> Given the number of plausible causes, how much a role fructose metabolism plays in that epidemic > is quite probaby in the single digits percentagewise. So no, obesity is not a reliable indicator of an > epidemic of overconsumption of fructose. This is why people who report on fructose consumption > rates actually use evidence of the actual rates of said consumption, not circular logic.
So you never thought to look at the sugar/fructose numbers did you. I am not in any way saying that obesity proves fructose increase in the diet. Fructose in the average diet HAS increased significantly over time. (and sucrose contributes fructose in its breakdown, so while fructose is the "poison" it doesn't mean that sucrose isn't)
Combine that with what we know about fructose, AND the fact that there is correlation between the rise of sugar intake and obesity and that we have evidence that fructose increases appetite and calorie consumption beyond the calories that it contributes (studies have shown people who drink a soda before a meal actually eat more calories during the meal) and there is some serious reason to suspect not just correlation but causation.
I suspect if we wanted to put some rough percentages on the contribution to the problem, sugar is likely more in the mid double digits.
Normally I would completely agree except, there is a difference here. People are not increasing their consumption of water, exposure to oxygen, or even ingestion of glucose, to the point that they are manifesting toxic effects.
The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and liver damage, are seeming to indicate that fructose consumption IS in fact reaching levels that are manifesting toxic effects in the form of those diseases, which are exactly what we would expect from chronic exposure to excessive levels of fructose.
Sugar is a poision, just like many things are poisons, but unlike those many things, a large percentage of the population is exposing themselves to toxic amounts of it.
The answer is actually quite simple, so simple that most people miss it.
Processed food generally means the fiber has been removed in some manner or another or involves low fiber foods to begin with. Fiber increases feelings of fullness, and slows the absorbtion of sugars, which supress fullness, increase the worst kinds of cholesterol, and damage the liver (sugar is processed similarly to alcohol, which does the same things wrt cholesterol and liver damage)
Also, since "fat" was demonized as increasing cholesterol, and removing fat from processed food leaves it tasting like cardboard, "low fat" food has been loaded up with sugar.... which, is demonstrably worst than the fat it replaced.
Ignore all the talk of "toxins" and "not natural" or any of the other BS, it really is that simple. Its the fiber/sugar/fat connection that is huge. Average simple sugar consumption has skyrocketed while fiber intake hasn't. It answers not only why we have more diabetes and heart disease but, why people eat more in general.
> AND it produces hormones which supress appetite.... > Since it supresses appetite, you tend to eat more
Sorry, I meant to say, supress fullness...both times. Or supress the other hormones which supress appetite...same thing. Oh well... my asbestos undies needed another test.
Yes but it is also a poison. Sucrose too, but only because sucrose is one fructose and one glucose bonded, and the body has no trouble breaking that bond.
Problem with fructose is it is only processed in the liver. I am going off memory here, if you want a more in depth discussion from an expert google "Sugar the bitter truth" a video by an endocrinologist. So.... while only about 10% of the glucose that you ingest is processed in the liver, 90% of the fructose is.
The liver's process for dealing with these produces several products, which include both VLDLs (the worst kinds of cholesterol, far worst than you get from fat, which is mostly more boyent cholesterol...even not all LDLs are created equal) AND it produces hormones which supress appetite.
So sucrose is 50% fructose. If you use sucrose It splits 50-50 into glucose and fructose. 10% of the glucose and 90% of the fructose go to your liver... or about 55% of the total you ingested. If you use fructose, thats the full 90%.
Since it supresses appetite, you tend to eat more. A kid given a soda before a meal tends to eat more during the meal than a kid who doesn't.
As for spoilers on the video.... the problem more comes down to reduction in fiber. Fiber increases fullness, slows down the absorbtion of sugars, and is always found with sugars in nature. A glass of fruit juice is every bit as bad, and does the same liver damage, as a shot of whiskey. (alcohol is a carbohydrate too remember). You can't really overeat if you are munching on apples. Remove the juice from the fiber, and you can pack in the calories like nobodies business.
Know anyone who ever got diabetes from chewing on sugar cane? Didn't think so. Good luck trying it.
agreed, however, there are some distinctions that may be interesting here, the Unix/Linux one is really putting it in the wrong spot. The big difference is hardware. Linux runs on many different types, though, typically "PC Server" hardware, X86, whatever you want to call it.
Commercial Unix has come to mostly be, tied to hardware vending. Nobody, to my knowledge, goes out and buys an off brand system and installs HP/UX on it. You COULD do that with Solaris but generally, you are either going to buy Sparc hardware, or you are going to run Linux. Have you ever thought "I am gonna go get some HP blades and put AIX on them"?
I think their real problem is that, this sort of high end hardware sales suffers when PC hardware is at the point that people are junking physical servers because the per server utilization is under 10% and they can get more bang for their buck out of virtualization.
Justification of a new hardware system is getting harder as less workloads really need it. Sure, some of them even offer virtualization, but what do you need LPARs for when you already have virtualization technology and are training people on that? Any workload that can be done in linux on a VM is just going to go that way because it fits in better with the direction the rest of the infrastructure is going; and means being locked in with one less vendor.
I have looked through those a few times, its always makes me marvel at people. Not the ones who accidentally grab a shot of their card, leaving it in what is obviously a photo of something else...that is dumb but, its not stupid. Thats kinda on the level of "hey you know theres a dildo in the background?"
However, most of them however, most of them are people showing off their new card like some sort of status symbol; Kind of like "Look, my name is in the phonebook! I am a somebody now!"
I am having trouble putting this in the context of a conversation as to who is harmed when individuals exercise their rights. It seems to me that why a person may or may not choose to die, and the conditions that may lead to that are orthogonal to whether or not it is their right to do so.
So then perhaps we should be fair about this: - no health care for drug related issue from recreational drugs That means - No support for diabetics who became diabetic from excess alcohol - No support for people who drink their liver away - No ER life support for overdoses
But, why stop there? Why not all self abuse?
- No treatment for diabetics who became it from excess sugar - No treatment for the overweight unless there is a bona-fide underlying condition - No treatment for runners knees or tennis elbow; You want us to pay because you abused your joints for all those years? - No treatment for people who swallow things they shouldn't
At that point, maybe we should just deny treatment for anyone so irresponsible that they would do dangerous things like...ride in a car, or walk near a road with cars. Why should we pay for these daredevils?
I would like to think that most people today realize that a human being is not property, and so the slave owner was actually the one doing harm all along.
As should be expected, smoking nicotine increase the rate at which the body eliminates caffiene, actually cuts the average plasma half life in half. This means smokers, who have a higher than average likelihood of early death, who drink coffee, can be heavier coffee drinkers easily.... leading to a bit of a selection bias if they didn't controll for it.
My personal favourite are the magazine covers; partially because they are real, I have even checked them a few times because it just was too funny. The first one I saw was this:
I agree, so long as we are VERY SPECIFICALLY talking about tactical information. If he had leaked where there would be surveillance in the next day or week, where troops were moving, where they were intending to attack, where they were right that moment....then yes...absolutely. Hang the fucker for treason. Fine.
However, he didn't release anything even remotely like that. He released political documents and evidence of war crimes, ones which had already happened and gave no current, actionable tactical information.
There is no way I would condone ANY prohibition on information disclosure which covers up crimes against humanity or other wrongdoing by the military, even in time of war. Quite simply, if they break the rules of war, and commit crimes against humanity, they are not fighting a legal war, and no protections at all should apply to them; especially not secrecy.
Meh, I think there is some room for debate on that one. Had he been attacked out of the blue I would be more than happy calling it self defence but... if I think you are following me, I would definitely consider myself in danger. If I try to run and ditch you because you are following me and I am scared, and you then show up; having followed me to my house... you might find me standing my ground just like Trayvon did.
If ANYONE had reason to believe he was in mortal danger, it was Trayvon, the kid whose stalker followed him all the way to his house.
On the Shakespear side I always liked "The heads of maids or their maidenheads, take that how thou wilt"; because nothing is as classy and high brow as opening your play with jokes about raping or murdering the women of the family you have a rivalry with.... far be it from shakespear to not include some entertainment for the rabble, every penny counts:)
This reminds me a bit of "Cosa Nostra", the term popularized by the FBI to lump all ethnic Italian organized crime groups together. There, of course, never was a group called "Cosa Nostra", it just being an Italian phrase roughly meaning "our thing", very similar to "Al Queda" which I remember translates as "The Base".
That said, some of these groups do directly reference Al Queda as an inspiration or pay homage to it in their name. I don't think it is entirely a western thing: it seems like it is likely useful for these groups to, themselves, take on the name or pump up their "Al Queda" association for their own purposes as well.
So much for trying not to spoil it for anyone who hasn't actually read it. I really think the quoted section is more relevant than the last page, but, yah, exactly. This passage was just about him giving in to torture and outwardly accepting their BS for self-preservation; not the total internal surrender that makes the ending so terribly sad.
That wasn't the last page. I know that wasn't the last page because the last pages of that book haunted me for weeks after I read them. Its probably one of the most emotionally disturbing bits of fiction that I have ever read. Just thinking of the last few words of that book sends shudders down my spine now.
This particular scene however, I have trouble not replacing Winston and O'Brien with the TNG version of this exact scene. "There are FOUR lights!"
After? Lol as if there was any hope before. The main difference before and after is just who the middlemen are. The only real losers there were the central party leadership on each side of the coin; and even if that were not the case, it is entirely a story of wolves gaurding the hen house.
Slashdot Mirror
> Given the number of plausible causes, how much a role fructose metabolism plays in that epidemic
> is quite probaby in the single digits percentagewise. So no, obesity is not a reliable indicator of an
> epidemic of overconsumption of fructose. This is why people who report on fructose consumption
> rates actually use evidence of the actual rates of said consumption, not circular logic.
So you never thought to look at the sugar/fructose numbers did you. I am not in any way saying that obesity proves fructose increase in the diet. Fructose in the average diet HAS increased significantly over time. (and sucrose contributes fructose in its breakdown, so while fructose is the "poison" it doesn't mean that sucrose isn't)
Combine that with what we know about fructose, AND the fact that there is correlation between the rise of sugar intake and obesity and that we have evidence that fructose increases appetite and calorie consumption beyond the calories that it contributes (studies have shown people who drink a soda before a meal actually eat more calories during the meal) and there is some serious reason to suspect not just correlation but causation.
I suspect if we wanted to put some rough percentages on the contribution to the problem, sugar is likely more in the mid double digits.
Normally I would completely agree except, there is a difference here. People are not increasing their consumption of water, exposure to oxygen, or even ingestion of glucose, to the point that they are manifesting toxic effects.
The rise in diabetes, heart disease, and liver damage, are seeming to indicate that fructose consumption IS in fact reaching levels that are manifesting toxic effects in the form of those diseases, which are exactly what we would expect from chronic exposure to excessive levels of fructose.
Sugar is a poision, just like many things are poisons, but unlike those many things, a large percentage of the population is exposing themselves to toxic amounts of it.
The answer is actually quite simple, so simple that most people miss it.
Processed food generally means the fiber has been removed in some manner or another or involves low fiber foods to begin with. Fiber increases feelings of fullness, and slows the absorbtion of sugars, which supress fullness, increase the worst kinds of cholesterol, and damage the liver (sugar is processed similarly to alcohol, which does the same things wrt cholesterol and liver damage)
Also, since "fat" was demonized as increasing cholesterol, and removing fat from processed food leaves it tasting like cardboard, "low fat" food has been loaded up with sugar.... which, is demonstrably worst than the fat it replaced.
Ignore all the talk of "toxins" and "not natural" or any of the other BS, it really is that simple. Its the fiber/sugar/fat connection that is huge. Average simple sugar consumption has skyrocketed while fiber intake hasn't. It answers not only why we have more diabetes and heart disease but, why people eat more in general.
> AND it produces hormones which supress appetite. ...
> Since it supresses appetite, you tend to eat more
Sorry, I meant to say, supress fullness...both times. Or supress the other hormones which supress appetite...same thing. Oh well... my asbestos undies needed another test.
Yes but it is also a poison. Sucrose too, but only because sucrose is one fructose and one glucose bonded, and the body has no trouble breaking that bond.
Problem with fructose is it is only processed in the liver. I am going off memory here, if you want a more in depth discussion from an expert google "Sugar the bitter truth" a video by an endocrinologist. So.... while only about 10% of the glucose that you ingest is processed in the liver, 90% of the fructose is.
The liver's process for dealing with these produces several products, which include both VLDLs (the worst kinds of cholesterol, far worst than you get from fat, which is mostly more boyent cholesterol...even not all LDLs are created equal) AND it produces hormones which supress appetite.
So sucrose is 50% fructose. If you use sucrose It splits 50-50 into glucose and fructose. 10% of the glucose and 90% of the fructose go to your liver... or about 55% of the total you ingested. If you use fructose, thats the full 90%.
Since it supresses appetite, you tend to eat more. A kid given a soda before a meal tends to eat more during the meal than a kid who doesn't.
As for spoilers on the video.... the problem more comes down to reduction in fiber. Fiber increases fullness, slows down the absorbtion of sugars, and is always found with sugars in nature. A glass of fruit juice is every bit as bad, and does the same liver damage, as a shot of whiskey. (alcohol is a carbohydrate too remember). You can't really overeat if you are munching on apples. Remove the juice from the fiber, and you can pack in the calories like nobodies business.
Know anyone who ever got diabetes from chewing on sugar cane? Didn't think so. Good luck trying it.
Not so sure about that but maybe Thomas Aquinas may have had a point when he listed gluttony and sloth as DEADLY sins.
agreed, however, there are some distinctions that may be interesting here, the Unix/Linux one is really putting it in the wrong spot. The big difference is hardware. Linux runs on many different types, though, typically "PC Server" hardware, X86, whatever you want to call it.
Commercial Unix has come to mostly be, tied to hardware vending. Nobody, to my knowledge, goes out and buys an off brand system and installs HP/UX on it. You COULD do that with Solaris but generally, you are either going to buy Sparc hardware, or you are going to run Linux. Have you ever thought "I am gonna go get some HP blades and put AIX on them"?
I think their real problem is that, this sort of high end hardware sales suffers when PC hardware is at the point that people are junking physical servers because the per server utilization is under 10% and they can get more bang for their buck out of virtualization.
Justification of a new hardware system is getting harder as less workloads really need it. Sure, some of them even offer virtualization, but what do you need LPARs for when you already have virtualization technology and are training people on that? Any workload that can be done in linux on a VM is just going to go that way because it fits in better with the direction the rest of the infrastructure is going; and means being locked in with one less vendor.
I have looked through those a few times, its always makes me marvel at people. Not the ones who accidentally grab a shot of their card, leaving it in what is obviously a photo of something else...that is dumb but, its not stupid. Thats kinda on the level of "hey you know theres a dildo in the background?"
However, most of them however, most of them are people showing off their new card like some sort of status symbol; Kind of like "Look, my name is in the phonebook! I am a somebody now!"
I am having trouble putting this in the context of a conversation as to who is harmed when individuals exercise their rights. It seems to me that why a person may or may not choose to die, and the conditions that may lead to that are orthogonal to whether or not it is their right to do so.
So then perhaps we should be fair about this:
- no health care for drug related issue from recreational drugs
That means
- No support for diabetics who became diabetic from excess alcohol
- No support for people who drink their liver away
- No ER life support for overdoses
But, why stop there? Why not all self abuse?
- No treatment for diabetics who became it from excess sugar
- No treatment for the overweight unless there is a bona-fide underlying condition
- No treatment for runners knees or tennis elbow; You want us to pay because you abused your joints for all those years?
- No treatment for people who swallow things they shouldn't
At that point, maybe we should just deny treatment for anyone so irresponsible that they would do dangerous things like...ride in a car, or walk near a road with cars. Why should we pay for these daredevils?
I would like to think that most people today realize that a human being is not property, and so the slave owner was actually the one doing harm all along.
It is only sticky if you accept these excuses to dismiss the rights of others to legitimize involuntary involvement in others lives.
As should be expected, smoking nicotine increase the rate at which the body eliminates caffiene, actually cuts the average plasma half life in half. This means smokers, who have a higher than average likelihood of early death, who drink coffee, can be heavier coffee drinkers easily.... leading to a bit of a selection bias if they didn't controll for it.
Even if it did happen, which it didn't, they knew the risks of being collaborators with an invading force.
My personal favourite are the magazine covers; partially because they are real, I have even checked them a few times because it just was too funny. The first one I saw was this:
http://randomchaos.com/images/weblog/newsweek_international.gif
And it was one I checked that week...indeed, those really were the covers that week according to Newsweek's own website.
I agree, so long as we are VERY SPECIFICALLY talking about tactical information. If he had leaked where there would be surveillance in the next day or week, where troops were moving, where they were intending to attack, where they were right that moment....then yes...absolutely. Hang the fucker for treason. Fine.
However, he didn't release anything even remotely like that. He released political documents and evidence of war crimes, ones which had already happened and gave no current, actionable tactical information.
There is no way I would condone ANY prohibition on information disclosure which covers up crimes against humanity or other wrongdoing by the military, even in time of war. Quite simply, if they break the rules of war, and commit crimes against humanity, they are not fighting a legal war, and no protections at all should apply to them; especially not secrecy.
Meh, I think there is some room for debate on that one. Had he been attacked out of the blue I would be more than happy calling it self defence but... if I think you are following me, I would definitely consider myself in danger. If I try to run and ditch you because you are following me and I am scared, and you then show up; having followed me to my house... you might find me standing my ground just like Trayvon did.
If ANYONE had reason to believe he was in mortal danger, it was Trayvon, the kid whose stalker followed him all the way to his house.
On the Shakespear side I always liked "The heads of maids or their maidenheads, take that how thou wilt"; because nothing is as classy and high brow as opening your play with jokes about raping or murdering the women of the family you have a rivalry with.... far be it from shakespear to not include some entertainment for the rabble, every penny counts :)
This reminds me a bit of "Cosa Nostra", the term popularized by the FBI to lump all ethnic Italian organized crime groups together. There, of course, never was a group called "Cosa Nostra", it just being an Italian phrase roughly meaning "our thing", very similar to "Al Queda" which I remember translates as "The Base".
That said, some of these groups do directly reference Al Queda as an inspiration or pay homage to it in their name. I don't think it is entirely a western thing: it seems like it is likely useful for these groups to, themselves, take on the name or pump up their "Al Queda" association for their own purposes as well.
So much for trying not to spoil it for anyone who hasn't actually read it. I really think the quoted section is more relevant than the last page, but, yah, exactly. This passage was just about him giving in to torture and outwardly accepting their BS for self-preservation; not the total internal surrender that makes the ending so terribly sad.
That wasn't the last page. I know that wasn't the last page because the last pages of that book haunted me for weeks after I read them. Its probably one of the most emotionally disturbing bits of fiction that I have ever read. Just thinking of the last few words of that book sends shudders down my spine now.
This particular scene however, I have trouble not replacing Winston and O'Brien with the TNG version of this exact scene. "There are FOUR lights!"
However bleach has dye in it that absorbs UV light and gives off visible light....to make your whites brighter!
Right because the accuracy of his accounting of the baseball games back when his job was entertainer is totally the point.
After? Lol as if there was any hope before. The main difference before and after is just who the middlemen are. The only real losers there were the central party leadership on each side of the coin; and even if that were not the case, it is entirely a story of wolves gaurding the hen house.
There are a couple of old adages/jokes:
Q: "How do you know a politician is lieing?" A: "His lips are moving"
and
Q: "When do you know a politician is telling the truth?" A:"When he calls his opponent a liar"
it isn't "oddly prophetic"; it is calling the long standing trend.