Here's the study he's talking about in the video: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1311889?query=featured_home&#Results=&t=articleBackground

It looks like a legitimate study, but being correlational it should be taken with a grain of salt *snare drum, splash cymbal* As corrolation cannot show causation.

They seem to control for various factors like age, cholesterol level and previous hypertension too, so they don't appear to be fudging any results.

Perhaps I could argue they aren't measuring salt intake, but rather sodium excretion, and estimating intake based on urine samples. So there is potentially a huge difference in diet - a lot of the participants were from Asia, where they don't tend to use table salt (they use soy sauce instead) And even though it's still high in sodium, soy sauce could be going through a different process inside the body. (Similar to how sugar doesn't cause an insulin spike when it's in fruit form, but does when it's refined form). It's possible that the salt from soy could be passing through the body rather than settling in the blood stream. I'm just speculating. Or perhaps they are also eating other foods which are protective against moderate salt intake, allowing more of it to be excreted than absorbed.

Either way it's very interesting to me :-)

What I would like to see is a study on foods, rather than ingredients to get a better picture. Because humans don't usually eat individual minerals, and combinations of minerals seem to act differently in the body.


I guess what it's all saying though is if you are healthy, then 3-6g of salt is fine, but once you are at risk of CVD you need to back off in order to reverse the damage. But CVD is of course not the only disease people need to be careful about (although it is the #1 we should be worrying about), but salt also feeds various cancers etc.

It eats, and excretes less and leaves a smaller eco footprint? But it's the size of a hippo?

Nono, you gotta courtesy flush. That's where you flush right after finishing the excretion phase and before beginning the clean-up phase. It gets rid of a lot of the smell-causing material and the excretion isn't aerosolized because it's blocked by a large mass (at least in my case..)

Of course, the courtesy flush might just be deadly with a toilet like this but... y'know, you win some, you lose some.

Onto a secondary topic, it includes the "media frenzy" and the contract clauses that force players, coaches, and others to appear before the media... Plus the media in general, when it comes to the Superbowl (but, this has to do with our country; or at the least certain segments and populations of our country). But, really it's about the general stupidity and levels we have turned this ONE event into!

Only a few interviews are worth looking at typically and they tend to be AFTER a game, not before it (as that amounts to "what ifs", "probably might", "we sure can try", and "if I win, I'll go to 'insert Measleland or another place here' with my wife/kid/family/parrot"). I absolutely hate the fourteen hour pre-game show that the NFL and the channel hosting this *thing* that apparently people watch, that is quite like a: "super-fabulous-orgasmic-serotonin ovulating-dopamine excreting-heroine junkie nerve conduction transfer-fourteen people high at a rave experimenting in an orgy with all the holes and toys available"... OK, so maybe that is a bit too far, but still...! It really is the most "grandiose" setups for a game, that doesn't need such a grandiose setup.

The should just make it a damned national holiday already--everyone already stays home or is basically forced to, since one half of their family is probably glued to the TV for quite awhile.. Although I know we always "had" these interviews on the TV, but we never really listened to them, because they bring out 40 people who essentially ALL say the same thing (the only difference is if it is a different team and or if they are extremely religious--they will then tell you how their team will win, "...no matter what...", and then if they are religious proceed to randomly give you the, "God is on our side...", mantra...which always made me laugh--literally, out-loud).

Then they cut back to the ex-coach's and arm-chair quarterbacks who have been given a one day opportunity to tell the world what they think, and how he game will go (and it never does).

Needless to say, I HATE, with a passion, the "pre-game show" (which didn't exist in it's ridiculous form for a VERY longtime until the late 80's and early 90's). I'd rather them move all of their prime-time TV shows that will not be shown that night, due to the game, to that period of the day and let us watch that instead before the game (then they can give us a modest 45-30 minute pre-game; not this 5-hour marathon of ads and marketing, with a bunch of talking faces trying as hard as they can to make a name for themselves in that time-span).

Only people like "Beast Mode" can save that time allotment and make it worthwhile (if you think it is "entertaining", you REALLY need to stay away a bit from Football, and I'm saying that as a concerned friend...)--because right now, although a lot of people flip their TV over to the channel with it on...it is a massive waste of money and time--that somehow generates massive amounts of money (talk about "very careful" and "orchestrated" money setups and schemes; but luckily they have idiotic companies paying them gigantic sums of money for their commercials to air...even before the game comes on...). And, I wish people wouldn't just flip over to it, to have it on in the background (as most of the time I've noticed, whether it's a game at my house, someone else's OR an actual Superbowl party--no one watches that crap, it just sits on that channel...making them "think" they are getting ratings, but they actually aren't. It's kind of like saying that people go to Tailgate parties to park cars and see how neat the cement is...

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

thank you so much for the quality my friend.
i wish i had your agile and quick mind.
i have such an admiration for how you think and express yourself.
i tend to get caught up in my own ramblomatic rants,where almost always my point gets lost in my own facile excretions.

My taste buds tell my brain that the various flavors of meats are akin in complexity to that of cheeses, yeasts, glandular excretions, etc. that the world's variety of free-range edibles have to provide...for sustenance per availability and desire.

I will not go out of my way to shoot game or foul unless the net return will be me not having to do it again for a long time, i.e. freezer handy, prey is assured. Don't enjoy the kill. Would rather buy it processed having been culled, sometimes got it from food pantries in mountainous regions through road-kill-clearing by the highway department.
Ducks ok, love dove, rabbit, deer and elk, bison and buffalo (thank you white man for killing-off a perfectly good food source)...just don't like pluggin' em even though it's fast, easy...hate the cleaning and dressing mostly, and not fond of killing things I don't wanna eat....oh, and @ Michaldaruk & carnivorous...I'd eat long-pig, but only if I absolutely had to and could slow-smoke it...Oh, and better if I'd known them while alive..I'd probably eat a vegetarian first...

Is that Melanie Philips on the other end of the table? Did she excrete more of her warmongering dribble on Iran again?

>> ^jimnms:

Caffeine is not a diuretic.

“In the 10 studies reviewed, consumption of a caffeinated beverage resulted in 0 to 84 percent retention of the initial volume ingested, whereas consumption of water resulted in 0 to 81 percent retention.”
Another study, in the same journal in 2005, involved scientists following 59 active adults over 11 days while controlling their caffeine intake. They were given caffeine in capsule form on some days and on other days were given a placebo. Researchers found no significant differences in levels of excreted electrolytes or urine volume. [source]

>> ^jimnms:

Caffeine is not a diuretic.

“In the 10 studies reviewed, consumption of a caffeinated beverage resulted in 0 to 84 percent retention of the initial volume ingested, whereas consumption of water resulted in 0 to 81 percent retention.”
Another study, in the same journal in 2005, involved scientists following 59 active adults over 11 days while controlling their caffeine intake. They were given caffeine in capsule form on some days and on other days were given a placebo. Researchers found no significant differences in levels of excreted electrolytes or urine volume. [source]

Caffeine is not a diuretic.

“In the 10 studies reviewed, consumption of a caffeinated beverage resulted in 0 to 84 percent retention of the initial volume ingested, whereas consumption of water resulted in 0 to 81 percent retention.”

Another study, in the same journal in 2005, involved scientists following 59 active adults over 11 days while controlling their caffeine intake. They were given caffeine in capsule form on some days and on other days were given a placebo. Researchers found no significant differences in levels of excreted electrolytes or urine volume. [source]

I know what its based on, I agree. I just think you are lame for seeking it out. could be breathing the fresh air, watching birds, but spending time getting to level 115 then 130. Keep on truckin !

I just ate a bowl of Pea soup, when I shit it out in seven hours I will be quoting your name. It is fantastic excreting pea soup. Fantastic.

It's a teaser much like the Cloverfield "trailers" and I think it looks great. You don't have to make sense of a trailer, it's better that a little mystery is left in for the final film.
>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^gwiz665:
I, for one, have huge blue balls for this movie.

Well then maybe you can explain this horrible preview to me ? because I watched it thrice now and it still reeks of ass' excretion.

>> ^gwiz665:

I, for one, have huge blue balls for this movie.


Well then maybe you can explain this horrible preview to me ? because I watched it thrice now and it still reeks of ass' excretion.

http://videosift.com/video/Mendenhall-humps-Roethlisberger

I have linked this vid back to this one. Same game. Same weird attempted and actual exchange of body excretions. Wtf.