Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx
I love microbrew colas (made with real cane sugar) and 'mexican Coca-cola' (real cane sugar). But I have maybe one a week, usually less. The *odds* are very much against a good result with drinking a liter of flavored corn syrup a day. Corn syrup is very likely a major vector in the obesity levels in the US today since almost all major producers of manufactured "foods" use it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh
Yeah. We all have to die of something. For me, it's probably going to be a heart attack, which isn't a bad way to die, as such things go. And I don't think my soda drinking habit will do much to give cancer a chance to beat heart attack to the punch.
|
I can't deny any of the things both of you guys said. Regarding microbrew colas and their sugar content, I was thinking about finer/liquid sugar due to increased solubility, which in turn, increases rate of absorption into the cells. Corn syrup has a longer and more complex structure that requires more chemical cycles to breakdown, which means that these large structures sometimes enter the bloodstream in their intermediate "unrefined" chains. Of course, designated volume is still designated volume (concentration of glucose per unit of water in blood), adding too much STILL overworks the pancreas.
I have a serious fetish for apple juice/drinks. Unfortunately, it can cause increased level of uric acid in the body (which leads to arthritis) and frequent diarrhoea. I once drank an entire 1.5L bottle of apple juice (made by myself, too lazy to measure out the sugar so added none) and had diarrhoea for the next 2 days.
As for soda drinking, I think body resistance builds up over time. It shouldn't be any more different from training alcohol tolerance, just don't chug too much per week because the body needs time to flush out the excess sugar and such from the body. After all, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus
Don't blame researchers. They're doing their job -- research, experiment, collect data, and yes, revise. The worst scientist is the one who knows everything and is always correct.
Blame the media; few journalists [watch out for TRL's rebuttal!?  ] know the science they're reporting, and there's a tendency to exaggerate or draw decisive statements out of preliminary conclusions. It comes with journalistic writing I suppose; too many if's and but's cut down on clarity and they can't afford that, even when the actual subject demands that there be no clarity yet. |
Quite sadly, yes. The reason of the research is often FYI and more of a guide, but often the media who publish them often throw them to the audience wholesale without any counter-arguments to allow the public to make a more balanced choice in their lives. This leads to compulsion and moral panic, which in turn, becomes an advertising and marketing tool for larger organisations to market their so-called healthy foods.
These companies, in turn, help fund researches so they could have more avenues of health marketing. It eventually becomes a truly vicious cycle for the lazy who don't do research and just read those mags : I would bet less than 10% of the world population actually benefit physically and mentally from such researches with bowdlerised publications.
Even if TRL makes some sort of rebuttal, it wouldn't even matter. I have seen a few local articles in our local news that is so sensationalised that it totally ignores scientific and logical sense. I.E : They published the article about Rapelay and calls it porn, and even imply that the game can be won by making the girls pregnant. But if they don't publish the article, nobody would buy their papers to read. Being well-informed means to inculcate a doubt in everything one reads, and constantly bait others for counter arguments so everyone actually learn something from the different sources they read from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinstrife
To all you health junkies, I'm planning on out-living all of you. Genetics plays some role in how long and healthy we can live as well. Not to say smoking and drinking won't cut it down, but you could eat the healthiest foods in the world, and still drop dead of a heart-attack at 40.
I've got another 60 years easy.  |
You can further extend that life by not getting married or having children. Stress is a major factor that decreases lifespan, because it increases metabolism as more blood rushes to your head for flight/fight reactions, tiring your heart and brain out. Since the stress comes non-stop, you would just be taking your later years into living out that hectic moments.
Maybe this is the reason why the Japanese have such longevities. Probably a relation to the declining birth rates.
P.S I am just joking around in the last part. Please don't shoot me.