OT: Sugar and lies

WarmBodies wrote: . . . "inherently more honest". I never said that (although the ones I work with seem to be inherently very honest, I would not generalize that).

I apologize if I misread your statement:

WarmBodies wrote: . . . I trust the business people I know more than I trust artists, monks and knitters. . . .

And as for:

WarmBodies wrote: . . . to remain bitter about businessmen, . . .

No reason for anyone to be bitter. But as the New Latin truism you quoted directs, it is important to try our best not to be gullible by swallowing unchallenged the claims of people trying to sell us a load of goods.

Personally I trust a stranger who is not trying to sell me something over the stranger who is, when choosing between strangers. One may be as dishonest as the other, but one has more of a known reason to be dishonest than the other. And that is something that, in my opinion, should always be taken into consideration, never ignored, when evaluating whom to lend my ears to.

But hey, maybe my having been raised in the mountains of Appalachia has something to do with my mind-set on such matters. History is seen from different angles from that perspective sometimes, I guess.

chunkyfrog wrote:Aside from sugar, there's plenty of sweet stuff around (for diabetics, dentist's kids, etc.)
Saccharin: --I hate the metallic aftertaste. It is cheeeeap, which is why you see it everywhere.
{{If you only see pink packets, you wonder if they ever taste the food--or if they even dare.}}
Blue packet, aspartame; better (is the bad press all true? That was years ago--but still in most sweet drinks.
(I guess that proves it's poison)
The other blue packet, Sweet One (acesulfame-potassium) better, but can't find it here.
--They never got their toe in the door in the US.
Yellow packet, better still, some rumors--no bad effects that I can tell.
Natural stuff: green packet (rebiana-stevia), orange packet (monk fruit-luo han guo) Pricey stuff.
Trying out the monk fruit, still like stevia better. Not getting rid of yellow yet.
Not enough research to commit to just one, so one here, one there,--dilute the hazards
The rainbow of sweet alternatives, I feel like having a sugar free caramel, but too much maltitol makes me waaay "regular"!

chunkyfrog,

You might be interested in the latest research, which indicates that sugar substitutes should be avoided as much as sugar, since the brain does not detect the difference and sends a message to your pancreas to get ready to release a lot of insulin just the same ("Here comes something sweet!!!"). The result is that we often overeat afterward to get a chance to use up that insulin that we put on high alert. There is more to it than that, but I'm just paraphrasing part of the argument.

Check out Dr Robert Lustig's book, "Fat Chance: The Bitter Truth About Sugar" (2013), for more complete argument.

Cheers,


RandyJ

Strike the gong for sugar:

Judge tosses Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary sodas one day before it goes into effect

Law ruled arbitrary and capricious

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/blo ... z2NGLSOrTw

That is very good, keep this Nanny Bloomberg out of your business.

Now mind you, I hope you will strictly limit your consumption of beverages containing any form of sugar. I do. Pure fruit juices included. But I don't need government to accomplish this.

WarmBodies wrote:Maybe the most important is "competition". If you lie and cheat, you will eventually be found out and your customers will choose the competition. Isn't that what we all do? Don't we try to spend our money with honest businesses and expose and shun the dishonest ones. The herd gets thinned and the average becomes more trustworthy.

You delude yourself. Sometimes the damage left in the wake of the failure of the dishonest company could have been avoided. Like for example, Enron. Thousands of people had their futures devastated by those crooks.

Another important factor has to do with the owners/managers and the kind of people they hire. Employees who will lie and cheat your customers, will lie and cheat you. You don't want these people on your staff and in your building. Owners/managers very much prefer to hire employees with high ethical standards.

I'll agree with this one.

I know our salesmen have told me many times that the worse thing they can do is to sell a product to a customer which is not in the customer's best interest. The customers aren't stupid. They figure it out and then - bye-bye - you lose the business and your competition gets it.

Only in businesses that depend on repeat orders from their customers. What is the homeowner to do when he finds out he was lied to and cheated, or given just plain incompetent service, when he installs a new heating system, or upgrades his windows? His decision to never again deal with that contractor means nothing when the contractor can just go on to the next customer and repeat the pitch.

Your free market capitalism idealism is laudable. It just doesn't cut it 100% in a world run by greed. That's why we need and have regulation. The first step to eliminating regulation is to eliminate unbridled greed. Think you can do that?

RandyJ wrote:
chunkyfrog,

You might be interested in the latest research, which indicates that sugar substitutes should be avoided as much as sugar, since the brain does not detect the difference and sends a message to your pancreas to get ready to release a lot of insulin just the same ("Here comes something sweet!!!"). The result is that we often overeat afterward to get a chance to use up that insulin that we put on high alert. There is more to it than that, but I'm just paraphrasing part of the argument.

I wonder about that Randy. I also drink a lot of decaf iced tea sweetened with Sweet 'n Low. It's very popular here, much less so in Connecticut.

If I drink a 20-ounce tea sweetened with sugar, I will definitely feel that "sugar crash" within an hour. But this doesn't happen with Sweet 'n Low. We keep that tea made up at home and consume a lot of it every week. I do eat a lot, but I am slim and active.

I hate to switch to water. Definitely doable, but let's not take all the little pleasures out of life.

If anyone has a link to the effect of Sweet 'n Low, I would appreciate sharing it with me.

Thanks.

jnk wrote:
Personally I trust a stranger who is not trying to sell me something over the stranger who is, when choosing between strangers.

That is just not logically true.

You hand over zero money to the first stranger. What kind of trust is that if you won't hand him money? It is no trust.

To the second stranger, you hand over your hard-earned money. The very fact that you hand over your money, sometimes very large amounts of money, is hard evidence that you trust the second stranger more than the first.

Only in businesses that depend on repeat orders from their customers. What is the homeowner to do when he finds out he was lied to and cheated, or given just plain incompetent service, when he installs a new heating system, or upgrades his windows? His decision to never again deal with that contractor means nothing when the contractor can just go on to the next customer and repeat the pitch.

Huh? If you need a new heating system, do you not talk to friends, neighbors, relatives, and find out which contractors are reliable and with which ones they have had bad experiences with?

Do you not think a HVAC company depends on their reputation to stay in business and make a profit?

You are trying to set up situations in isolation to prove a very weak point.

That's why we need and have regulation.

I read the last three pages of posts and not a single person called for no regulation. You afraid someone is pushing for a society without protection of rights? Or just an easy way to argue against capitalism and markets?

From animal studies:

"Diet drinks cause the brain to receive unreliable cues to a meal’s calorie count . . . the brain learns to link sweet-tasting foods passing through the mouth with the subsequent release of calories in the gut. But when that dietary signal becomes untrustworthy, with sweetness sometimes indicative of incoming energy, other times not, the brain abandons sweetness as a gauge of expected calories. By the time the brain figures out how much energy it has gotten in any given meal, animals who had downed sugary foods will have overeaten. Mixed caloric messages from sweeteners can also mess with the hormonal milieu that normally signals when it is time to push back from the dinner table. For instance, a key satiety hormone known as GLP-1 was inappropriately low after sugary meals in rodents that had, over the course of several weeks, received erratic clues to the energy associated with sweetness. Low GLP-1 led to elevated blood sugar, even though the animals’ production of insulin — secreted to manage blood sugar — remained normal . . . If the same thing happens in people, then artificial sweeteners could prove a double whammy for overweight diabetics who often turn to the sweeteners to help control their waistlines and blood sugar. . . ."

http://facweb.northseattle.edu/twkaufma ... e_News.pdf

ChicagoGranny wrote:Strike the gong for sugar:

Judge tosses Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on large sugary sodas one day before it goes into effect

Law ruled arbitrary and capricious

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/blo ... z2NGLSOrTw

That is very good, keep this Nanny Bloomberg out of your business.

Now mind you, I hope you will strictly limit your consumption of beverages containing any form of sugar. I do. Pure fruit juices included. But I don't need government to accomplish this.

I was listening to NY1 last week and they stated that since Bloomberg became mayor (2002?), his net worth increased to $27 billion from $4 billion. They pointed out that we had a very bad recession during this time and rhetorically asked the viewers if their portfolios had done so well.

The left is drooling "greedy businessmen" down their chins all day long. If they want to see really massive greed, visit state capitols and D.C. Yes, they will also see there some crony businessmen in bed with the people we elected to represent us.

jnk wrote:From animal studies:

"Diet drinks cause the brain to receive unreliable cues to a meal’s calorie count . . . the brain learns to link sweet-tasting foods passing through the mouth with the subsequent release of calories in the gut. But when that dietary signal becomes untrustworthy, with sweetness sometimes indicative of incoming energy, other times not, the brain abandons sweetness as a gauge of expected calories. By the time the brain figures out how much energy it has gotten in any given meal, animals who had downed sugary foods will have overeaten. Mixed caloric messages from sweeteners can also mess with the hormonal milieu that normally signals when it is time to push back from the dinner table. For instance, a key satiety hormone known as GLP-1 was inappropriately low after sugary meals in rodents that had, over the course of several weeks, received erratic clues to the energy associated with sweetness. Low GLP-1 led to elevated blood sugar, even though the animals’ production of insulin — secreted to manage blood sugar — remained normal . . . If the same thing happens in people, then artificial sweeteners could prove a double whammy for overweight diabetics who often turn to the sweeteners to help control their waistlines and blood sugar. . . ."

http://facweb.northseattle.edu/twkaufma ... e_News.pdf

Thank you. As long as I stay in my current shape (slim and somewhat muscular), I am not going to worry about my iced tea intake.

Boyce wrote:

jnk wrote:
Personally I trust a stranger who is not trying to sell me something over the stranger who is, when choosing between strangers.

That is just not logically true.

You hand over zero money to the first stranger. What kind of trust is that if you won't hand him money? It is no trust.

To the second stranger, you hand over your hard-earned money. The very fact that you hand over your money, sometimes very large amounts of money, is hard evidence that you trust the second stranger more than the first.

You missed my point, I'm afraid. Probably my fault.

It was about all people trying to sell me something--not just people I actually do business with.

I was playing off the phrase "buyer beware," which has a different meaning from "human beware."

A person who gives me unsolicited advice and won't make money off me if I follow it has my ears over someone whose stated purpose in the interaction is to sell me something. That is why I trust the opinion of the person I hire to inspect the house I am considering buying over the person who is actually trying to sell me the house. One makes his money regardless of what choice I make. The other stands to benefit financially from what I decide.

Regardless, I was providing the reason for my views, so it is OK that you are not able to grasp the logic I choose to use. I respect your right to choose your own form of logic in your choices in whomever you trust in any given situation. I was just stating my thought process in evaluating the value of what strangers say in everyday situaitons about my purchasing choices. I can choose to trust a businessman, or that businessman's competition, or a relatively neutral party, financially speaking. You might choose to trust one of the sellers' opinions more than the person not selling.

I trust your judgment for your purchases, but not for mine.

Here's a link.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2660468/
The key word is "associated". (not "causal".) There is a difference.
In other words, the connection is just as easily behavioral as chemical.
Moderation is key, and if one uses massive quantities of diet drinks to wash down equivalent amounts
of high-calorie "food"; even a ninny can interpolate the result.

Boyce wrote: . . . I am not going to worry about my iced tea intake.

Hey. It's Atlanta. GOTTA have sweet tea, one way or another, right?

Dr Robert Lustig's interview with Diane Rehm is here in the form of a transcript: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013- ... sity-and-0

You can also click on "Listen" for the podcast here: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013- ... sity-and-d

I found it interesting. The topics we've been discussing in this thread are all there.

Boyce wrote:Huh? If you need a new heating system, do you not talk to friends, neighbors, relatives, and find out which contractors are reliable and with which ones they have had bad experiences with?

Do you not think a HVAC company depends on their reputation to stay in business and make a profit?

You'd be surprised. When your furnace dies in the middle of winter, or you AC dies in the middle of summer, one is not inclined to spend a week talking to friends and neighbors about who they should call.

We have in this area a dealer who does a lot of advertising, and does a lot of business. My HVAC nephew has on a number of occasions been called in when the system that other guy put in 6 months ago just doesn't seem right. He has found disconnected ducts, undersize ducts, undersized furnaces or ac units, and so forth. When the homeowner finds out the money he saved with the "we always beat their price" guy bought him shoddy work, or worse yet, wasn't told about the energy credit rebate he could have gotten with another unit, it's too late. There is one business locally who had no idea the ducting was installed incorrectly until their AC unit failed and called in my nephew to give them a quote on a new system. He installed the same size, or smaller unit, corrected the ducting, and the building was nicely cooled for the first time since it was built about 10 years earlier.