I thought New Hampshire was a paradise of freedom! I mean, you can buy all the raw milk you want for crissake! It’s motto is “live free or die” for crissake! You mean you can’t even live free in the woods without being put in a cage???
WHAT HAPPENED?!
For people like you F4M, the basement sounds like a better choice of residence.
I thought New Hampshire was a paradise of freedom! I mean, you can buy all the raw milk you want for crissake! It’s motto is “live free or die” for crissake! You mean you can’t even live free in the woods without being put in a cage???
WHAT HAPPENED?!
That’s why I’m in NH. Least violent state by far. But the state will still arrest you for living in the woods.
Doesn’t sound very free to me.
Oh well. You know what you say. Live free or die. So I guess you should get treking. If they do come to put you in a cage, make sure you commit suicide. As that’s basically the only other option you really have, given your motto.
That’s not science.
Science requires coming up with a theory that includes the actual mechanism by which it works, then coming up with an experiment that, if the theory is mistaken, should prove it wrong.
If your hypothesis was “aspirin kills people”, and you fed it to rats, they’d all die — aspirin is poisonous to rodents – and you’d have proven just about nothing.
Forcing rats to eat high-fructose corn syrup doesn’t prove that human beings who voluntarily eat it are being made fat by it.
Especially if someone’s ignorant enough to think it’s more harmful than normal sucrose.
Our digestive systems cannot absorb sucrose, until it’s broken down into fructose and sucrose…at which point it’s identical, as far as our body knows, to high-fructose corn syrup. Yes, modern, instrumentalist junk science is more akin to superstition than to actual scientific realism.
until it’s broken down into fructose and sucrose
I guess you made a typo: it’s broken down into fructose and glucose.
Also, even if sucrose has to be metabolised into fructose first, there may be various ways by which HFCS can be harmful. To name a couple, HFCS may contain other chemicals, or presense of sucrose may trigger additional (beneficial) reactions.
I think Robert Lustig lays out the biological case for why all sugar, but especially HFCS is ‘bad’ for human consumption. (Ie, HFCS is worse than sugar because it’s more fructose than glucose, although it was a while since I watched his presentation, so I may not remember it correctly.)
“There may be various ways” is not science. It’s speculation.
So far, nobody’s presented an exact mechanism and then subjected it to falsification testing.
The “may contain other chemicals” argument is meaningless. If that’s the case, then high fructose corn syrup, itself, isn’t the problem.
And since the body cannot absorb sucrose until it’s broken down exactly like corn syrup, it can’t “trigger additional reactions”. The body can’t tell the difference, once it’s digested.
To the other reply:
High-fructoste corn syrup has exactly the same ratio of glucose and fructose, which is why it’s used.
The premise that sugar, in general, is bad is just silly. Hopefully, this isn’t the claim that we should try to mostly eliminate glucose from our blood, in preference for ketones.
50% in sucrose
55% in HFCS-55 (soft-drinks)
42% in HFCS-42 (food sweeteners)
http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1470
I’m no expert, but my understanding is that refined sugars are problematic due to their refined-ness. In natural foods the sugars exist in a complex arrangement with other nutrients and fibers, and are thus metabolized at a controlled rate. When refined sugars are used, they exist in a simple mixture with any other nutrients, or all alone in the case of soda pop, and in a highly available state causing the system to o.d. on the sugar. Also the fructose content in natural foods is typically low.
Sucrose, at least, is slowed down by the metabolic step of being broken down into glucose and fructose. HFCS requires no such step; the sugars are immediately available.
In any case, it seems to me that the burden of proof should be upon those that claim that the new substance, which is clearly structurally different from the known substance, nevertheless behaves identically in the body. As far as I know, this has never been proven.
That’s also a load of crap, to be blunt. The ‘problem’ with refined sugars and refined foods in general is people suck them down by the metric ton. And doing that may lead to some health problems for some people, especially those with predispositions to diabetes or other risks. But there also plenty of people who drink and eat sugar a plenty with no problems. The problem is people and their pattern searching minds which make spurious links that turn out to be BS when studied. Granted, foods of different composition might lead to feeling less ‘full’ and thus, more eating, and how certain foods may affect hormones like insulin and leptin and what not are being studied. But the ultimate governor of all this is your waistline; and if it’s expanding, then you’re eating too much. That’s thermodynamics and tha subsumes it all in the end. It applies as much to humans as it does to black holes.
Inductive reasoning. Things that are natural are no more likely to be healthy than things artificial. Especially when you consider that all things man-made ARE natural. The premise that termite mounds, oxygen, and honey are natural, but skyscrapers, plutonium, and refined sugar are not is absolutely silly.
Unless you’re sucking on sugar cane, or eating honey.
Except in fruit. Fructose means, of course, “fruit sugar”.
No, the burden of proof is with the silly alarmists who fear new things.
I am going to put my conspiracy cap on. What if big corporations are actually for the drink ban? Does Pepsi benefit for having people spend money on a bunch of smaller drinks as opposed to larger drinks? Do resturants favor this so they can charge more for less? Do packaging companies benefit from more plastic being used?
Is Bloomberg creating more pollution by this law?
@Wibee, here is your case:
It will just force you to buy 2 drinks if you want more instead of having 1 big cup, thus giving more money to soda corporations.
WE know this shits bad for you, then just cut the corn subsidy, then everything made of our shit worthless ass corn will be more expensive and market will drive for another type of material to sweeten our stuff.
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg says he will appeal a New York judge’s choice to overturn the town’s ban on sugary beverages served in cups larger than 16 ounces. The soda ban was intended to have gone into impact on Tues, March 12, but it was overturned right before.
Bloomberg better be glad that they haven’t yet set up ID checks and tracking so that he couldn’t get around these restrictions on the number of pizza slices. He could go to jail for getting around these the way he did, by going to another restaurant.
Just in case anyone doesn’t know, The Daily Currant is satire, but I still found the whole thing awesome. The fact that they’re choosing to draw attention to it is great
