30 November 2010

Anything but water

6 comments:

Will said...

Amazing clip from FBN. Varney asks for an example of how he's lucky. I've got one: He's lucky Frank didn't challenge any of his claims since Varney doesn't seem to understand marginal tax rates, socialism or statistics. For a reporter on a financial network, that's pretty embarrassing and it could have been a fitting end to all of his "hard work".

Mister Kurtz said...

The "high fructose" corn syrup hysteria is a fraud. Natural honey has even more fructose, and I don't see a bunch of people fretting about that. Because HFC is sweeter tasting than sugar, one can make a sweet with fewer calories than one made with sucrose. The body converts it all to glucose anyway. Take a look at some of the information on the "Science Based Medicine" blog.

Mister Kurtz said...

hell,crabby ol' Kurtz must have sat on a couple thumbtacks tonight... but the Roundup Ready criticism is also about as authoritative as astrology. All weeds (and insects, and other beings) evolve to survive the insults hurled at them by disease, environment, predators, and so forth. Overuse of Roundup, or penicillin for that matter, is a Bad Thing. It is even worse when farmers illegally use lower rates of Roundup than called for on the label, in order to save money. This behavior is similar to what tourists do when they go to India, taking Cipro before they are ill so that their expensive holiday is not spoiled by the squirts. In both cases, they spread resistant organisms, and they should be heavily punished for this crime.
Roundup itself is far more benign than most herbicides. The critics tend to be people with degrees in history or music, not anyone with even a BA in any science. Recently somebody dragged out a horrible old fossil professor from one of the Midwestern ag colleges, who claims Roundup has all sorts of lasting deleterious effects, but his peculiar musings have not been substantiated in the literature.

David Zetland said...

@Kurtz -- I agree on roundup. It was Monsanto's fault to market it as the "only necessary herbicide."

On HFCS, what do you think about "even when their overall caloric intake was the same"? So weight gain happens thru some weird metabolic process. Got a science results to refute it?

Mister Kurtz said...

Well, this obviously is far above my pay grade, but calories is calories, and there has been more whiffle-dust hurled around in the popular imagination over nutrition/vitamins/weight-loss and similar subjects, matters of vanity rather than health, than a sane person ought to be asked to consider. I am not qualified to have an opinion over whether the study you mention is flawed or not. But I urge you and others concerned over this issue to take a gander at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501

David Zetland said...

@Kurtz -- Nice link. I read many comments. Seems that the Princeton study was flawed (and here), but we may not be talking nutrition any more. This post alludes to the mislabeling of HFCS in soda, etc. that may mean it's got more fructose (not HFCS 42 but 59%), which *would* lead to more weight gain. Oh, and everyone agrees that (1) tariffs on sugar, subsides to corn are a bad idea (2) industry lies and (3) it's not good to eat too much of ANY sugar (the Big Gulp syndrome).