SeanBissell

Well, let's take HFCS out of the picture then and go back to just sugar. I believe the study I just posted shows that sugar helped people build fat free mass where the others lost fat free mass (meaning mostly bone and muscle.) I think that is a positive for sugar.

I've been focusing on more just the facts of the construction of substances. And biology, I don't believe you need studies to support that. This is an interesting study that compares the effects of a high sugar, high starch, and high fat diet. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v21/n10/pdf/0800494a.pdf

I did read what you posted. But I don't believe it's factual. High fructose corn syrup is basically 50/50 glucose/fructose. Just like other sugar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup LovePrevails, I don't have time at the moment to concentrate on an hour long video. But do you have a summary?

High fructose corn syrup may not be the best stuff ever. But it's still basically half glucose, half fructose. In that way, it's almost identical to fruit, beet or cane sugar.

Wesley, I don't think I have time to write a book to refute all the points in these links. But here's some key points. Quote below from this link: http://jasn.asnjournals.org/content/18/10/2619.full Fructose *is* metabolized differently, but that can be a good thing. No one has proved that moderately high levels of triglycerides are even negative, unless you're way off the charts, then you could get pancreatitis. But I don't see that happening relative to how much fructose people are eating. Also the amount of triglycerides you produce from fructose is not extremely significant for the majority of people. Uric acid is one of the body's most potent antioxidants. Producing some is probably a good thing. Of course you can induce short term insulin resistance using lots of fructose alone without glucose. But where are you ever going to find pure fructose without glucose attached? The reason you can cause short term insulin resistance using fructose is because you don't *need* insulin to metabolize fructose. If your body doesn't need to be conditioned to use insulin it will downregulate insulin production. Just like if you're out in the bright sun, your eyes will constrict. If you suddenly walk into a dark building you won't be able to see well, and your eyes will need to readjust to deal with the low light. Did you just make yourself "light resistant" by hanging out in the sun? Nitric oxide is needed in your body, but too much is bad. Fructose can potentially help keep that in check. Nitric oxide is a free radical and can be "pro-aging."

Thorax, I know where you're coming from. I personally think that for many people that information is misguided on some basic levels. I agree that "white" carbohydrates *can* be negative for some people. As glucose alone can spike your blood sugar levels high, and then also your insulin levels high. So glucose increases blood sugar, and insulin decreases blood sugar. So you could possibly get a "spike" then a drop in blood sugar. That can be stressful on your system. But on that exact same topic. Fruit juice does *not* do that. Orange juice has a glycemic index of about 50, and white rice has a glycemic index of about 90. That is because orange juice is only half glucose, and the rest is fructose. Fructose does not stimulate insulin, and therefore can help keep blood sugar more stable. I think Tim Ferris' advice is mainly designed to induce weight loss. And I'd personally argue that weight loss is not always healthy.

Hey Wesley, Hope you're doing great! You've got some interesting thoughts, here's my replies to some: Fructose can actually *refuel* your liver. Fructose refills liver glycogen more than any other carbohydrate, and glycogen gives your liver energy to process other substances. Anything in super-high quantities can be bad, including fructose. At the same time, your liver can handle quite a bit of fructose, and fructose can be beneficial for your liver especially. The fructose from fruit is chemically identical to that found in refined sugar. The only difference is refined sugar is missing vitamins and minerals. Saturated fat is saturated fat. The difference with the hot dog is that the hot dog has lots of added chemicals and other substances. Coconut oil may be a tad better because it includes medium chain fatty acids which are saturated, and are processed first by your liver, just like fructose, and can give your liver some instant energy. Even if your fish oil doesn't oxidize *before* you eat it, your body is about 98 degrees, and fat becomes part of your tissues. It will most likely oxidize *in* your body even if it doesn't before you eat it. What do you define as quality fat? Cows are ruminants which break down cellulose for energy. I agree that grass fed is better because the animals are generally more healthy and out to pasture, etc. They probably have less toxins in their system, and may have more vitamins and minerals in their body. At the same time, the actual structure of their fat is almost identical. There may be slightly more CLA, vitamin K or other substances in grass fed, but again the structure of the fat is going to be the same for all intents and purposes. Gelatinous cuts of meat have less tryptophan and cystine and gelatin contains glycine, which is a very beneficial amino acid, which is not present in non-gelatinous cuts of meat.

Hey everyone, Hope you're doing great! I'm new to this forum, and I'm a bit of a nutrition info addict. About a year and a half ago I started down a crazy rabbit hole of health info that's really blowing my mind. (No I'm not trying to sell anything here ) And because I'm a nutrition nut, I just feel like I have to share Here's what I used to think: -Sugar is bad -Saturated fat is bad -Fish oil is good -Nuts and seeds are good -Lean cuts of meat are best Now I think almost the exact opposite: -Sugar is good -Saturated fat is good -Fish oil is bad -Nuts and seeds are bad -Lean cuts of meat are best in moderation (gelatinous cuts are better.) Why? Well, you could literally read for years on the subjects, but a quick summary: Sugar is probably good because sugar is half glucose, half fructose. Fructose doesn't stimulate insulin, and that means that even a sweet potato has a higher insulin release than refined sugar. Fructose also can get into your cell to create cellular energy (increased metabolism) when your cell is being blocked by free fatty acids in your blood stream (that "effect" is called the Randle Cycle.) Fructose can also increase uric acid, which is one of the most potent anti-oxidants in your body, and has actually been associated with longer life spans. Fructose can also increase cholesterol a bit, and cholesterol is the precursor to good steroid hormones like testosterone. Overall the glucose/fructose balance is sort of a yin/yang effect on your metabolism and seems to do good things. And it does not seem to actually increase bodyfat when you eat it within "reasonable" calorie ranges. Saturated fat is basically the most stable fat you can eat. If you care about free-radical damage, then you probably want to eat "stable" fats, because they don't oxidize very easily. You can observe how stable saturated fats are compared to say, fish oil, or polyunsaturated fats by just leaving out a bottle of coconut oil (saturated fat) and a bottle of canola oil, or fish oil, or vegetable oil, etc. The unsaturated will go rancid much much quicker due to it oxidizing. Also saturated fat is solid at room temperature, and can cook at much higher temperatures without breaking down and burning up/smoking. When unsaturated fats oxidize they can cause "lipid peroxidation" which causes cell damage and is a really nasty thing to have in your system. And the more unsaturated fats you eat, the more you store in your cells, and the more they can break up and cause oxidative damage. Fish oil is probably bad stuff due to the fact that it's highly unstable, and oxidizes super fast. It's quite possible that the anti-inflammatory effects you can get from fish oil is because it down-regulates your immune system due to the damage it's causing, after-all, inflammation is one of the first responses of the immune system, if you knock that down, you reduce inflammation. Fish oil was originally used as an ingredient in paint, until they realized there was better stuff because the fish oil went bad too quickly. So the "industry" re-invented itself as a "health supplement." Ever heard of linseed oil for furniture polish? Well, that's code for "Flax seed oil" which is also touted as a "healthy omega 3 supplement" but the only reason why they use it for polish is because it oxidizes so fast and turns hard. You probably don't want that happening in your body. Nuts and seeds are bad for the same reason as fish oil, but to a lesser degree, they have lots of unsaturated and poly-unsaturated fats as well, and can gunk up your system. Also this applies to the seed oils like soy oil, and canola oil, etc. Lean cuts of meat seem cool and at the same time, if you want to avoid "refined" foods, then you may want to cut down on lean muscle meats, cause you're essentially "refining" the animal down to one specific type of meat and only eating that. Just like refining sugar down to one part, or taking off the husk of rice and calling it "refined white rice" etc. The possible issue with only eating muscle meats is that their is a high concentration of tryptophan and cystine which can overburden your system. Tryptophan can convert to serotonin, which can be good potentially, probably mostly if it's in your *brain* (but that's even under debate) but most of the serotonin ends up in your gut, and too much can be a not-so-good-thing. Also cystine can be a thyroid antagonist and slow your metabolic rate and lead to other issues. Better "cuts" of meat are probably gelatinous cuts, like stuff you have to slow cook, or BBQ to break down the connective tissues. Those are much less rich in tryptophan and cystine, and still have all the protein goodness. They also have lots of "collagen" which can be really good for you as well. There's much much more to it, and I fully admit I could be wrong. At the same time, I do believe lots of health info out there is super-misleading and I feel like I've grabbed onto a little truth. If you've got other opinions I'd love to hear them. And If you have evidence to back me up, that'd be cool too I do like to debate sometimes though Happy Friday! -Sean

Thanks for the feedback guys! Much appreciated Everyone seems more focused on the "safety" aspect. Which I agree is definitely a concern, regardless of what you're doing. You want your baby/kid/loved-ones/etc to be safe for sure. I honestly *do* feel like what I'm doing is safe. And, no, I don't think a 1 month old baby is going to express happiness even if they are happy Babies generally don't start smiling until they're about 2 months old. So in my mind, being calm and alert = happy at one month. That being said, I'm obviously concerned about safety. Maybe I should have been more clear on my part. The question I was trying to focus on is more along the lines of this hypothetical question below. Question: If you had a button you could press that would make your baby stop crying, should you press it? Or should you let them cry and try "other" techniques to make them stop crying. And if you wouldn't press the button, why would you choose not to? Happy Friday! -Sean

Thanks FreedomFanBoy! It definitely is not jerky But yea, it's hard to demonstrate that through text. Usually it's only like 3-5 mins. So getting a bottle ready would be probably just as long, or longer... Unless there's a way to keep one super quickly available at all times that I'm not aware of. Any ideas on that? But speaking of videos... As seen in this video, he does like to be bounced around a bit

Hey everyone, I'm obviously new here (as of my post count.) And I'm also a new dad as of about 10 weeks ago. So... by incredible logical reasoning, I have a 10 week old kid now. And I'm a dude. And I listen to Free Domain Radio... And I'm typing... And I'll stop being stupid Serious and weird question: (Seriously weird question?) I don't want to stunt my kid's emotional growth. And I want to comfort him or get him what he needs when he's crying. At the same time, there are times when he is hungry, or just frustrated, and I can't actually *do* anything about his discomfort. Because sometimes my wife is in the shower, or she's doing something that requires about 5 minutes until she's ready to breastfeed. Or sometimes when he's frustrated (I'm assuming he's frustrated) I can't actually just "unfrustrate" him magically. So basically, there are times (although mostly brief) that he's crying and I can't get him what he needs. Mostly he starts out with a little whimper, and ramps up slowly. During that time I can bounce him, or put him against my chest, or hold his hand, or whatever to "sooth" him. And it works to a point. Sometimes he ramps up and there's not much I can do to stop him from escalating. At some point, he pretty much will get to full on yelling at *almost* the top of his lungs crying. There *is* something I've been able to do to stop him from crying, pretty much in its tracks. And that is to bounce him, not *hard*, but in a way that creates a temporary reduced gravity environment. It feels safe to me (I feel in control) and he's not jerking around. But he is almost weightless for a brief period. So far, he pretty much always stops crying completely at that point. And I only really do it the moment when he hits the "freak out" mode. It's bizarre and feels like it's almost a crying "off switch." But I worry, because sometimes he's totally cool with it, and other times he acts slightly scared. Either way he stops crying for about 10 seconds if I do nothing afterwards, or even longer if I bounce him slower afterwards. Eventually it ramps back up again, then when he freaks out again, then zero gravity bounce! Until I can get him his Mom, or something else. And here's the *real* question. If that zero gravity bounce gets him to stop crying, is it even *good* to have him stop crying? I'm kind of thinking I may be not letting him express his discomfort. But I *do* let him express his discomfort, just not at "super freak out" levels. So I'm thinking, maybe I'm teaching him that freaking out is not productive? Or am I giving him what he wants by bouncing him? Or am I "inadvertently" punishing him by doing the zero gravity bounce because it's freaking him out? It's super hard to read a baby's thoughts. And I'm conflicted as to it's a better risk to let him cry and freak out. Or is it a better risk to zero gravity bounce him to stop him from "freak out" crying? I tried letting him "cry it out" last night while just resting him on my shoulder and patting his back and gently bouncing him. But he got so freaked out he started to lose his voice from crying so hard. It seems like the "easiest" option is to do that bounce technique. But I'm conflicted. Thanks for your input on this beast of a first post. Happy Thursday! -Sean