Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire "Researchers" claim sugar is a dangerous toxin!

UUUMMM?

Life is a terminal condition.

A reformed any thing, or a fanatic of any flavor, is generally obnoxious. Yes you!

I smoke, the guy next door drives like the world is a Nascar track, and texts at the same time. I know a guy that rock climbs, he's fallen twice.

Iknow idiots that jog several miles per day, ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD! SUCKING IN TRAFFIC EXHAUST!

My point, ain't no one perfect. Some think they are.

Even if your example of Lipitor were correct, one example doesn't prove all science is bogus. You don't like the results of the science, but you offer nothing but your opinion as a counter.



You still don't get it. If these same people were fit and didn't develop diabetes most would eventually develop cancer or Alzheimer's or some other disease that would cost even more to treat. Sorry you can't accept the simple fact that decline and death is inevitable, and people who don't die young from something die old from something and have higher lifetime healthcare costs.

It's not my study as you want to imply, it's many studies done in many countries over many years. Here's a study from Candida that reference many other studies. Give me a link to the studies that support your position or concede the point. Just claiming it's not so and calling it BS only shows your ignorance.

Yes, the longer people live the more they eat and the more electricity and housing the use. The difference is this thing we call Medicare that pays for healthcare when a person becomes 65-years old. Thus, for most people, they continue to pay for their own food, electricity and housing, but society picks up the tab for much of their medical care.

Also, if you look at the increase costs of food, electricity and housing over time they are far less than the increase in healthcare costs.



But not as a percentage of their lifetime, which is what counts. Someone who dies at 60 from a heart attack likely spent 42 of their 60 years working, which is 70% of their lifetime. Someone who dies of cancer at 80, may have spent 52 years working, but that's just 65% of their lifetime. Overall, the person who died at 60 spent more days being productive than being a burden than did the person who lived to 80.

I see Mac is out of treatment and expounding on his usual bullcrap. Not all research is bogus but there is a growing body of it that has a political agenda firmly rooted in its conclusion. Mac won't admit it cause he is undoubtedly connected to it and therefore does not want to admit to the failures of science nor cutoff the flow of grant money.

The fact is that some researchers cannot leave their political hats out of the equation and hide behind their personal agendas.
Rachel Carson, with Silent Spring, was the first glaring example of this. It continues today with the mother of all hoaxes, man made global warming.

There is no doubt in my mind that we haven't heard the end of the "toxic sugar" study. Anything coming from California is highly suspicious. Add to that a political factor with millions of dollars at stake and I'd say we have another scientific scandal on the horizon.

I see Mac is expounding on something that is fairly hidden yet in Obamacare. "Death panels" are within the pages of Obamas' utopian state. Patients are labelled "units" and if your too old for expensive care, you will be directed to "comfort care".

By leach off the middle class I expect you mean the government pays. Well, then nearly everyone 65 and older who uses healthcare is a leach. Even people who could afford to pay let Medicare pay because most people feel they paid into the system and earned the benefit. Study after study shows that smokers and the "phat [bleep]" use less of those Medicare dollars in their lifetime than heath nuts do.

As usual you don't have the courage to address me directly. Listing a bunch of straw men examples doesn't negate the studies I cited, which if you were paying attention you would see run counter to Obamacare, not in support of it. Obama used the false premises that promoting healthy living would reduce the cost of healthcare for seniors, but just the opposite is true. If you are an Obama supporter, then I can see way you argue against the science.

At least we can agree on that. If people don't shorten their own lives by unhealthy living the government will have to shorten their lives by limited medical care.

How about studies that look at lifestyle and healthcare costs? Your links all look at the relationship between age and healthcare cost.

They also make a very compelling argument for the purchase of long-term care insurance if you plan to live long.

I agree with TAK on the Paleo diet.

Something that has not been mentioned is that one of the worst things you can do is buy "low fat" foods. Most processed low fat foods do not taste as good as their full fat counterparts (duh) so the food processing industry just adds more sugar to offset the loss of fat. The concept of staying on the outside of the grocery store is a good one.

The liberals who suggest more government regulation for sugar are nanny state idiots. However in the long run we need to watch them all carefully because a lot of them are working to demonize the consumption of meat. Just look at the number of celebs who claim to be vegans.

Don't think it can happen? Suppose 20 years ago I told you we would have gay marrage - many would have said I was crazy/paranoid. Watch out for the anti-meat crowd.

Beware ALL "Nannyistas". They are drunk with arrogance and self righteousness and

FULLY unable to think outside the trough.

I took a college nutrition course over 20yr ago. I distinctly remember a profound anti-meat bias in the textbook. The author pontificated about how many resources were "wasted" by the average American's "excessive" meat consumption. The text argued for only 30 grams of protein daily, that is just enough to stave off kwashiorkor, but will result in complete metabolic derangement and lead to all manner of chronic illness.

I'll bet the author is an Obama fan, probably has a good fedgov job these days.

I did sir. Got a half marathon for St. Patty's.


Travis

Tak Gets it! Good luck in the Half deflave. I may try one again later in the fall.

I'll take my chances .....

This story was extensively covered in our media, but even the public health nazis agreed there was no reason put a tax on high sugar foods here at the moment, as sugar consumption has been falling here since the '50s. We rather salt with our fat instead!

The natural selection process won't work - it only works if it stops you before you get around to breeding. My observation is that the high sugar diet folks are outbreeding the low sugar diet-types. And the seem to start as teenagers, just to make sure they produce enough progeny before their diabetes gets 'em.

Thanks. You too.


Travis