facts wrong and the obvious interpretation of what you said speaks otherwise?
That's a good point, but I was thinking about the obvious toxic effect of feeling drunk. If people got drunk on fructose like they did on alcohol, they wouldn't doubt it's toxicity and feed it to their children as a treat.
It's in the talk he gave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
That's a 90 minute talk. Perhaps you could reference the times so we can be concrete on what he actually said.
Also, from the article you linked: To be precise, the F.D.A. reviewers said that other than its contribution to calories, "no conclusive evidence on sugars demonstrates a hazard to the general public when sugars are consumed at the levels that are now current." [..] This was in 1986, well after the Yudkin book that you mention.
Yes, I understand the mainstream American medical position, and I already said as much: "If you mean not yet accepted in mainstream medicine as proven, then I would agree with you, but it's a rather sad state of affairs since there is now much more evidence than there ever was when the medical establishment went on the anti-fat crusade decades ago [..]"
But since you're quoting the article I referenced, let me give you some more quotes:
Robert Lustig's claims are as yet unsubstantiated. He himself admits this.
Do you have a reference where he says that? Because I highly doubt he would use that word, as there is ample evidence that sugar is the problem.
If you mean not yet accepted in mainstream medicine as proven, then I would agree with you, but it's a rather sad state of affairs since there is now much more evidence than there ever was when the medical establishment went on the anti-fat crusade decades ago, back when Yudkin was saying no, it's not the fat, it's the sugar. Americans changed their diet and to low-fat high-sugar, and look what happened.
He makes a compelling case for his theory and there's no reason why you shouldn't follow his advice, but you should not just assume him to be correct and above all you must not pass this on to other people as though it were fact.
Everything I said was a fact regarding the way fructose is processed by the liver, the way it is found in nature, and the staggering amounts that Americans eat. The only thing that wasn't a fact was the link to diabetes and obesity, and there I said "almost certainly". I think it's a crime to underplay all the evidence given the scope of the problem, and I encourage anybody who cares about health to take this issue very seriously.
This is exactly the danger in reporting unpublished papers and why Lustig is the only one making the television circuit, despite being in a pretty broad field.
Lustig provides references to peer-reviewed papers that show correlation between sugar consumption and diabetes. If you have counter evidence to show that he's wrong on any of his evidence, please reference it.
I stopped reading at "sugar is a poison".
It is, in the same way that alcohol is a poison. Alcohol can be burned for energy, and in moderation it even has health benefits, but it has to be processed by the liver as a poison.
Sugar consists of glucose and fructose. Fructose is processed by the liver much like alcohol, but the brain isn't affected by fructose so you don't feel the same effects.
Before modern agriculture made sugar so cheap, we primarily got fructose from fruit, which also contained fiber to fill us up and other nutrients. Now sugar is cheap and abundant, and the amount Americans eat per year is staggering, and it almost certainly is the cause of the twin epidemics of diabetes and obesity.
Is Sugar Toxic?
Maybe they defend Java because it has benefits over other languages and the performance aspersions cast against Java were last true in the 1990s.
I learned and used lots of languages before Java, including C and C++. Those latter languages force you to spend a lot of time dealing with low-level issues, are in general dangerous, and yes, C++ is a rat's nest -- even most C++ programmers will admit this.
Please stop spouting this nonsense.
Post some evidence instead of "Java still sucks". There's plenty of evidence for performance improvements in Java (yes, it's a Wikipedia link, and yes, it has references).
I was simply using college kids and teens as short-hand for people that have a lot of time on their hands (a non-age specific quality) and subsequently can put up with the rough edges of new products.
Yet no mention of retired or out of work people. You chose a young demographic for a reason.
I certainly will be "along for the ride" once most of the bugs are worked out.
You originally said, "The last thing I want is to be more plugged in."
Bill Gates waited a long time before he started to give his money away, and he got that money by running an abusive monopoly.
Even near the end of his career, when he was involved with his charity, he was still running Microsoft when they undermined the effort of One Laptop Per Child because they weren't running Windows.
Even after he "retired" as head of the company, when he bought and put the Feynman Lectures online he did it in Silverlight format as a way to push Microsoft's proprietary web plugin.
So fuck Bill Gates. I'm glad he's doing some good with his money, but I'm not going to forget all the other stuff.
It wasn't "my pet theory", it was somebody else's observation that was modded up to +5. Clearly you're in denial about basic facts.
Hell, even though the article couches it in terms of "stunning demands" and "outsized claims", it admits that it's a novel application of existing technologies (OFDM, FEC, and interleaving) that nobody else had gotten to work and was accepted into the standards by the IEEE Working Group.
The article does not "admit" that. What it does is present both sides of the issue as claimed by its proponents. Here's the contra:
"All of the elements of the "unique combination" CSIRO proffered in court as a breakthrough weren't merely old by tech standards, they were decades old. "Multicarrier modulation," used in WiFi as OFDM, was described as early as the 1950s. Papers had been published on interleaving in the 1960s. Forward error correction, Intel's lawyer told the Texas jury, "was used when NASA sent the Mariner mission to Mars in 1968." Harris Semiconductor had actual working products incorporating these techniques by the 1980s and the company was selling its modems to the US military. The lead defense attorney for Intel, Robert Van Nest, even showed one of those Harris modems to the Texas jury during the 2009 case. [..] "The problem wasn't putting these radio technologies together. Everybody had that... The problem was, how do you take something like the Harris modem and turn it into a chip that I can hold in my hand? That's a problem that the CSIRO patent doesn't even address.""
And the pro:
"One of O'Sullivan's partners, Australian inventor Terrance Percival, spoke on the stand. He acknowledged his team hadn't invented any of the core elements of its wireless strategy. But he insisted their solution to the "multipath problem"--that is, interference that gets in the way of radio waves indoors--was uniquely successful and speedy.
"We had those concepts, but we had to work out how to glue them together, which is a term we use," Pervical said. "There were all these parameters I talked about, that you had to fine tune and adjust to make sure you got the best possible performance out of the system.""
The fact that I did have the same attitude in college is proof that it is not age-based.
No, it only proves that you felt differently (or claim, since I can't verify how you felt or acted "back in the day").
not age-based
Talking about teens and college students is based on age, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
I am sorry you were offended by being lumped into that category but you haven't done much to change my opinion.
Wrong assumption. I'm neither a teen, in college, or offended by your remarks. I just find your stance amusing and typical of how people act when they age.
If it had nothing to do with age then you wouldn't be derisively talking about teens and college students, now would you?
About a year before the housing bubble Canada and the US passed new laws that required Photo ID and proof of citizenship (via photoID) to purchase property (I know since I had to go through this). This means that illegal's would have had to jump through a lot more hoops, and increase their chances of getting deported, to buy property (thus, in a way, sort of supports what I said)...
This doesn't support what you said, since you say both the US and Canada enacted the laws at the same time.
and about 5-6 months ago Canada hit the same debt level ratios that the US did before their market burst, but it still has not happened here yet (and our debt ratio continues to grow)....
It's hard to time exactly when a bubble will burst, and I'd be a little surprised, though not terribly, if Canada didn't at least learn something from the US housing crash, in particular about lending standards and bad loans being hidden by derivatives.
I believe this is one of the reasons why Canada didn't have the same "housing" crash the US did; the simple fact we kept allowing enough people in that demand stayed constant while the US significantly reduced the number of immigrants and thus had more supply than demand.
The US housing crash was based on a speculative bubble fueled by shady financials, not a lack of demand. Given the amount of illegals we have entering from Mexico, the US hardly has a problem with too few immigrants.
It's not and I haven't.
It's funny that you can't face what you've become.
It's pretty arrogant for you to suggest otherwise based on a one line statement.
You're the one talking about "teens and college students", which duh, that's part of the younger generation you used to be.
What was the last Windows virus to go mainstream? The word "virus" has become synonymous with widespread malware, whether it's a trojan, driveby, or worm.
That there are 600k Macs infected is a big number, so Mac users can stop clinging to technicalities and admit Macs can get widespread infections and become part of botnets.
I didn't say you should "buy into the hype machine", but your attitude is clearly one of the conservative, older generation, an attitude you've adopted without even realizing it. I'm not saying it's wrong or right.
The day I say something like that is the day I die.
But you already did, just in different words.
The people complaining are always the wealthy land owners thinking their property values will drop, which has been proved false.
This is one of the reasons why I hated Ted Kennedy and his Martha Vineyard NIMBY cronies. Suck it up, and accept a minor change to your precious view. The common person puts up with so much more.
Disclaimer : I currently work for Saskpower.
That's not a disclaimer, as you're claiming an informed position on which to provide information.
Given that SC2 went out of it's way to make the online connection obtrusive, even though the game was distributed as a whole, it's clear that what they really care about is preventing piracy.
It's naive to think making the client dumb wasn't primarily driven by DRM concerns.
Considering that Java was one of the reasons that Oracle bought Sun for a good price, and that the Solaris and Sparc platforms were dying off anyways, in the end Java paid for itself and did Sun well by it.
As for Oracle, they have no need to fixate on Java because they already make immense profits on their database and related software.