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.

Why do the two possible scenarios need be: 1. He was killed in the raid or 2. He was not killed, and is still free?

More likely than 2., is that 3. he was CAPTURED and is in custody.

He can not prove his metabolism to the world if he is dead or captured.

You do not need to be crazy to believe this 3rd scenario is possible.

He is surely not free, you would be crazy to believe so. We will never know if he is dead or in custody, and it is plausible that the government would lie about this detail.

I miss my old metabolism

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love it when you talk about bonding, fap fap fap.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^deathcow:
> If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day.
Fluorine bound into Fluoxetine is a lot different than fluorine bound into fluoride. You can eat all the salt you want but eating elemental chlorine and elemental sodium would kill you and light you on fire. Groaningly bad that he would equate drinking fluoride to being the same as eating Fluoxetine.

Yea, people seem to think of chemistry like cooking, where a molecule is just a loose collection of ingredients.

When people talk about the health risks of "fluoride" they're usually talking about Sodium Fluoride, which is an ionic compound and splits into Na+ and F- when dissolved in water (the negatively charged fluorine ion is called "fluoride").
Excessive amounts of fluoride (well above what is generally in tap water) can lead to severe health problems. Perhaps lower amounts cause problems too, but the evidence is less clear.
Prozac contains three covalently bonded fluorine atoms which do not split off when being metabolized. Prozac has it's own health impacts, but not because it produces fluoride ions.



Sorry for leaving you in an excited state... I understand it raises the potential for sudden discharge. ;-)

I love it when you talk about bonding, fap fap fap.

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^deathcow:
> If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day.
Fluorine bound into Fluoxetine is a lot different than fluorine bound into fluoride. You can eat all the salt you want but eating elemental chlorine and elemental sodium would kill you and light you on fire. Groaningly bad that he would equate drinking fluoride to being the same as eating Fluoxetine.

Yea, people seem to think of chemistry like cooking, where a molecule is just a loose collection of ingredients.

When people talk about the health risks of "fluoride" they're usually talking about Sodium Fluoride, which is an ionic compound and splits into Na+ and F- when dissolved in water (the negatively charged fluorine ion is called "fluoride").
Excessive amounts of fluoride (well above what is generally in tap water) can lead to severe health problems. Perhaps lower amounts cause problems too, but the evidence is less clear.
Prozac contains three covalently bonded fluorine atoms which do not split off when being metabolized. Prozac has it's own health impacts, but not because it produces fluoride ions.

>> ^deathcow:

> If you take the recommended daily dose, it puts you at about 1.6mgs of fluoride a day.
Fluorine bound into Fluoxetine is a lot different than fluorine bound into fluoride. You can eat all the salt you want but eating elemental chlorine and elemental sodium would kill you and light you on fire. Groaningly bad that he would equate drinking fluoride to being the same as eating Fluoxetine.


Yea, people seem to think of chemistry like cooking, where a molecule is just a loose collection of ingredients.


When people talk about the health risks of "fluoride" they're usually talking about Sodium Fluoride, which is an ionic compound and splits into Na+ and F- when dissolved in water (the negatively charged fluorine ion is called "fluoride").

Excessive amounts of fluoride (well above what is generally in tap water) can lead to severe health problems. Perhaps lower amounts cause problems too, but the evidence is less clear.

Prozac contains three covalently bonded fluorine atoms which do not split off when being metabolized. Prozac has it's own health impacts, but not because it produces fluoride ions.

The reason many people aren't effected by caffeine is the amount they have. An average person can have 200-400mg of caffeine, 2-4 cups of coffee and feel no effects. This is because it is a naturally occurring stimulant, meaning our bodies process it very easily. It may have an effect of a slight raising of your blood pressure or heart rate, but it will return to normal very quickly and most times will go unnoticed. It "wakes you up" in the morning because of that slight increase in your body's metabolism. This speeds up the internal process our bodies go through from a prolonged sleep stage to an awake stage.

It's quite common for someone to feel no effect from caffeine and even the sleepiness is the body recovering from the slight "boost" much like being tired after running or most any activity. The times people feel jumpy is from an overload of caffeine. Caffeine replaces our body's self made hormones which get us going. Prolonged exposure to caffeine is why people get that big downer. You stop caffeine and your body doesn't know any better so it doesn't make anything and bam, no energy. Just try to avoid levels over 600mg of caffeine and you should be fine!

Crappy science on this vid, depending on the antibiotic there can be pretty severe interactions. Metabolic and liver issues are way at the top of issues:

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=A7B5A5594CC2FFDBED4D7A78457C6969.inst3_3a?docId=5002334780
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics-and-alcohol/AN01802
http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/5144.html

There is parts of this video that I agree with, and parts with which I must disagree. The truth is that yes, there are antibiotics and drugs that do not interact with each other when mixed with alcohol, but here is the reason with which it is advised against mixing the two:

Many, many drugs are metabolized in the liver. One of the many effects of acute alcohol intake will put a strain on your liver and occupy enzymes that would be otherwise used for digestion of the drug you are taking. This has an effect on the availability the drug to bind to these and alters the number of metabolites of that drug in the body (either increased or decreased).

Changes in the blood concentration of active metabolites may alter the effects and side-effects of that particular drug. This may reduce drug effectiveness or increase rate and intensity of side-effects.

Of course none of this may happen, but we advise you NOT to mix these drugs with alcohol in order to ultimately reduce the risk to the patient.

>> ^rychan:

The advice might be good but the reasoning they're using to justify it is false. Things are much more complicated than they make out.
Why not take their third grade reasoning to the extreme and propose that you should run with zero bounce? If you tried this you'd find it requires very unnatural and inefficient movements.


Things don't need to be complicated if you don't go into the metabolism side of things. Running is different from walking in that both of you feet are off the ground at the same time. You're basically flying through the air most of the time, or should be. Bouncing too much shows that you make contact with the ground for too long. By simply landing on the balls of your feet (not your toes or, worse, your heels) without trying to push yourself forward (i.e. with legs straight down under you at the instant your whole foot is contacting the ground and then pulling the foot up instead of pushing out with your toes), you can create a spring like reaction in your leg muscle that will give you just enough vertical energy to stay level with the ground, reducing the bounce to a theoretical minimum of zero. What makes you advance forward is your previous momentum combined with gravity making your slightly forward-leaning body fall at an angle (the lean will need to be more pronounced the faster you want to run). With good form, you can easily create a very constant stride without bounce since you do not rely on your leg muscles to propel yourself, but only to keep you up in the air for the longest possible proportion of time (resulting in less friction, more energy transfer from gravity, etc.). Look at horses : their hind legs are bent backwards for propulsion, yet they still have no bounce (we feel a bounce because we ride in the middle, but in absolutes they do not bounce). Plus, their front legs always hit the ground at a 90 degree angle right under them. In human terms, the front legs are our legs, the hind legs are our slight forward lean. If we had not adapted this way, we'd either be running like kangaroos, i.e. by actually bouncing, or we'd not be able to run at all, like monkeys.

tl;dr : landing on the balls of your feet keeps you in the air at a stable, constant height; leaning slightly forward allows gravity to pull you forward.

Walking though is very different. Here you want the pendulum effect created by the arms to conserve energy, but the same principle applies for maximum efficiency : land with the legs at 90 degrees to the ground, under your center of gravity and don't push with your toes. Of course there are ways to walk/run faster with less efficiency, it all depends whether you're in a marathon or a race.

>> ^Sagemind:

After ripping my knee out in a dirt-bike accident (think snapping a chicken wing in two), I don't run.
Having said that, I think it's crazy that man has reduced a basic function of the human body down to scientific knowhow! Should we tell our tribal ancestors they've been doing it all wrong all this time??


On the contrary, they're the ones who have been doing it right all along. Mass consumerism + fad marketing destroyed our feet with "running" shoes. Plus, scientists have assumed for a long time that everyone knows instinctively how to run properly. They were wrong. Just as we learn how to walk we must learn how to run. Some can learn on their own, some copy others like Angua1 and some just can't run or end up copying bad running forms from people who "unlearned" how to run thanks to padded "running" shoes. Our ancestors learned how to run properly because for them it was a vital skill, just like using a bow, a knife or a sling. Plus they didn't have padded shoes, medical treatment or motorized locomotion so running badly was not an option if they were to survive long enough to reproduce.

That said, the video is bullshit. Go look for the POSE method of running for accurate information. This method also addresses the crossover problems.

>> ^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?

Libertarians like voluntarism? Speak for you and myself maybe, but like religous people, leave out the masses of libertarians who do not like to volunteer.

You said, "...reasonable enough to make choices for themselves..." And then you said, "...I think they knowingly make bad decisions..." Wow, is that insane or what? Reasonable would mean they make bad decisions based on incorrect info but try to make the right choices. Unreasonable means they just f-ing do it regardless.

And lastly, many items corn-based are not soda products. It is a food that goes into many products---including the making of corn on the cob. I would agree with this video 100% if corn only made fucktose corn syrup, as I call it. But corn does not just make fucktose... Still, I agree with this video 95%! I want these bailouts, handouts, or cornjobs to end!

>> ^blankfist:
@<A rel="nofollow" class=profilelink title="member since April 27th, 2007" href="http://videosift.com/member/chilaxe">chilaxe, Libertarians don't like meritocracy. Libertarians like voluntarism. That is, they want people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.
I disagree that the masses aren't reasonable enough to make choices for themselves. I think they knowingly make bad decisions because the positive aspects of those decisions are higher than the negatives, or they make bad decisions because of other circumstances like comfort or the notion of getting ahead quickly, etc. Whatever the reason, people don't need an intelligent society designer guiding them. Common sense is enough to tell you breathing smoke isn't particularly healthy.
And cigarettes aren't 100% bad for you. If you mean they are damaging to health, well certainly that's true, but so is metabolizing food as it causes cell damage and just about everything else we do. But cigarettes don't automatically cause diseases like cancer or emphysema, and they don't necessarily cause health problems that require medical attention. In fact a lot of that is probably genetic. This is anecdotal, I know, but my grandmother smoked every day of her life and just recently passed away at 94. She also ate greasy foods probably with loads of trans fats.

"Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day."

@chilaxe, Libertarians don't like meritocracy. Libertarians like voluntarism. That is, they want people to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt others.

I disagree that the masses aren't reasonable enough to make choices for themselves. I think they knowingly make bad decisions because the positive aspects of those decisions are higher than the negatives, or they make bad decisions because of other circumstances like comfort or the notion of getting ahead quickly, etc. Whatever the reason, people don't need an intelligent society designer guiding them. Common sense is enough to tell you breathing smoke isn't particularly healthy.

And cigarettes aren't 100% bad for you. If you mean they are damaging to health, well certainly that's true, but so is metabolizing food as it causes cell damage and just about everything else we do. But cigarettes don't automatically cause diseases like cancer or emphysema, and they don't necessarily cause health problems that require medical attention. In fact a lot of that is probably genetic. This is anecdotal, I know, but my grandmother smoked every day of her life and just recently passed away at 94. She also ate greasy foods probably with loads of trans fats.

"Also, the more controlled society becomes, the more people get uncomfortable with it, so it doesn't seem like the modern world is very likely to experience a slippery slope 50 years down the road based on small increments of increased control that make sense in the present day."

No need to eat healthy. You age as your body metabolizes food anyhow, so what's the point?