|
ratbert90 posted:Because it doesn't. Carbs are counted completely different than sugar to the AHA. I understand their basically the same, the populace does not. You don't understand what you're talking about, since sugar is literally a carb. Because there's no different percentage to put than the percentage the total carbs have, which is defensible under current dietary science.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
fishmech posted:You don't understand what you're talking about, since sugar is literally a carb. You haven't answered why it would he a bad thing. You have answered why it would be arbitrary. The AHA suggests no more than 36grams of sugar a day, yet the 26 carbs on the bottle of orange juice are labeled as 9% of your daily value. So tell me how they are labeled the same? Oh wait they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:You haven't answered why it would he a bad thing. You have answered why it would be arbitrary. Nutrition labels should never be arbitrary, they're supposed to be based on the best possible scientific evidence. The AHA suggests that, but other entities do not say that's the actual recommended value nor is there is nearly enough reliable evidence out there to support making a daily value percentage based on that one entity's suggestion. Sorry that you want to do some dumb kneejerk labeling though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
Grognan posted:No Solar ever, someone might fall off of a roof. One person falling is too many. People dying, no matter the power form, is unavoidable. Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Nutrition labels should never be arbitrary, they're supposed to be based on the best possible scientific evidence. Your right, the WHO recommends no more than 25grams a day, lower than the AHA, which would turn that 9% into a 100%, but it isn't. Carbs are decidedly not labeled the same way as sugar.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Tias posted:People dying, no matter the power form, is unavoidable. Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability. Have you considered the environmental impact of constructing and maintaining enough solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower to actually meet needs? Are you considering the fossil fuels that will need to be used in setting up a "green" power solution? Do you have an accurate idea of what radiological hazards actually are and what they do? There is a huge amount of bad feelings that tend to replace information about actually how it breaks down in the end. Instead of understanding what the hell is going on, we have a bogeyman here. Might as well rail against chemtrails and vaccines for how dangerous they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Tias posted:People dying, no matter the power form, is unavoidable. Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability. I'm not sure if you're aware but current power solutions are actually doing considerable damage to the environment, and this is backed up with hard scientific fact, not wishy-washy nuclear paranoia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Tias posted:Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability. This is flatly untrue. Why do you insist on ignoring evidence? ratbert90 posted:Your right, the WHO recommends no more than 25grams a day, lower than the AHA, which would turn that 9% into a 100%, but it isn't. Carbs are decidedly not labeled the same way as sugar. Again, this is not actually supported nearly as well as the overall carb value, which is itself an underestimation for most people. They are in fact labeled the same way as sugar, since sugar is a carb, and you are currently angry because they're labeled the same way as sugars. Get your own dumb arguments straight at least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Tias posted:People dying, no matter the power form, is unavoidable. Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability. The material inputs and physical footprint of a renewable grid dwarf those of a nuclear solution. Animals and plants don't poo poo bricks over overblown radiation panic. There is no valid environmental argument against Full e: once you exclude arguments based on ignorance of actual radiation effects on the environment, ignorance of relative material inputs and land use for nuclear vs every other power, and ignorance of actual radiation vs. other energy source health impacts, the only coherent arguments against nuclear power are social and made by people who want to decentralise all the things for a more localised personal production of everything to make people feel ~connected~ to their resources. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:23
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Hydroelectric power has destroyed far more of the environment then 10 repeats of Chernobyl could.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This is flatly untrue. Why do you insist on ignoring evidence? If they were labeled the same way as sugar I would be fine. Are you actually saying that any health organization thinks that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Hell, I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably irrationally paranoid about nuclear power, but I'm not convinced it would not be an overall better solution to take all efforts put into nuke and coal and develop sustainable renewable sources. Anyway, this is a stupid (or perhaps too smart) derail, and I'll try going to the energy gen thread instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I honestly think the Jews spread all these obviously fake conspiracy theories so they can associate the people speaking out against them with chemtrails and poo poo and make them look stupid by association.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:If they were labeled the same way as sugar I would be fine. Are you actually saying that any health organization thinks that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value? Carbs ARE labeled the same way as sugar. You are demanding they be labeled differently by listing a different daily value for sugar instead of a single daily value for all carbs. Most world governments have health organizations behind their labeling requirements, they do not think there is sufficient evidence that specifically simple sugars need a separate value, the way saturated fats do within all fats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Carbs ARE labeled the same way as sugar. You are demanding they be labeled differently by listing a different daily value for sugar instead of a single daily value for all carbs. Are you saying that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value of sugar? Are you seriously saying that is somehow less arbitrary than labeling it in accordance to the WHO or AHA? Perhaps in the 200+ years of nutritional science they could have come up with a agrees upon number you would think? Also, if they were treated the same, why even put both on the label? FlapYoJacks fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Are you saying that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value of sugar? Are you seriously saying that is somehow less arbitrary than labeling it in accordance to the WHO or AHA? Perhaps in the 200+ years of nutritional science they could have come up with a agrees upon number you would think? What he's saying is that sugar is nutritionally identical to other carbs. You can have 288 grams of sugar in a day, but that's all the carbohydrates you can have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:What he's saying is that sugar is nutritionally identical to other carbs. You can have 288 grams of sugar in a day, but that's all the carbohydrates you can have. Which is why I am trying to say that sugar should be labeled differently. Or if you insist that sugar and carbs are the exact same,(they are) than they aren't being treated the same on the nutritional label, which is bad, because no health organization on earth would say 288g of sugar is OK per day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Are you saying that 26g of sugar is only 9% of your daily value of sugar? Are you seriously saying that is somehow less arbitrary than labeling it in accordance to the WHO or AHA? Perhaps in the 200+ years of nutritional science they could have come up with a agrees upon number you would think? There is no daily value of sugar separate from other carbs. What aren't you getting, exactly? There has only been 50 year at best of real nutritional science, and during that time there has not been strong enough evidence that simple sugars need a separate recommended daily value from all digestible carbs in general. Those numbers you keep throwing out are also ridiculous on the face of it, because different people have wildly varying needs. They put both on the label as a courtesy to those who are interested, perhaps as part of a specific diet plan. In fact, on many foods, they don't bother to separate it out on the label at all! ratbert90 posted:Which is why I am trying to say that sugar should be labeled differently. Or if you insist that sugar and carbs are the exact same,(they are) than they aren't being treated the same on the nutritional label, which is bad, because no health organization on earth would say 288g of sugar is OK per day. They shouldn't be labeled differently, because there isn't actually evidence supporting that. The health orgs behind government labeling in most countries agree it's ok for someone who should have a 2000 calorie diet, i.e. an older woman who's kinda short, to have 288 grams of sugar, so long as she has 0 grams of other carbohydrates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The health orgs behind government labeling in most countries agree it's ok for someone who should have a 2000 calorie diet, i.e. an older woman who's kinda short, to have 288 grams of sugar, so long as she has 0 grams of other carbohydrates. Holy lol. Find me one source that agrees with that statement. Find me one peer reviewed source. I will wait.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Apart from the already-mentioned "just throw it in a breeder", there's Sweden and Finland. The US doesn't have a suitable location for long-term storage that isn't fiercely opposed by somebody. Yucca Mountain is unsuitable because leaking waste could move into the water table if rainfall rates change over 10,000 years or whatever, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:16
|
|
and 
) is currently a thing or being implemented
|
ratbert90 posted:Holy lol. Find me one source that agrees with that statement. Find me one peer reviewed source. I will wait. The 2000 calorie diet used as the basis for American Nutrition Facts labels is literally based on the calorie needs for a middle aged woman who's slightly below average height. Source: literally the people behind making it the basis of the Nutrition Facts label in the late 80s and early 90s when it was developed. Here's a whole article on it: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/why-does-the-fda-recommend-2-000-calories-per-day/243092/
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The 2000 calorie diet used as the basis for American Nutrition Facts labels is literally based on the calorie needs for a middle aged woman who's slightly below average height. Source: literally the people behind making it the basis of the Nutrition Facts label in the late 80s and early 90s when it was developed. Find me a peer reviewed article that claims: 1) You can have 288g of sugar a day so long as you have no other carbs a day. 2) That sugar is exactly the same as carbs, because after your claim I went and looked and can only find articles claiming it's not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Find me a peer reviewed article that claims: The studies behind setting the nutrition daily values, which is what determined there is not enough of a meaningful difference to justify setting a seperate limit for simple sugars versus complex sugars versus other carbohydrates. Sugar LITERALLY is carbs. It is literally a carbohydrate. It is by definition the same as carbs. Or are you one of those people who believe squares aren't rectangles?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The studies behind setting the nutrition daily values, which is what determined there is not enough of a meaningful difference to justify setting a seperate limit for simple sugars versus complex sugars versus other carbohydrates. Sugar is a carb, but not all carbs are the same as sugar, I am well aware that sugar is a carb, I am trying to say that not all Carbs are treated the same as sugar in your body. This is why they should be separated, just like saturated fats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Tias posted:Hell, I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably irrationally paranoid about nuclear power, but I'm not convinced it would not be an overall better solution to take all efforts put into nuke and coal and develop sustainable renewable sources. Jack Gladney posted:The US doesn't have a suitable location for long-term storage that isn't fiercely opposed by somebody. Yucca Mountain is unsuitable because leaking waste could move into the water table if rainfall rates change over 10,000 years or whatever, right? Reply in the energy thread.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Sugar is a carb, but not all carbs are the same as sugar, I am well aware that sugar is a carb, I am trying to say that not all Carbs are treated the same as sugar in your body. Sure, indigestible carbs are obviously different, but how different from sugars are carbs that break down to sugars?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
came for the lizard men, stayed for the bitter argument about dietary sugar
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:came for the lizard men, stayed for the bitter argument about dietary sugar If any conspiracy theory was real, I would want it to be lizzard men. Obama pulling his face off would be the most amazing thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
The funny thing is, the U.S. did have a truly horrifying nuclear accident. But it wasn't a commercial power plant and it was well before we had anything close to the level of safety regulations and knowledge we have now. And most people haven't even heard of it. There are videos from the episode of Engineering Disasters that show what happened: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rocketdyne+nuclear+accident&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=847F784E2FE33BD49DF8847F784E2FE33BD49DF8 And here's the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory#Accidents_and_sitecontamination We still have no idea how many people were killed or sickened in the long term. But using this, TMI, or Chernobyl as evidence against nuclear power is like using the Titanic as evidence against cruise ships.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Sure, indigestible carbs are obviously different, but how different from sugars are carbs that break down to sugars? Wouldn't how long a carb takes to be broken down into usable glucose be pretty relevant seeing as glucose spikes are a bad thing? Sugar breaks down quicker than simple carbs which in turn break down quicker than complex carbs. Sure if you eat ons bite every 20 minutes there's little difference but given realistic eating patterns there's a huge difference between a bunch of sugar in a meal and a bunch of complex carb. The difference is all in the release over time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 10:30
|
|
|
Masonity posted:Wouldn't how long a carb takes to be broken down into usable glucose be pretty relevant seeing as glucose spikes are a bad thing? Sugar breaks down quicker than simple carbs which in turn break down quicker than complex carbs. Sure if you eat ons bite every 20 minutes there's little difference but given realistic eating patterns there's a huge difference between a bunch of sugar in a meal and a bunch of complex carb. The difference is all in the release over time. The difference in insulin response due to the glycemic index of the particular carbohydrate? How do you somehow generalize that into a recommended daily amount? A diabetic must avoid carrots to the same extent they avoid cake and pasta to the same extent they avoid peas - carbs is carbs. (Unless it's dietary fiber) Edit: Oh, wait. Refined sugar isn't even the bogeyman of the glycemic index measurement idea. If you're labeling carbs that burn the fastest you should be raging against potatoes and white rice. moller fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Nov 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 10:51
|
|
|
Tias posted:People dying, no matter the power form, is unavoidable. Nuclear power destroys the environment, and so the basis for future habitability. All industry has some level of environmental impact
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Sugar is a carb, but not all carbs are the same as sugar, I am well aware that sugar is a carb, I am trying to say that not all Carbs are treated the same as sugar in your body. The indigestible carbs do not count towards the daily value int he first place. Sugars do count the same as other carbs on the long term basis that the recommended daily values are about though, which is why they are not split. They should not be separated, because the current scientific consensus does not agree there a) needs to be a separate limit b) that such a separate limit is known. Masonity posted:Wouldn't how long a carb takes to be broken down into usable glucose be pretty relevant seeing as glucose spikes are a bad thing? Not for what recommended daily values are for, which is not "optimal health hour by hour" but "proper feeding over the long term". Like in reality almost no one is going to consistently get their carbs purely from simple sugars for months on end, it would require quite active effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
Does anybody wanna talk about conspiracy theories? Or is this thread just for talking about carbs and trying to reason with Tias, an actual skinhead with a My Little Pony avatar?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Does anybody wanna talk about conspiracy theories? Or is this thread just for talking about carbs and trying to reason with Tias, an actual skinhead with a My Little Pony avatar? The carb guy literally thinks it's a conspiracy to not list sugars separately though. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
boom boom boom posted:Does anybody wanna talk about conspiracy theories? Or is this thread just for talking about carbs and trying to reason with Tias, an actual skinhead with a My Little Pony avatar? Sounds like you don't know what skinhead means, and for the last time, I didn't buy the loving thing 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Imo there are real conspiracies and that's why people mock "conspiracy theories" so much. I'm not sure of the reality, but I think it's something like a cross of Kevin MacDonald/Alex Jones/Mencius Moldbug and maybe some other poo poo. I just don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
Imagine you're an organization working in the shadows for some weird agenda, wouldn't you want the idea of something doing what you're doing to be low status to the point that no ones dares talk about you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Morkies posted:Imagine you're an organization working in the shadows for some weird agenda, wouldn't you want the idea of something doing what you're doing to be low status to the point that no ones dares talk about you? The better solution is to have what you're doing sound so thoroughly ridiculous that anybody that brings it up sounds literally insane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
fishmech posted:The carb guy literally thinks it's a conspiracy to not list sugars separately though. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think it's pretty blatantly clear that listing a can of coke at 120% of your daily value of sugar would make coke upset.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2015 20:45
|
|