[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Careful of the salt intake if family history includes high blood pressure.

Severly restricting salt intake never did diddly squat for my blood pressure. (It used to be borderline high and creeping higher and family history of high BP.) But when I started ADDING magnesium and potassium to my diet, my blood pressure dropped back to normal without any other change in exercise or my weight. And has stayed normal for 4 or 5 years now. I can enjoy heavily salted popcorn without guilt now.

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uncle Erik /img/forum/go_quote.gif No they did not. Here's a vintage soda bottle: Please notice that it is 10 oz. Common sizes for soda bottles were 6 oz. to 12 oz. or so. Many of the vintage Coke bottles were 8 oz.

So people drink more soda pop today, that doesn't contradict what I said about portions.

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and remember good sized meals, especially dinner. Adding Soda IN ADDITION to good sized meals is a different issue.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rangen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not at all. String theory, for example, ignoring for the sake of this argument the possibility of arguing that it is not yet a theory at all, is neither generally accepted nor generally unaccepted. It is tentatively accepted by what is probably a majority of theoretical physicists, sufficiently so that they are willing to bet their careers on it, and unaccepted by a very significant number. Ditto supersymmetry. And where would this grouping of polar opposites place the General Theory of Relativity? It is extremely well supported by evidence. At the same time, it is known to be, to some degree, false -- that is to say, an insufficient theory with respect to reality, because it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, which is equally well supported. The picture is not so simple as you portray. Not something that advances your case in favor of the role of proof in science. From the Wikipedia definition of "Scientific Law" Unlike a statutory law, there is no formal promulgation procedure for scientific laws; the term is simply an epithet which achieves legitimacy through widespread use. Nor is there a format repeal procedure even for widely discredited laws like Bode's law. Thus, although the term is generally accepted only for widely confirmed observations, not only is there no sharp distinction between a hypothesis and a scientific law, a scientific law might even be known to be false. (E.g. biogenetic law, law of contagion.) The main difference between a scientific law and a theory is that a law does not include a model or explanation; it is simply an observation.

And yet, those observations render models or explanations unneccesary, at least to human minds - much as the natural theory of relativity is, in most cases, adequate save a few instances.

And I did not say that all theories resided on polar ends of this spectrum - those without enough data to place them them at one side or the other, (new theories, hypothesis that cannot be tested, simple ideas and philosophies, for instance.) Again I use an example: Psychology has no roots in proven principle, and its creators are thought by many to be nothing more than philosophers, its ideas are founded merely through practice and adaptation, as well as observations. The practices of psychiatry are thus subject to controversy, because humans in principle seek pure truth and psychiatry is by no means an "exact science" to use the term loosely.

 

[rangen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif And yet, those observations render models or explanations unneccesary, at least to human minds - much as the natural theory of relativity is, in most cases, adequate save a few instances.

I see a lot of merit in what you've said here, and I wouldn't really argue with any of it, except in one respect: you are conflating the way scientists seek satisfying truth with the way laymen seek it.

The existence of laws doesn't render models unnecessary. Oh, perhaps for some purposes (e.g. computations), and for some forms of human curiosity ("Why did the apple fall? Why, the Law of Gravitation!"). But for a scientist, recording a law, and observing that it seems to describe reality merely engenders an itch to discover a model that explains the observation. Then, too, a scientist means something very different by the word "explains," as you probably know. It's both more and less than what the layman means by it.

I agree that psychiatry and psychology are, at this point, not really science. Which doesn't mean they're not useful, especially the latter.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rangen /img/forum/go_quote.gif I see a lot of merit in what you've said here, and I wouldn't really argue with any of it, except in one respect: you are conflating the way scientists seek satisfying truth with the way laymen seek it. The existence of laws doesn't render models unnecessary. Oh, perhaps for some purposes (e.g. computations), and for some forms of human curiosity ("Why did the apple fall? Why, the Law of Gravitation!"). But for a scientist, recording a law, and observing that it seems to describe reality merely engenders an itch to discover a model that explains the observation. Then, too, a scientist means something very different by the word "explains," as you probably know. It's both more and less than what the layman means by it. I agree that psychiatry and psychology are, at this point, not really science. Which doesn't mean they're not useful, especially the latter.

I agree with everything you said there.

Boy this has really branched from the HFCS Discussion.
Ah well, I suppose it's all relevant after all.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax /img/forum/go_quote.gif So people drink more soda pop today, that doesn't contradict what I said about portions. I grew up in the 50s and 60s and remember good sized meals, especially dinner. Adding Soda IN ADDITION to good sized meals is a different issue.

Food today - especially when you eat out - has a lot more calorie density than it used to. You can eat large portions of low calorie density food and be OK. It's just that everything today is processed with lots of HFCS to sweeten it. People prefer the taste and consume more calories along with it. If you add up average calorie intake from today and the calorie intake from 50 years ago, you can run the numbers you'll see where the extra pounds come from. People can argue nutrition and exercise, but the issue is staggeringly black and white when you compare calorie intake to calories used.

I went through a lot of doubt last year about whether it really could be that simple. I said, 'screw it, let's see what happens.' And it worked. I was wearing 40" pants, now they're 30" and comfortable. I was surprised, having heard about various diets, what you should and shouldn't eat, the necessity of devoting a couple hours a day to exercise, and so on. But it all really comes down to the calories. People consume way more than they need and it adds up. It really is that simple.

 

[Billyk]

Born in the 50's lived in that era too. We were middle, middle and I don't recall eating out much, don't think it was done much. McD's only had 500 stores in 1963!
I agree withe U Eric it is a basic math problem. calories in > calories used you gain weight.
Sure, there is a lot that can be said about calorie quality, empty calories, etc. and how you choose them can make a huge difference in how it works, but still, it all boils down to the math.

 

[dallan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Severly restricting salt intake never did diddly squat for my blood pressure. (It used to be borderline high and creeping higher and family history of high BP.) But when I started ADDING magnesium and potassium to my diet, my blood pressure dropped back to normal without any other change in exercise or my weight. And has stayed normal for 4 or 5 years now. I can enjoy heavily salted popcorn without guilt now.

Wow really! I should look into that. Some salt restriction dropped my from prescription bait to just with in normal.

 

[Skorpitarius]

yeah - HFCS is the devil - it's why this country has gotten so obese compared to other countries I do believe ...it's cheap for manufacturers to use....at a big price to the consumer ....

i avoid soda pop/ beer / anything with it in it ....

 

[Spareribs]

I think portions with soda are bigger today. The same with American coffee too. Where I live, people drink these large 20 ounce coffees with cream and sugar with their belly busting T shirts- A normal sight in the mornings.

When I was visiting Europe, I can't ever remember seeing these large sodas and large coffees. In fact, most people drank little espressos or small 8 oz cups.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never once said that you were wrong. Contrasting theories (think origin of the universe), however, are the basis of science, and because you state "fact" does not mean that his "theory" becomes obsolete: even if he goes too far to try to appear believable (which I will admit, as with the poster above.) The most educated minds will disagree on major issues. Think evolution: Evolution is generally accepted as a fact, but does that rule out the possibility of intelligent design?

Agreed, but calling me "chicken little" was an underhanded method to discredit me. Don't you agree?

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif we have a government agency that gives us hard and fast numbers that are carefully chosen to save the largest possible number of lives, but i think, for example, the number of poisonings attributable to people munching on cold sausage & pepperoni pizza left in the box on the coffee table overnight is probably relatively low.

Let's not get into confusing the issue with various parameters. For the layman the government safe guide is no more than 2 hours. Anymore than that and you throw it in the garbage to play it safe.

And you are wrong that it is relatively low. There are many different levels of food poisoning. What you may think is the runs due to some food that doesn't agree with your stomach is most likely mild food poisoning.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax /img/forum/go_quote.gif Severly restricting salt intake never did diddly squat for my blood pressure. (It used to be borderline high and creeping higher and family history of high BP.) But when I started ADDING magnesium and potassium to my diet, my blood pressure dropped back to normal without any other change in exercise or my weight. And has stayed normal for 4 or 5 years now. I can enjoy heavily salted popcorn without guilt now.

What foods did you eat to increase magnesium? Potassium is an easy one to increase just by eating bananas. I drink Gatorade more than soda because it contains potassium.