If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NYPost)   More than 10% of the adults in New York City have diabetes. If only there was some kind of ban on large, sugary drinks   (nypost.com) divider line 163
    More: Sad, New York City, American Diabetes Association, amputations, soft drinks, deaths  
•       •       •

2081 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 12:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-25 12:42:29 PM

GoldSpider: lohphat: The problem is the rest of us have to pay for their healthcare costs via higher premiums. They don't feel the impact, we do.

I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.


not anymore....
 
2013-04-25 12:42:43 PM

Slaves2Darkness: We should round up these fatties and force them into camps and force them to exercise while at the same time reducing their calorie intake, Type 2 diabetes has been shown to respond very well to weight loss. Maybe we should call them Freedom through exercise camps.


or we could call them: Arbeit lässt Sie verlieren
 
2013-04-25 12:42:52 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: No, but the government has a vested interest in keeping it citizens healthy for a variety of reasons.

So.... start regulating personal diet and exercise habits?


Making it more affordable for healthy choices isn't a bad thing.  The government doing PSA commercials on the benefits of healthy living and the detriments of living off the dollar menu at your local fast food place.  It's a problem.  It costs money to solve these problems.  Yes, tax money.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:05 PM
Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.
 
2013-04-25 12:43:15 PM

skullkrusher: GoldSpider: I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.

not anymore....


Thanks 0bama!
 
2013-04-25 12:45:05 PM

Kibbler: Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.


I haven't had fast food in years. I think the last time I was actually even in a McDonald's was over 2 years ago when the wifey was preggo and had a craving for a McFlurry. I hear the same commercials. Some brains are more easily washed than others it would seem
 
2013-04-25 12:45:33 PM

GoldSpider: What would such a ban accomplish, subby?


Lower health care costs for non-fatasses?
 
2013-04-25 12:46:39 PM

FarkedOver: Making it more affordable for healthy choices isn't a bad thing.


We already have that; it's called SNAP.  The problem isn't that there isn't money for people to buy healthier food, it's that many urban areas do not have access to a real grocery store.  That's a problem that can't be solved simply by giving people more money.

FarkedOver: The government doing PSA commercials on... the detriments of living off the dollar menu at your local fast food place.


Which would require politicians to get their hands out of the fast food companies' pockets.  Again, good luck with that.
 
2013-04-25 12:46:43 PM

Stone Meadow: Medical economists are divided on this issue, noting that healthy lifestyles spread costs over more years, but end up costing about the same as unhealthy lifestyles that result in early deaths.


What's the boundary of costs?

Poor lifestyle choices are often passed on by example to the next generation -- smoking a notable example of government making it harder to smoke and thus seems to have impacted new smokers taking up the habit. Part of government's role is keeping its citizens healthy -- and thus productive -- vs. a burden.

I'm all for government making it harder to be stupid.
 
2013-04-25 12:47:44 PM

Free Radical: Lower health care costs for non-fatasses?


Except banning unhealthy sugary drinks served in large containers doesn't do anything to make it harder for people to get unhealthy sugary drinks.
 
2013-04-25 12:48:24 PM

GoldSpider: Which would require politicians to get their hands out of the fast food companies' pockets. Again, good luck with that.


I know it's tough and a pipe dream, but that's why I am a socialist :P I believe in overthrowing the capitalist system.
 
2013-04-25 12:48:43 PM
I know someone with diabetes who is on a bunch of medication. His doctor told him he could get off the meds if he improved his diet. He declined, because the meds work just fine and he can eat anything he wants and keep being obese.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:06 PM

Stone Meadow: Medical economists are divided on this issue, noting that healthy lifestyles spread costs over more years, but end up costing about the same as unhealthy lifestyles that result in early deaths.


Yes but the healthy person is able to work and contribute to GDP, whereas the "disabled" Rascal-bound fatty is contributing nothing.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:29 PM

odinsposse: cirby: soup:
Can you guess what the percentages are in reference to?

Obesity, obviously.

However, another way to describe it is "what happens when you follow the early-1980s government-designed food pyramid, AKA nutritional pseudoscience."

You actually think that our problem is the people too rigorously followed nutritional guidelines? Are you high?


So much THIS.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:35 PM

skullkrusher: Kibbler: Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.

I haven't had fast food in years. I think the last time I was actually even in a McDonald's was over 2 years ago when the wifey was preggo and had a craving for a McFlurry. I hear the same commercials. Some brains are more easily washed than others it would seem


So you don't immediately run out and do whatever your TV tells you?  Interesting.
 
2013-04-25 12:49:46 PM

GoldSpider: lohphat: The problem is the rest of us have to pay for their healthcare costs via higher premiums. They don't feel the impact, we do.

I'd wager that people with diabetes, like smokers, pay a higher insurance premium.


And diabetic amputees often end up on disability, which I pay for.

/Dad's diabetic and had been ignoring doctors and degrading for 20 years
 
2013-04-25 12:51:19 PM

The_Time_Master: Hows that low fat / high carb diet working for you, tubby?


THIS. Back several years ago when I became concerned about my weight approaching clinical obesity, I went on a low-fat, high-carb diet for about 8 months. Result? I couldn't get "full" so ended up eating too much and my BMI ballooned up over 30 into obese territory.

So I switched gears after reading Garry Taubs' book Why We Get Fat and What to do About It, and changed to a low-carb, high-fat diet. Result? I've lost over 40 lbs and am back in the normal weight zone; my blood chemistry is back to normal, and I feel great. I started riding my bike 10 miles to work several times a week and am fitter than any time in the past two decades.

Downsides? I get drunk very easily now, so avoid hard liquor and even most wine. Now days I restrict my drinking to very light beers, which is a bit of a pita for a northern California wine lover.
 
2013-04-25 12:51:24 PM

FarkedOver: I know it's tough and a pipe dream


To your credit, at least you acknowledge this.
 
2013-04-25 12:51:48 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: Making it more affordable for healthy choices isn't a bad thing.

We already have that; it's called SNAP.  The problem isn't that there isn't money for people to buy healthier food, it's that many urban areas do not have access to a real grocery store.  That's a problem that can't be solved simply by giving people more money.



I always hear this argument, and it's never well defined.  How does one define "access to a real grocery store?"  Is it having to take a bus to one?  Is it there not being an enormous grocery store with a nationally recognized name nearby?
 
2013-04-25 12:52:16 PM
In California, the percentage of employers who had health insurance or benefits for their workers went from 73% to 60% over the last ten years. And deductibles have gone up as well. But let the fat people keep being fat, it has no consequences for anyone else but themselves.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:30 PM

GoldSpider: Free Radical: Lower health care costs for non-fatasses?

Except banning unhealthy sugary drinks served in large containers doesn't do anything to make it harder for people to get unhealthy sugary drinks.


drinking a vat of Kool-Aid a day, still ok in Bloomberg's Apple.
 
2013-04-25 12:52:38 PM

Stone Meadow: Downsides? I get drunk very easily now, so avoid hard liquor and even most wine. Now days I restrict my drinking to very light beers, which is a bit of a pita for a northern California wine lover.


Same here.  I lost 30 lbs. and now I get buzzed after two moderately-strong beers.
 
2013-04-25 12:53:06 PM

Yanks_RSJ: skullkrusher: Kibbler: Ah yes, it's the "What the fark do I care about fatties, just let fatties eat themselves to death, they can just die in the street and their bloated corpses will eventually wither away, people should be free to make their own choices and not be brainwashed by hearing the same messages over and over again about what they should and shouldn't do, I'm lovin' it" thread.

I haven't had fast food in years. I think the last time I was actually even in a McDonald's was over 2 years ago when the wifey was preggo and had a craving for a McFlurry. I hear the same commercials. Some brains are more easily washed than others it would seem

So you don't immediately run out and do whatever your TV tells you?  Interesting.


it takes a monumental effort not to fall prey to their subliminal messages about how I'm lovin' it but no, that shiat is nasty
 
2013-04-25 12:54:27 PM

soup: Lord_Dubu: Or... we could pressure our politicians to stand up to the Corn lobby, who thanks to government subsidies for planting corn (because it was going to make us less energy dependent) shove a diabeetus inciting product into just about every processed food sold in the country.

1) Remove subidies
2) See less corn syrup in processed food
3) See price of processed food rise
4) See healthier options now equally affordable
5) See diabeetus rates drop over time

No wait, that would take money from politician pockets and be less visible stunt legislation for "Oh look at me I'm fighting fatties!" politicians.

Yeah because the mayor of NYC has the power to introduce federal legislation. And damn him for trying to do anything at all within his power to try to help.

I agree that only banning certain sized sugary beverages is dumb, though. Maybe a tax on those drinks would be a better alternative, but the soft drink companies fight that tooth and nail.


I'm not a big fan of using the tax code to drive us towards desired behavior like cattle. I know personal responsibility is lacking in this country, but taxing something because it's frowned upon goes against the freedom we should be enjoying as Americans. Unfortunately, the more healthcare costs are put on the taxpayer, the more it will be used as a justification for controlling any behavior that affects our health -- ie everything we do.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences."
― P.J. O'Rourke

Of course, this is in the context of not depriving anyone else of life, liberty, or property.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:02 PM

skullkrusher: it takes a monumental effort not to fall prey to their subliminal messages about how I'm lovin' it but no, that shiat is nasty


I admire your restraint.  Many a night I find myself sitting in my apartment, then a Taco Bell commercial comes on and before it's even over my shoes are on and I'm trying to find my wallet to satisfy the craving I didn't know I had until TV made me aware of it.
 
2013-04-25 12:55:08 PM
Protip: it's not sugar; it's sugar combined with caffeine.

It doesn't matter where you get the caffeine from, either:  your morning coffee is sufficient for ~8 hours.  From there, any spikes or drops in blood sugar will be felt more intensely, with cell metabolisms chaotically responding to the disequilibrium.

The reason why caffeine is Evil in that it operates on cAMP, but most importantly it <i>directly</i> does so on <i>every cell in the body</i>, including pancreatic, hepatic, and, of course, neural. With distributed effect, it makes them all think they're needed immediately and must all increase their metabolisms.

In stark (and perhaps poetic) contrast, the original stimulant, cocaine, would have been much better for everyone, as a whole. Since it'spredominantly centrally-acting, you avoid much of the problem of screwing with your entire body's metabolic chemistry and instead subject it to the equivalent of prolonged fight-or-flight state.  The same applies for other, well-known stimulants like amphetamines and ritalin.  The practical upshot is that your body knows how to deal with this state and is specifically sensitive to it:  certain cells increase their metabolism, while others don't or reduce theirs.  You'd still have a sweet tooth, but it'd actually fade off correctly in response to increased blood sugar.

Naturally it'd still be bad for you to be in a prolonged stimulated state, but at least it'd be more... ermm... natural.  Well, at least it'd get you through the day without too much of a risk of losing a limb or your eyesight to neuropathy.

/fwiw
//I know... I know... tl;dr, but w/e...
 
2013-04-25 12:55:31 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I know it's tough and a pipe dream

To your credit, at least you acknowledge this.


"A revolution is impossible without a revolutionary situation; furthermore, not every revolutionary situation leads to revolution." -- Lenin

It will happen when it happens.
 
2013-04-25 12:56:21 PM

Daniels: How does one define "access to a real grocery store?" Is it having to take a bus to one? Is it there not being an enormous grocery store with a nationally recognized name nearby?


It's a combination of factors, several of which you hit upon.

In many urban areas, the only food store within walking distance is the local bodega.  Large grocery stores simply are not around.  And sure, you can take a bus to one, but then you're dealing with the bus schedules, as well as limited by the amount of groceries you can carry home.  These and many other factors, I'm sure, contributed to limited access.
 
2013-04-25 12:58:41 PM

Daniels: I always hear this argument, and it's never well defined. How does one define "access to a real grocery store?" Is it having to take a bus to one? Is it there not being an enormous grocery store with a nationally recognized name nearby?


Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

Here, "access" is defined as "you're able to successfully get there on a regular basis, and buy things" - if either one isn't true, you don't have access.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:00 PM

Stone Meadow: lohphat: ManateeGag: no one has a gun to your head when you select the 64 oz. UBER-GULP!   Adults should be able to make their own choices, instead of having the gubment tell them what choices to make.

The problem is the rest of us have to pay for their healthcare costs via higher premiums. They don't feel the impact, we do.

Medical economists are divided on this issue, noting that healthy lifestyles spread costs over more years, but end up costing about the same as unhealthy lifestyles that result in early deaths.


This.

Also:
BRAWNDO!

People are less educated and motivated to be healthy than ever in the past, and things that aren't good for you are more widely available, often cheaper.

Factor in that people like comfort and tasty things(and can find solace in such things when depressed), it's inevitable.
A lot of that depression is a societal problem in a world full of status symbols and competition and class jealousy/pompousity.

And evolution...We're wired to eat what we can and when we can, to seek that comfort or that high.  Some people can no more choose to live a super healthy life than others can choose to not be gay.
 
2013-04-25 01:00:36 PM

puppetmaster745: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions. That would be nice.


If only that increased "living wage" didn't increase the prices of everything you buy,


So that's what you choose to go with? Ok. It's almost as if you think prices haven't increased as it is.

As food prices increase and wages don"t(like since the late 80's) more and more people have to rely on shiatter and shiatter nutrional choices. It may not be the cause of obesity but it sure as hell doesn't help. That handy infographic from soup tells the story. And it's no coincidence that it follows the decrease in real wages either.

As far as seeing fat rich people, at least they can afford to be fat where the rest of us just die from lack of proper healthcare because were too farking poor to afford it.
 
2013-04-25 01:01:57 PM

GoldSpider: Daniels: How does one define "access to a real grocery store?" Is it having to take a bus to one? Is it there not being an enormous grocery store with a nationally recognized name nearby?

It's a combination of factors, several of which you hit upon.

In many urban areas, the only food store within walking distance is the local bodega.  Large grocery stores simply are not around.  And sure, you can take a bus to one, but then you're dealing with the bus schedules, as well as limited by the amount of groceries you can carry home.  These and many other factors, I'm sure, contributed to limited access.


How heavy is a bag of vegetables on the subway?  Or the bus?   Nobody in urban areas buys a carload of groceries at a time and everyone shops in limited amounts.
 
2013-04-25 01:02:07 PM

cirby: Of course, to make a difference, we're going to have to ban most other carbohydrates and sugars too.

And go after the folks who told us we needed to eat more of them.

Which will be convenient, since they're pretty much the same people who told us we need to cut back on sugar now.


Having gained 80lbs eating "the food pyramid" and losing 95 eating "exactly what my doctor said not to eat", I'm going to chime in a little.  The direction all along has been to get away from expensive meat with low profit margins and lots of hassle to cheap GMO grains and starches, which are highly profitable and very little hassle to grow and harvest.

Here are some goodies to tide all y'all along...

  - Fat is bad for you?  Nobody ever proved that.  Ansel Keys removed 17 of the data sets he had from 23 countries to 'prove' saturated fat causes heart disease.  The other 17 countries disagreed with that conclusion, and the correlation was stronger for heart disease and carb consumption than for fat consumption.
 - Salt is bad for you?  Nobody ever proved that either.  Many long running studies showed no correlation.  Intersalt threw out 40% of its data where people ate salt and were healthy, claiming they must be lying.  Well, someone is lying...
 - Red meat and processed meats like bacon bad for you?  The only problem with those studies is the subjects already had heart disease, smoked more, drank more and exercised less along with their red meat eating habits.  In studies where healthy people with good quality gut flora eat meat, they experience no ill effects.
 - Sugar is the #1 legal cash crop in the world.
 - Foods heavy in wheat, corn, soy, sugar, canola and soybean oil are extremely prevalent, cheap to make, and very profitable.  Also tasty.

Skip the carbs and sugar, eat your meat and fat like our grandparents and great grandparents did, whole fruits and veg, leave the grains and roots at the store.  Exercise a little.  Don't smoke.  Lose weight.  I ate my way into and out of diabetes and high blood pressure.

On the large soft drinks and choice and society?  I'm fine with people who want to make their own choices about what to eat and whether to have health insurance or not, as long as they're equally fervent in their acceptance of the consequences.  That means that if you drink 3 big gulps a day and develop a handful of illnesses from that like diabetes or high blood pressure, your insurance company doesn't have to pay for your coverage on those areas because the illness is willfully self inflicted.  They should also be able to routinely charge you more because your lifestyle choices mean you're less healthy, and that is your decision and your fault.  If you have no health care because you want that choice and you get sick and have no money to pay?  You stay home and accept the consequences of your choice.

I am constantly amused by people who like to live in the wonderful society we all have together, but decide they want to step outside of it to make their 'choices', but when the consequences come around, they're very interested in having society bail them out.  The guy yelling about socialism quite quickly shows up to the emergency room for his broken leg without any money to pay, and relies on everyone else who goes to that hospital to pay for his bills.  That latter part IS socialism.

So yes, if people feel that they need a soda large enough to drop depth charges into or to test a small outboard motor in, and they want to blow up to 300lbs and develop diabetes and high blood pressure and have strokes and heart attacks...good on you!  Make your choice.  Then stay home when you feel the heart attack coming on, because the insurance company shouldn't pay for your stupid choices, and the hospital and its other patients shouldn't either.  When people are too stupid to make good decisions, or deliberately make bad ones because they're all about being 'merican, someone has to reign them back into societal acceptance.  Your mortgage company requires you to have home insurance on your house.  Your car company requires you to have insurance on your car to go with your loan.  Most states require you to wear a seatbelt when you drive.  These things are in place because large numbers of people would choose to make a bad decision when they are unable to bail themselves out when the inevitable disaster comes along, and they would choose to make a bad choice if left to their own devices.  Yet other people and other organizations then have to foot the bill.

When you have significant cognitive dissonance in societal public health issues, someone has to act as the responsible parent.
 
2013-04-25 01:02:42 PM
Get fat, die, fark you. Your free to do so. We'll render your fat ass into soap for the poor.
Something something rules something profit
 
2013-04-25 01:02:58 PM

Yanks_RSJ: skullkrusher: it takes a monumental effort not to fall prey to their subliminal messages about how I'm lovin' it but no, that shiat is nasty

I admire your restraint.  Many a night I find myself sitting in my apartment, then a Taco Bell commercial comes on and before it's even over my shoes are on and I'm trying to find my wallet to satisfy the craving I didn't know I had until TV made me aware of it.


to be fair, beer commercials do that to me but that's because I'm a lush, not because the commercial has any real impact and I'm not buying the shiat they're advertising anyhoo
 
2013-04-25 01:03:02 PM

draa: As food prices increase and wages don"t


It's fair to point out as well that as wages have been kept artificially low productivity has more than doubled since that time period as well.

People are being paid less and forced to work more just to maintain an existence.
 
2013-04-25 01:05:32 PM

skullkrusher: because I'm a lush


Another reason to like you.  Dammit you make hating you a chore!

I don't drink beer though.  I drink vodka, comrade.
 
2013-04-25 01:06:09 PM
Ohhhhhhhh, nice. Another one of those "I have to be at the gym in 26 minutes, but before I leave I must tell you how to live your life" threads.

/f*ck off
 
2013-04-25 01:06:26 PM

FarkedOver: I don't drink beer though. I drink vodka, comrade.


Real Farkers drink Vodak.
 
2013-04-25 01:06:34 PM
odinsposse:
You actually think that our problem is the people too rigorously followed nutritional guidelines? Are you high?

No, it's not because of " rigorously followed nutritional guidelines" by the common people - it's because most people took the government's advice as something "scientific," and a lot of societal and regulatory changes followed. Like pushing people away from fats and protein and towards carbohydrates. Government-sponsored messages telling us to eat less meat and more bread to start, then additional, smaller changes along the way.

A lot of that is enforced in schools - which have a disproportionate effect. They definitely took the food pyramid as gospel - there were posters on the walls touting this silliness. Of course, that "lots of grains, lots of vegetables, some fruit, and very little meat" ended up as "eat bread and potatoes because they're cheap, add a side of stewed carrots, toss in one serving of sweet applesauce, and garnish it with a little meat, because meat is bad for you."

In other words, a pile of carbohydrates that don't make you feel full so you eat too much of it. Don't look at the "new" food pyramid charts, which have finally started to hedge a bit. Look at the old ones.

Then, of course, we have the myriad legal and regulatory additions, most of which pushed people down the "poor people get fat" road - and which were based off of the official wisdom of the food pyramid, which was completely wrong. Farming subsidies, et bloody cetera.

I remember when they started pushing the food pyramid. It has - in a very obvious way - changed how people eat. If you're looking for someone who's out of touch, look at the people who lived through it and never noticed. Try a mirror.
 
2013-04-25 01:07:26 PM

FarkedOver: skullkrusher: because I'm a lush

Another reason to like you.  Dammit you make hating you a chore!

I don't drink beer though.  I drink vodka, comrade.


beer and whiskey varieties mainly meself but I do have a fondness for black spiced rum as well.
 
2013-04-25 01:09:06 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I don't drink beer though. I drink vodka, comrade.

Real Farkers drink Vodak.


I'm not a real farker.  Look at me, I'm a no good liter. I am stuck here drinking vodka until I one day decide to go back to TF

skullkrusher: FarkedOver: skullkrusher: because I'm a lush

Another reason to like you.  Dammit you make hating you a chore!

I don't drink beer though.  I drink vodka, comrade.

beer and whiskey varieties mainly meself but I do have a fondness for black spiced rum as well.


I do like the whiskey.  A nice old fashioned after a long day of work always calms the nerves.
 
2013-04-25 01:10:30 PM

cirby: I remember when they started pushing the food pyramid. It has - in a very obvious way - changed how people eat. If you're looking for someone who's out of touch, look at the people who lived through it and never noticed. Try a mirror.


Somehow I survived the food pyramid, which was in place through most of my primary school years.  I started getting into trouble in my late 20s not by adhering too closely to the model, but by sitting on my ass in front of a computer screen and eating way too much frozen processed food and snacks.
 
2013-04-25 01:10:35 PM
FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.

Water is free.

And tea is cheap.

The real problem is, some people have no willpower, and no amount of taxing or banning is going to change that.

// used to drink six cans of dew per day, on average.
 
2013-04-25 01:11:41 PM

lordargent: FarkedOver: If only people were given a living wage and could afford to make healthier decisions.

Water is free.

And tea is cheap.

The real problem is, some people have no willpower, and no amount of taxing or banning is going to change that.

// used to drink six cans of dew per day, on average.


You expect me to drink tap water!? You're a farking barbarian!
 
2013-04-25 01:12:11 PM

FarkedOver: People are being paid less and forced to work more just to maintain an existence.


Yeah, I harp on that all the time. Low wages are one of my pet peeves and it pisses me off when people make excuses for low wages and why they should be kept low. And it's usually people that are making good money themselves.
 
2013-04-25 01:12:14 PM

FarkedOver: I'm not a real farker. Look at me, I'm a no good liter. I am stuck here drinking vodka until I one day decide to go back to TF


You and me both; I'm only "enlightened" for another week or so, off of the sympathy of a generous Farker in a Caturday thread.
 
2013-04-25 01:12:45 PM

koder: Protip: it's not sugar; it's sugar combined with caffeine.

It doesn't matter where you get the caffeine from, either:  your morning coffee is sufficient for ~8 hours.  From there, any spikes or drops in blood sugar will be felt more intensely, with cell metabolisms chaotically responding to the disequilibrium.

The reason why caffeine is Evil in that it operates on cAMP, but most importantly it <i>directly</i> does so on <i>every cell in the body</i>, including pancreatic, hepatic, and, of course, neural. With distributed effect, it makes them all think they're needed immediately and must all increase their metabolisms.

In stark (and perhaps poetic) contrast, the original stimulant, cocaine, would have been much better for everyone, as a whole. Since it'spredominantly centrally-acting, you avoid much of the problem of screwing with your entire body's metabolic chemistry and instead subject it to the equivalent of prolonged fight-or-flight state.  The same applies for other, well-known stimulants like amphetamines and ritalin.  The practical upshot is that your body knows how to deal with this state and is specifically sensitive to it:  certain cells increase their metabolism, while others don't or reduce theirs.  You'd still have a sweet tooth, but it'd actually fade off correctly in response to increased blood sugar.

Naturally it'd still be bad for you to be in a prolonged stimulated state, but at least it'd be more... ermm... natural.  Well, at least it'd get you through the day without too much of a risk of losing a limb or your eyesight to neuropathy.

/fwiw
//I know... I know... tl;dr, but w/e...


100% bullshiat, too.  At least about caffeine.  Can't speak to the other stuff.
 
2013-04-25 01:13:33 PM

lordargent: Water is free.


Water?  Like... from the toilet?
 
2013-04-25 01:13:41 PM

GoldSpider: FarkedOver: I'm not a real farker. Look at me, I'm a no good liter. I am stuck here drinking vodka until I one day decide to go back to TF

You and me both; I'm only "enlightened" for another week or so, off of the sympathy of a generous Farker in a Caturday thread.


I'm sure the TF discussion threads are too highbrow for me any how.....
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report