I don't understand how this works. I read the articles and I am a little skeptical. I've designed fMRI and DTI algorithms for years and I don't see why they keep talking about fMRI and brain waves. fMRI is an activity map that is related to the hot spots in the brain where the hydrogen protons aligned by the magnetic field resonate to the frequency of the emitter (TR/Echo Time) and only show consumption of glucose (hydrogen protons motility) during a designed paradigm, which in this case would be having the subject watch a video. Diffuse Tensor Imaging will help map the neurons going there in case a surgical procedure is necessary, and that's about it. Extrapolating fMRI (a very coarse k-space reconstruction) to brainwaves (an EEG signal) and images sounds very suspicious to me, and nothing published so far explains how this is technically done. I understand the excitement and it certainly would be possible in the future, but under the current state of the art, I don't see how this is possible, especially with fMRI or Fractional Anisotropy.

Yeeeeeeah. No one's gonna pay attention to this.

That's why i'll go about this the smart why and just trick mofos in to eat and drink mainly glucose.

Interesting video nonetheless. =]

>> ^vaire2ube:

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...
Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...
Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.
It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".

. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."
Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"
A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.
In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."

Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.

Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.


There is not a scientific consensus about whether HFCS is worse than cane sugar. That Priceton paper is making big waves, but there are contrary viewpoints.

Reddit's AskScience forum had this discussion, which involves several relevant scientists:
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/djo8a/whats_the_deal_with_hfcs_vs_real_sugar/

Fructose is linked to heart disease, glucose is not.

This is due to the two different types of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) formed in the blood as the body metabolizes sugars. LDL formed by metabolizing glucose is large and buoyant, thus floating harmlessly through the blood. LDL formed by metabolizing fructose is smaller and denser, and more likely to get caught in the walls of the arteries, causing plaque buildup and leads to heart disease.

The only proper treatment for fructose intake is oddly the one thing abundant in all natural sources of the toxin: fibre.

http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth

The "Your body can't tell the difference" ad for corn sugar reminds me of the "I'm not a witch" ad...

Why bother bringing it up if there is no merit, etc...

Plus its been proven HFCS "corn sugar" is bad for you, and is just used because its a cheap thickening agent which is why you find it in products that don't even need it.

It's about money over your health, but "your body can't tell the difference".


. .. "in high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized."

Source: http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/"

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States."



Go to http://www.cornsugar.com and let them know you dont believe their ad.


Sugar is BETTER for you than "Corn Sugar", and always in moderation.

>> ^arvana:

The half-life of the transverse waves propagated from that slap indicate a damping factor of: FIRM.


You said exactly what I was going to post! So, instead...

In this new video being created by our highly skilled graduates; the camera speed will be slightly slower at 1000 FPS @1920x1080 (or higher if intended for use with IMAX or a screen over two meters) with a secondary stream containing a duplicate, but separate feed set proportionately two-centimeters apart from the other feed. Then slightly zoomed out at around a 5.7% overall frame increase in size and a slight 2° shift from the vertical, counter-clockwise. Then combine the two feeds to one feed, except beforehand, polarize the frames (or frame frequencies) 90° from the other (relatively). Hand out polarized glasses--that of course have a film matched to the polarized frequency. Then increase the overall playback time, matching with the framerate speed, to give a new perceived 30 minute length (20 seconds is ridiculous).

Then some 1960's or 1970's music can be added in (the beat of the music must match the wave speed; some "human intercourse" period film pieces may have the required music) to further increase the relation of wave propagation seen in the video demonstration. This will help add to the overall immersion and enjoyment of the experience.

Then, we suggest the use of lubrication (Group 5, with a Viscosity of 800cSt is recommended) and then use some transformational waves (many options are available) at a decent amplitude and frequency. One traditional method used is caused by simple human mechanical kinetic manipulation (flexing muscle groups) in a rhythmic horizontal/vertical oppositional motion spread out over a chosen time span. Speed, duration, and intensity are decided by the user or a human/non-human counterpart. Typically, this will propagate a strand of flagellates into a D-glucose polysaccharide chains in a combined structure for simple discontinuation and cleanup; then quickly proceeding on to the web browser and watching the next "sift*".

If "flagellate" reaction is not noticed or possible for you, please follow the yellow strip on the floor. On your way out you may participate in our free clinical study looking for medical problems. You will need to put on a special garment for the study, and you will receive a complimentary lollipop! Do not be disturbed if this reaction is not noticed as it is a well known and documented myth created by the sub-species that is the focus of our demonstration video. Do not be disturbed if you think you look like as said sub-species.

Thank you for watching our dissertation on wave propagation.
We look forward to our next project on fluid dynamics!


*sift, definition below

sift (sift)
verb. sift·ed, sift·ing, sifts
v.tr.
1. To put (flour, for example) through a sieve or other straining device in order to separate the fine from the coarse particles.
2. To distinguish as if separating with a sieve: sifted the candidates for the job.
3. To apply by scattering with or as if with a sieve: sift sugar on a dessert.
4. To examine and sort carefully: sift the evidence.
v.intr.
1. To make use of a sieve.
2. To pass through or as if through a sieve: a meal that sifts easily.
3. To make a careful examination: sifted through back issues of the magazine.

sift (suhifft)
noun. sift·ed, sift·ing, sifts, spelunking
n.wtf.
1. A video on the website called "Videosift™"; sometimes amusing.
2. A video not on the website called "Videosift™", fought over in a mating like ritual to become a sift.

>> ^conan:

useless without explanation. could also be a moby music video.


Well, being a biology professor let me try and help you out...

0:13 - 0:22 - mitochondria

0:23 - 0:29 shows glucose (long blue string) with associated phosphates floating in the cytoplasm. I believe those are phosphates (?) coming off as it enters the mitochondrion. Though there should only be 1 phosphate, so this may be incorrect.

0:30 - 0:32 show the extramembranous proteins on the exterior of the mitochondrion.

0:37 we enter the mitochondrion.

0:38 - 0:47 we float through the mitochondrion. Notice the green double-helixed DNA at the left and bottom of the screen. This is mitochondrial DNA. I believe those other colored things floating around are later molecules from the Krebs Cycle - they could be miscellaneous intermediary molecules such as oxaloacetate and citrate.

0:48 - 0:54 we see the cristae (inner foldings) of the mitochondrion with the transmembranous proteins along it. The small molecules floating around are ADP and ATP.

0:55 - 0:59 we see NADH and FADH2 floating to a transmembranous protein (purple) and becoming oxidized, losing their electron. The green/blue colored sea on the bottom of the screen is the membrane (phospholipids).

1:00 - 1:01 we flip to the opposite side of the membrane, to the outer membranous space. The tentacle-looking things is part of the membrane, the phospholipid bilayer.

1:02 - 1:07 I'm not entirely sure which part this is...if I had to guess I'd say it was an electron carrier.. perhaps ferredoxin transporting electrons from protein to protein in the electron transfer chain, which is why it glows (electron-rich) as it moves from protein to protein.

1:07 - 1:10 we see millions of protons flowing DOWN through the transmembranous proteins, into the outer membranous space (bottom) from the matrix (top). This creates a hypertonic concentration of protons in the outer membranous space.

1:10 - 1:14 we see ATP synthase, the main energy-producing enzyme that rotates on the cristae (part of the electron transport chain). This enzyme has a stationary portion and a rotating portion (purple and part of the brown at the top). When protons flow back into the matrix from the intermembranous space, ATP synthase rotates, creating energy. You can see the dull yellow-colored (energy-low) ADP getting transformed (being phosphorylated) into the bright white-colored (energy-high) ATP.

1:15 - 1:21 we see the phoshporylation of ATP up close. A phosphate is added to ADP to produce ATP. This is done by ATP synthase via the energy produced by the movement of protons.

1:22 - 1:29 just an overview of the whole phosphorylation process. You can see the energy-rich ATPs moving into the outer-membranous space through pores in the membrane.

1:30 - 1:32 shows a close-up of this ATP movement, to the outer-membranous space, and eventually out of the mitochondrion to be used by the cell for energy.

>> ^jwray:

Whether you feed lab rats a lot of sugar or feed them a lot of HFCS, they both get fat. It's almost the same effect.


It also comes with the added bonus of -15 ability points to cancer resistance. (I kid, I really have no idea if high dosages of HFCS increase susceptibility to cancer in humans but it does in rats, apparently cancer cells love to nom on fructose/glucose)

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^jwray:
I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.

Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.
edit because embed script failed...


Trying to support your position by linking a source that actually refutes your position is epic fail. The presenter in that video says sugar is the same as HFCS for all intents and purposes. He says the problem is fructose itself, which is present in both sugar and HFCS in nearly the same proportion (sugar is 50% fructose and HFCS is typically 55% fructose).

>> ^jwray:

I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.
The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.


Here you go:
http://videosift.com/video/Sugar-The-Bitter-Truth
A 1.5h long exposé on the danger of HFCS.

* edit because embed script failed...

I like the majority of his speech, but he's buying into the whole "HFCS is significantly worse than sugar" myth. The research doesn't support that. HFCS-55 is only about 10% worse than sugar because it contains 10% more fructose per calorie. Replacing HFCS with sugar in the modern diet would have a tiny benefit compared to just getting rid of sweeteners. If you absolutely positively have to use a sweetener, straight up glucose (aka dextrose) in a low % solution is fine.

The difference between a coke with sugar and a coke with HFCS is like the difference between a double quarter pounder with cheese and a double quarter pounder with cheese and a few bacon bits sprinkled on top.

>> ^teebeenz:

"For people who are worried about their health or their children’s health — and who isn’t, these days — the data suggest that the best choice is to reduce intake of all sweeteners containing fructose. That includes not only the evil HFCS, but also natural cane sugar, molasses (which is just impure cane sugar), brown sugar (ditto) and honey. Even “unsweetened” (no added sugar) fruit juices need to be considered when limiting your family’s fructose intake."
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=6501


But is that true? Sucrose is 50% fructose and 50% glucose when broken down, but is sucrose actually processed in that order: split the disaccharide and then digest individual sugars? (Your link says that this is the case. And it says unsplit disaccharides stay in the gut. What percentage does this happen to?) Is there proof that fructose alone is bad and that it's not the imbalance of excess fructose vs. sucrose that's bad, like omega-6 vs. omega-3 fatty acids? Is fructose from Coke, mixed with carbonic acid, processed the same way, at the same speed, as fructose from apple juice?

>> ^Simple_Man:

I can't say for certain, but I'm think this video will change my life. I've been trying to lose weight for ages, not drinking any coke, doing exercise etc., but I've never realized the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup in all foods. I wrote down those 4 tips that he suggested to losing weight, and I'll repeat them here for those who missed it. I'll certainly stick to it and see if it works.
1. Get rid of all sugared liquids: only water and milk. Fruits are fine, because it contains all the fibers.
2. Eat carbs with fiber, because fibers are awesome. Fibers: Lowers total and LDL cholesterol, reduces risk of heart disease
regulates blood sugar, and speeds the passage of foods through the digestive system
3. Wait 20 mins for second portions, so your satiety response can kick in.
4. Buy your screen time minute-for-minute with physical activity.
Some other points:
-a calorie is not a calorie: you don't do exercise to burn calories, but to increase metabolism
-fructose IS NOT glucose. A large amount of glucose is used by the rest of the body, meaning it burns much quicker. Fructose can only be metabolized in the liver, and it's a volume issue. It means a lot gets turned into fat, and in that process, blocks receptors to generate certain chemicals which tell your body to stop eating, causing a vicious cycle.
-be a fattie or fart a lot (from the fiber). Make your choice.


So, it's been a couple of months. I'm wondering how the changes went?

I can't say for certain, but I'm think this video will change my life. I've been trying to lose weight for ages, not drinking any coke, doing exercise etc., but I've never realized the prevalence of high fructose corn syrup in all foods. I wrote down those 4 tips that he suggested to losing weight, and I'll repeat them here for those who missed it. I'll certainly stick to it and see if it works.

1. Get rid of all sugared liquids: only water and milk. Fruits are fine, because it contains all the fibers.

2. Eat carbs with fiber, because fibers are awesome. Fibers: Lowers total and LDL cholesterol, reduces risk of heart disease
regulates blood sugar, and speeds the passage of foods through the digestive system

3. Wait 20 mins for second portions, so your satiety response can kick in.

4. Buy your screen time minute-for-minute with physical activity.

Some other points:

-a calorie is not a calorie: you don't do exercise to burn calories, but to increase metabolism

-fructose IS NOT glucose. A large amount of glucose is used by the rest of the body, meaning it burns much quicker. Fructose can only be metabolized in the liver, and it's a volume issue. It means a lot gets turned into fat, and in that process, blocks receptors to generate certain chemicals which tell your body to stop eating, causing a vicious cycle.

-be a fattie or fart a lot (from the fiber). Make your choice.

Okay..since my sarcasm didn't quite drive the point home, I'll explain why this is a misguided idea:

Tanning Salons
-Vitamin D is synthesized in the body after exposure to sunlight. Anyone living far enough from the equator is bound to be deficient in Vitamin D. In fact, go ahead and plot cancer incidence by latitude and you'll see what I mean. Vitamin D prevents cancer and heart disease.

Beef
- Read about Vilhjalmur_Stefansson. In the early 1900s he underwent a scientific study where he ate nothing but meat for a year...and came out healthier than when he went in. Also read about all-meat diets and ketosis. Prolonged ketosis is a cure for diabetes, heart disease and cancer - not to mention periodontal disease. In scientific studies, terminally ill patients who were so far gone they were beyond "medical science" had their tumors go into remission and even clear up completely on a ketosis diet. Cancer cells have a lot of insulin receptors - they respond to glucose, take away the glucose and the cancer starves. Read about it.

Pork
- Same as beef.

Alcohol
- In many countries, 1 in 3 people have some form of mental illness sometime in their lives. Alcohol helps a lot of people cope with society. How the hell do you think I cope with all the (50% of the population) sub-100 IQ zombies walking around?

Oil used for deep-frying
- Fat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol does not cause heart disease, nor is it a good predictor of those who will get heart disease. Only ~3% of arterial plague is cholesterol by composition - the vast majority is calcium. Vitamin D helps regulate calcium...this goes back to the tanning salons.

Gasoline -- especially because it gives people an incentive to WALK when they're going less than 2 miles to a store, instead of driving.
- I don't think the cost of gasoline has ever factored into a lazy persons decision of whether to walk. The burning of fossil fuels and the creation of air pollution is a national health hazard (akin to me walking up and dumping toxic waste on you) and so YES this should be taxed because pollution is a hidden cost of industry; but the funds shouldn't go to Medicare they should go to giant air-scrubbers which help de-pollute the air.

Coal
- Same as gas

Natural Gas
- Same as coal.

Sugar and High Fructose Corn Syrup, Junk Food in general, & Cigarettes
- Okay, maybe you have some kind of argument here because these are legitimately detrimental to your health, but only used in excess. So unless you find a way to tax "excess" or define "excess" I can't see an argument for taxing the stray cigarette or potatoe chip.