Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[blueflame]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

"blueflame" = perfect combustion, a Chevrolet 6-cylinder Corvette engine, a sad verbal trirade...which?

You are free to think and decide for yourself

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

That ain't the metric. It's the fact that their quality of life sucks and they just keep piling it on. I see you neglected to respond to that part of my earlier post.

Their quality of life sucks based on your opinion, which is fine, but that's a qualification, not a quantification. According to that POV Richie Rich who has no kids but consumes more than 30 times what the average American does would be justified in criticizing someone who consumes about what most Americans do and has a couple or a few kids because "their quality of life sucks and they just keep piling it on". Maybe it's just me, but I try to limit my criticism to stuff that's based on quantified figures, not my qualified opinion.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by chuckm

1) The jury is still out on high fructose corn syrup (versus sugar). There is no consensus in the scientific community, but the majority of the good studies show no adverse affects.

Look how long the jury was out on cigarettes, afterall your doctor at one time would have recommended them for certain conditions.

Odd how that works much like the studies that showed a diet composed of only grains and vegetables would result in very long life spans. (less a study than a supposition) Yet Egyptians who ate solely grain usually lived to about 20years and had massive issues with heart disease. Also most races that eat no grain that are more or less traditional have the longest life spans, even when compared to us, sadly they usually die prematurely from blunt injuries and infection, if they get past those one hundred years isn't uncommon.

HFCS by itself is "supposed" to have no negative effects at least short term compared to sugar because that type of study is flawed.

The known effects of HFCS are
1. Increased uptake and retention of IRON
2. Increased stability of oxidants and increased likelyhood of iron in the body to oxidise
3. Increased liver activity to metabolize (increased activity for the liver is NOT generally positive and also means that HFCS stays as is in the body longer as opposed to being broken down before getting in the bloodstream)

Those effects are well known and not disputed by anyone legitimate, I have even heard some rumblings that women should "maybe" eat HFCS when they are low on iron in place of normal sugar due to #1.

Now you might think that #1 is a great thing but it IS NOT AT ALL good for Men of any age and due to #2 effect likely not good for anyone.

Oddly excess iron is a very large cause of heart disease and hardening of arteries, which is why its always a good idea to give blood often for more reasons than helping fellow man, it helps you retain your health!

Oxidation of iron is even worse than too much iron so as you can see, LONG TERM HFCS IS NOT GOOD FOR YOUR HEALTH!

Anyone who denies the direct correlation between iron uptake and HFCS is either a lier, a fool or both.

All this said the reality is the human body wasn't really made to ingest sugar of any kind, often, in quantity for long periods. So if you are eating more than 25g a day you likely are going to have some sort of negative health affect.

Cheers
Ryan

[gone-ot]

...what's the BEEF with HFCS's?

...we're all gonna die eventually, it's just a matter of when and how (wink,wink).

...simple: use HFCS and you'll know why; keep using it, and you'll eventually be told when!

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Odd how that works much like the studies that showed a diet composed of only grains and vegetables would result in very long life spans. (less a study than a supposition) Yet Egyptians who ate solely grain usually lived to about 20years and had massive issues with heart disease. Also most races that eat no grain that are more or less traditional have the longest life spans, even when compared to us, sadly they usually die prematurely from blunt injuries and infection, if they get past those one hundred years isn't uncommon.

My understanding with the Egyptians was that information came from studying Mummies and Priests or the well to do in society. There diet was not solely grain like that of the poor but meals of beef, goose, bread, fruit, vegetables, cake, wine and beer. There alcohol consumption was high and since salt was a perservitive that was also very high.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Their quality of life sucks based on your opinion...

Their opinion too, or else why would so many try so hard to emigrate?

According to that POV Richie Rich who has no kids but consumes more than 30 times what the average American does...

But it's not primarily consumption. Six billion people are going to screw up the planet, even if they all live as frugally as Gandhi. Indeed, some of the worst environmental degradation happens where per-capita incomes are lowest, such as sub-Saharan Africa.

Haiti's a good example, expecially when compared to the Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispanola. The DR has lower population density, a per capita income (which I think is a good proxy for consumption) more than six times that of Haiti ($8100 vs $1300), and far better environmental quality.

[Bicycle Bob]

The Dominican Republic has more rain, better soil, and started with a lower population. The biggest single factor, however, is that they had a dictator who shot loggers instead of hiring them. Haiti has also been screwed at every opportunity because it inspires other slaves to revolt, and can't be allowed to succeed, according to the plutocracy.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob

The Dominican Republic has more rain, better soil, and started with a lower population.

Not so. They both started with essentially the same population, after accounting for the effects of disease & gunpowder on the pre-Columbian population.

The biggest single factor, however, is that they had a dictator who shot loggers instead of hiring them.

A dictator's a dictator, no? Or you could look at it from a different perspective, and say that the DR's government, regardless of its form, had sense enough to safeguard environmental resources, while Haiti's did not.

Haiti has also been screwed at every opportunity because it inspires other slaves to revolt, and can't be allowed to succeed, according to the plutocracy.

Oh, crap. That excuse again.

[Bicycle Bob]

Ref: "Collapse" by Jared Diamond.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Their opinion too, or else why would so many try so hard to emigrate?

Based on corruption, not on the amount of land per per person like you mentioned. Plenty of other countries live on ~1 acre/person w/o the same corruption seen in Haiti, and they're fine w/ that.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But it's not primarily consumption. Six billion people are going to screw up the planet, even if they all live as frugally as Gandhi. Indeed, some of the worst environmental degradation happens where per-capita incomes are lowest, such as sub-Saharan Africa.

That's not true. We have ~1 billion people causing the same environmental impact as ~5+ billion. The environmental impact of the high income countries is greater than the impact of the all the middle and low income countries combined. If we broke it up according to rich/everyone else and ignored borders we would probably see half a billion consuming as much as 5.5+ billion. If we could somehow remove 1 billion poor people it would barely make a dent in our environmental impact, but if we removed 1 billion rich people it would cut our environmental impact on the world in half. If that's not a consumption issue, I dunno what is. If everyone had similar per capita consumption levels then I'd be inclined to agree, but we don't.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Haiti's a good example, expecially when compared to the Dominican Republic, which shares the island of Hispanola. The DR has lower population density, a per capita income (which I think is a good proxy for consumption) more than six times that of Haiti ($8100 vs $1300), and far better environmental quality.

Japan and many other countries have much higher population density than the DR, more or less on par w/ Haiti, and they have none of the problems Haiti has. Like I said before, Haiti's problems are because they are the most corrupt country in the world or one of the most corrupt countries in the world, not due to population density. There are many other countries that have similar population densities and don't have all the issues Haiti has. They also aren't as corrupt by a long shot.