Sugar is a carbohydrate, and you need those for energy. You don't have to eat the sweet stuff at all to survive.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What is an equivalent product to HiFi snake oil?
- Thread starter Punter
- Start date
Unfortunately, politics is now about science vs. ideology.
It may not be optimal, but a human can live indefinitely on protein and fat. The fat ends up being the majority of calories, and some of the protein gets converted to provide the needed carbohydrates. So you don't have to eat any carbohydrates as long as you're getting enough protein. The need for carbohydrates goes down as your body switches over to using a larger percentage of calories from fat sources. I've experimented with an ultra low carbohydrate diet and found that it's bad for high intensity energy but good for long endurance, lower output energy. On an ultra low carbohydrate diet I could get up without breakfast, ride my bike over 100 miles in cold weather into the mountains with 6,000 feet of climbing, eat nothing during the ride, and still not be starved when I got home. It was all day steady energy. I averaged around 16 miles per hour. I was very tolerant of cold weather but struggled with overheating in warm weather. I did that diet for a few years but eventually got the urge to have a bit more power. I also really like carbohydrates.
Now I'm experimenting with a high carbohydrate, ultra low fat diet. I've been doing this for 2 years now. I'm testing the notion that we only need tiny amounts of polyunsaturated fats for optimal health. I figure I'll start getting a craving for fatty foods if I'm getting short on omega 6 and 3. So far there has been zero craving for such foods. But it's only been 2 years and from what I understand the body can pile up large reserves of omega 6 and 3s that can take years to deplete. There are still small amounts coming in from my diet and they may be perfectly adequate. We'll see. On this high carb diet I can ride the bike faster now - a lot faster for short distances and climbing hills. I can also go all day but I have to eat breakfast and eat during the ride. I'm much more heat tolerant and less cold tolerant, which makes summer a lot more fun. I can dress warm in the winter.
Now I'm experimenting with a high carbohydrate, ultra low fat diet. I've been doing this for 2 years now. I'm testing the notion that we only need tiny amounts of polyunsaturated fats for optimal health. I figure I'll start getting a craving for fatty foods if I'm getting short on omega 6 and 3. So far there has been zero craving for such foods. But it's only been 2 years and from what I understand the body can pile up large reserves of omega 6 and 3s that can take years to deplete. There are still small amounts coming in from my diet and they may be perfectly adequate. We'll see. On this high carb diet I can ride the bike faster now - a lot faster for short distances and climbing hills. I can also go all day but I have to eat breakfast and eat during the ride. I'm much more heat tolerant and less cold tolerant, which makes summer a lot more fun. I can dress warm in the winter.
And ideology and politics have always been bedfellows.
Hype and reality in climate change science (or, even more, media coverage thereof) is an interesting and deep conversation, full of concerns about funding, ideological, and even aesthetic bias as well as wild conspiracy theories. But probably not best to have here.
In a more abstract way, Dan Kahan discusses science communication, and calls it a 'broken dialogue' where policy-relevant facts become identity markers. For reasons unclear, this was de-hosted from Yale's website (hmm)
cultural cognition project - home
culturalcognition.squarespace.com
https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news...tific-consensus-fails-create-public-consensus. (link is wrong)
Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study
Social psychologists have identified various plausible sources of ideological polarization over climate change, gun violence, national security, and like societ
papers.ssrn.com
Transcript: Tribal Psychology
This is the transcript for episode 122 of the You Are Not So Smart Podcast. Download – iTunes – Stitcher – RSS – Soundcloud In this episode, we spend time with political scientist Lilliana Mason an…
youarenotsosmart.com
I think about Kahan a lot when we talk about how 'subjectivists' resist controlled testing and objectivists immediately look hard for the testing or equipment flaws in the positive controlled results reported.
I agree with some posts here that refined sugar is somehow different than the stuff you get from fresh fruit. My teeth have taught me that. I can eat all the fresh fruit I want without issue. If I start on foods with added refined sugars my teeth are telling me about it within a week or two, regardless of my diligence with brushing, flossing and mouthwash.
Isn't it also true that raw fruit beats juices as well?
Makes you think we should try to become ruminants.
I've heard that raw fruit beats juice. You certainly get some extra fiber with the whole fruit. I'm not sure what else, other than that it's typically fresher than pre-bottled juice. It seems I can drink fruit juice without trouble, although I haven't tested that extensively. I usually only drink fruit juice in larger amounts during long bike rides.
I've always heard it as part of a glycemic index theory - the less broken down (more fibrous) your source of carbs, the less insulin bounce/more filling/better for your gut.
Yo beats with yo juice? what about beets?
SuicideSquid
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2022
- Messages
- 702
- Likes
- 1,656
Now?
I think that any time a belief becomes part of your identity or associates you with a community, it becomes highly resistant to fact-checking. This is true of religious beliefs and political beliefs, and always has been.
The problem with asserting that politics is about science vs. ideology is... which politics? Travel far enough on the political spectrum in either direction and you will encounter highly anti-science beliefs. On the right you run up against climate denialism and all kinds of interesting religious beliefs. But travel far enough on the left and you encounter equally unhinged beliefs about GMOs, vaccines (before the pandemic the anti-vaccine movement was pretty much the exclusive domain of middle class white leftists), and all kinds of kooky new age beliefs. We're social creatures, and if changing our minds and admitting we're wrong about something will cost us our friends, our religious community, or our political allies, then most people will go through all kinds of complicated mental gymnastics to avoid admitting they were wrong about something that's accepted fact in their community.
This problem is amplified in the US because of the two-party system, as well. Most other countries are multi-party states and your entire identity doesn't become wrapped up in whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. In Canada where I live, we have Liberal (centre/centre-left) and Conservative (centre-right) parties, but we also have the NDP (left/democratic socialist), Bloc Quebecois (Quebec Nationalist), Green (left/environmentalist), and traditionally a right-wing protest / western alienation party (most recently, the Reform party, though they merged with the Conservatives). If you traditionally vote Liberal but have become disaffected by the party's platform or leadership, you don't have to jump ship to your mortal enemy/political opposites - you have lots of other options.
I think some of the hifi snakeoil nonsense persists for similar reasons - it becomes a community, and people don't want to be ostracized from that community by speaking heresy.
Last edited:
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Well said.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
Well, I suppose one way of looking at it is that if there was no climate change, you might be chased down the street by a T-Rex. Yes, I know that that one was caused by a meteorite.
Climate change, without human input occurs over very long times, and it may be good or bad, depending on the direction it takes. Human-caused change has occurred in the blink of an eye, compared to geological time scales. Plants and animals have a much worse time adapting to change at such a rapid rate.
I like beets!
It'd be handy to be able to live on grass. It requires an awful lot of time spent eating.
But the benefit is you spend even more time digesting!
jsrtheta
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Funny, since all sugars break down in your mouth.
jsrtheta
Addicted to Fun and Learning
The question is what your body requires. Low carb diets require your body to break down more fat and protein to get energy, which is wasteful.
Yeah that is interesting. My guess is that with fruit it's not just sugar but a whole bunch of stuff that all gets deposited on your teeth. There's a difference for me with ground flour compared to eating something that still shaped like a grain, like rice. It just doesn't stick to the teeth as well. Or get stuck in between them or something but the difference in dental results is undoubtable for me.
Similar threads
