Started developing a taste for it at 16. Hung out with some buddies and we would cruise "the strip" at night in Easton PA. Northampton St. We would stop at Dunkin' Donuts and I was the only one who would drink soda out of about 5 - 6 of us. Peer pressure ya know.

So I started to develop a taste for coffee by adding lots of sugar and cream to it. I eventually worked my way down to just one creamer and no sugar.

So now I'll have at least one iced coffee with an espresso shot a day and hot coffee in the morning and later at night. Since I'm on call 24hrs a day I have no regular sleeping pattern. I also drink cold Arizona Green Tea with Ginseng and Honey. Good stuff.

To be fair there were quite a few fumbles, gaffes and contradictions.

Trump on the other hand was a deranged toddler on a sugar bender with no plan or cogent arguments.

Congratulations! Your video, Needs a Bit More Sugar, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 481 Badge!

Your video, Needs a Bit More Sugar, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I found it astonishing to learn that the depiction from HBO's Watchmen was, if anything, sugar coated and not an exaggeration at all.

Even if you get Wendys breakfast before it gets you, you get got. Wendys breakfast plays the long game when it comes to getting you.

Baconator 750 cal, 1750 mg sodium, 7g sugar
Lg Frosty ccino 310 cal, 41g sugar
Honey Butter Chicken Biscuit 500 cal, 1260 mg sodium, 9g sugar

Yes, they have lower rates. But the point isn't that the rates are the same (they're not), the point is that the rates are low enough to not have an immediate fear of them. An immediate fear would be unwarranted and irrational.

E.g. you probably don't fear dying every time you hop into a vehicle because it has a relatively low risk of killing you (even though the risk is much higher than that of being killed in a homicide by firearm). Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

You probably don't fear dying in a general accident (i.e. including all work place and public accidents together). Even though it represents about 170,000 deaths a year (an number so large it makes the topic of firearms deaths look like a joke), it is still a relatively low risk. Having an immediate fear of it would be irrational.

This is not to suggest that these things are not to be respected. We must try and reduce all mortality and morbidity. But you need to be effective at it. This is public health. You choose the method that will have the largest effect.

For example, you will have a bigger effect restricting sugar intake to reduce diabetes deaths, which outnumber homicide by firearm deaths by about an order of magnitude.

The majority of the 40k firearm deaths consist of suicides. There is an important distinction between homicide (the topic) and suicide. Don't mix them up if the topic is homicide by firearm.

Go look at what is actually killing people:

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_06-508.pdf

Don't sugar coat it, man.

You didn't dispute their science, did you? Are you pretending this was reviewed by outside scientists who aren't card carrying vegan zealots...or even by non contributors to the paper they've presented? Do you know who funded it, since that does matter? Any meat producers among them?
You know they neglected to include a list of possible conflicts of interest the authors had, too. Could that be because the vast majority made/make their living selling veganism in one way or another?

I gave specific points of contention with specific details of eat lancet including it's scientific validity, with specific data you failed to address at all.

I'm just pointing out the deficiencies in your movement's new attempt at science...it may have some good points none the less.

I'm much less concerned with the messenger than the science. Veganism pushes out these new claims so often that it takes an army to keep up with debunking them, it's no surprise some soldiers are less than perfect, I don't know these two enough to care....but do you contradict their article's scientific points, ignoring the authors likely bias?

All that said, I don't disagree that red meat once a week is a decent limit, or that less sugar and processed grain would be even more beneficial to average people's health (not everyone)...and that's far from suggesting veganism...but those three suggestions seem to be the main takeaways from the synopsis I've read, but the devil is in the details, which seem to need serious work.

Your video, Inferno: Dust Explosion at Imperial Sugar, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

It just sounded like things weren't moving along fast enough for you. I thought it was funny. I was gonna say cocaine but figured sugar was good enough.

Have you tried cutting back on sugar?

Pancakes don't have added sugar by default...

*comedy *health *food

My sugar level was on the borderline the last few years so I had to consume less sugars. Even breads have sugar. Argh!