Is Orange Juice as Bad for You as Soda?

The presence of citrates in orange on digestion by enzymes is likely to produce acidity by the formation of Co2 / carbonic acid. On such conditions it may be equated with soda.

Forget soda and juice. Just eat an orange! Soda is really bad... carbonated and contains high frutose corn syrup

what is the distinction, relative to a healthy diet, between high fructose corn syrup and say something like the fructose in oranges if the amount of fructose consumed is equivalent for both?

Hi RCE,

Just to understand differences, corn's GI is 70, fructose's GI is 20, so, no fructose in corn, definitely no.

Diet is a choice of eating or habit. Choosing certain food we eat. Let say, we eat only chicken and fish as proteine, whole wheat pasta as carbohydrate, and all kind of veggies according to the moment or availability from the fridge. A diet can be made without sweets as cookies, cakes and other "mille-feuille".

Rationally, these are my explanation about you posted note, Gil.

High fructose corn syrup contains a lot of unbound or free fructose. This is markedly different from naturally occurring sugars and sucrose, which contain fructose that is bound to other sugars.

The free or unbound fructose has been implicated in a myriad of health problems. Perhaps a useful analogy is the significantly different nature of crack cocaine as compared to its predecessors which brought about the sweeping epidemic.... The amount of cocaine consumed was the same, but the effects were much more powerful. HFCS...the crack of sugars.

This blog is the second I have read authored by Jaxy. The first was 'No More Toasted Bread for You!'. Sensationalism, flawed logic, misleading statements, and irresponsible assertions are nearly equally abundant in both blogs. It is an embarrassing and shameful smudge of pseudoscience upon the otherwise exceptional quality of CR4.

Benbenben

Nonsense Guest. In a lot of ways Orange Juice is much worse for people than they realize. I think it is fair to say that the public perception is that Orange Juice is a health food and Soda is junk food. Jaxy was merely pointing out that in a lot of ways Orange Juice is just as bad for you as Soda (which is true).

Jaxy added caveats, provided links, and I believe provided a balanced argument. Certainly more balanced than the writer of the paper being referenced.

I think your characterization of Jaxy's writing was way off base, I find her articles interesting and enlightening.

Hi Roger,

Yes, the article explained well what is what. Orange juice contains fructose that is considered bad for human. Most of orange juice are filled with sugar or glucose to improve the taste. These orange juices are really bad if not unhealthy. Obesity is coming from excessive absorbtion of glucose or ordinary white, refined sugar that we obtain from plantes.

However, a squeezed orange juice early the morning is an excellent thing to drink. Personally, for over 20 years, I take a blend of berries (straw and blue for sure), apple, pear, plum, kiwi, and tomato, around half of a litre. I take this mixture every morning with empty stomach just after my water soluble vitaminec, C and B complex. Never touch bananas or grapes. They are filled with glucose. Check the "Glycemic Index" of each fruit and take only the less than 50. Above 50, all fruits or vegetables are not fit for human consumption. As does corn and potatoes with pigs!

Read Linus Pauling's book and you get the best and more honest information about what we need to do to be and stay healthy.

We know the history of sugar but we have to accept that human eat for several thousand years fruits, vegetables, and animal meats and survived, developed intellectually and physically to become the leading and moving power on Earth. A picture of 20 or more people, roughly the same age, taken 50 or more years ago shows us thin, slim people. Picture taken a week ago shows us an group of obeses. In both cases, we cannot judge the health of the actors but we have certainty that the present obese people cannot perform many things; jumping, running, reproduce, and more, that the older group was able to do.

Today, I have to understand that every human problem is a sickness. Also, for every sickness, every pain or trouble, I have a pill, and I get back to normal after the use of the famous pill. My simple question is: Who explain the truth here? We sell "one day" through advertising many things, and discover "another day" that this advertised item killed a few peope. Not because of an excess taken, just the human body or metabolism cannot handle the strange product introduced in the body. I can mention here the tinted meat, some highly efficient drugs, or msuse of certain medications. For example, the pill helped the digestion but the kidney could not accept and handle it. This happens every day. So, we take another pill for correct the kidney but something else will be disturbed. It cures or appearently we feel good but another part of the body will suffer from. Ah! We can ask for another pills.

Too many comments about good food bad food! However, our food industry is constantly growing and supplying what we eat. Fast food businesses are flourishing and having more and more customers.

We need help to understand what we have to do to survive and stay healthy, Gil.

This is the second time I will state this. I am merely reporting what I have found through my research. I am not saying that orange juice is as bad for you as soda, nor am I stating the opposite. Everything in this written blog, which the exception of some sentences are backed up in my resources. If you have pinpointed my blog as a "shameful smudge of pseudoscience", feel free to never come back. I don't need your negativity toward me when it is unnecessary, rude, and completely unwarranted given my resources. There are people that enjoy reading my blogs for either their interesting factor, for some odd facts, or for the comedic value. If you come here just to bash me, please leave and never read one of my blogs again (I promise that I won't miss you).

Jaxy,

I, for one, enjoy your blog even if I don't always agree with your positions or in cases where you've taken a neutral stance, with the references you provide. I find your blogs interesting, thought provoking, educational and fun.

I appreciate the time and effort you put into them.

FYI, sucrose is just glucose "bound" to fructose, and it is rapidly hydrolyzed in your stomach (and actually would hydrolyze in an acid environment to some degree, but with the addition of the sucrase our bodies produce it is rapidly and more fully hydrolyzed). Thus by the time it reaches the stomach it is turn into 1 mole of glucose and 1 mole of fructose for every mole of sucrose intaken. Crack cocaine is far more complex and the process of degrading itin our bodies requires many more steps. Additionally you might want to investigate the fructose content of HFCS, you will probably be surprised to find out it is not particularly stronger than many fruit juices and the glucose to fructose ratio is consistent with that of honey. It is actually just call high fructose corn syrup, because the corn syrup is nearly pure glucose and they convert some of the glucose to fructose to make it more like other natural sweeteners. The name confuses many people because they have come to believe it means the syrup used as a sweetener has an unusually high concentration of fructose relative to all natural sweeteners, when really it only has a unusually high concentration of fructose relative to pure corn syrup, and not other natural sweeteners like fruit juices or honey. I think the problem is not the HFCS, but that it is so inexpensive to produce, it can readioly be utilized where it may not have in the past due to cost constraints. Basically we can add amounts of sugar to things where we might not have in the past and/or sell at much cheaper prices, which promotes greater consumption. So really we just end up consuming more sugar in general. the cost of fruit juice would likely keep people from consuming huge volumes, plus the acidity would kill them if chronically exposed in huge volumes.

co2 is carbon dioxide! carbon and oxygen

That's because most orange juice is been processed. Most on the shelves is from frozen concentrate. I do wonder if sugar is added to produce a consistent sweetness as all the oranges that i have eaten some a sweeter then others. In the repackaging there is nothing to say whether sugar has been added to the frozen concentrate.

I try to stay away from the concentrated ones and like mine with some pulp.

Hi,

your statement would be good in front of any supermarket! (GA)

But they won't let you post there - to sell junk is an established business today.

Try the fruits not the juice! Valid for any friut and juice.

RHABE

Happy New Year Rhabe,

I am not alone! I was surprised by the study of an illustruous doctor or other diplomed. What a shame to tell peple like us to stop drink orange juice. A minute! What orange juice we talk. OK, in the supermarket's shelves. Good. There need some orientation in a scientific study. The studied orange juice was never mentionned with a brand name. Some of them saying that made with pure oranges with fibres without added sugar. This is fantastic too!

When I wrote my early note, before reading others', I was choosing my words because I don't want to frustrate those protected diplomas. Bur, now, I am relieved and will be courageous to continue the same way.

Really appreciate your words and continue. All the best, Gil.

.........and Flavours International sings and dances all the way to the bank

BTW...whoever the clot was for scoring this as off topic should know that IFF manufactures most of the synthetic flavourings and fragrances found in rubbish edibles. Their start was with the pulp and paper industry (and waste wood products) by making the waste cellulose into a digestable food base ( an edible vinyl !). They still do it. Orange flavoured crystals are another of their billion dollar enterprise........

Is there no end to conspiracy theories?

Of course 100% orange juice can have no pulp, they need only filter it out. Look, I don't agree that orange juice and Soda are equally unhealthy, but I don't need a government conspiracy to feel that way. The research itself tells you that Orange Juice is filled with nutrients that soda doesn't have, than offhandedly dismisses such nutrients as "already found elsewhere in our diets" as though that somehow invalidates the nutrients being present (which it doesn't).

The research also ignores the impact of Orange Juice and Soda on teeth. I'm pretty sure Soda, with it's carbonation, is much worse on your teeth. Basically the whole argument of this research seems fixated on calories and resulting fat gain, as though that is the only measure of health. I'm pretty sure sailors dying of scurvy would have been much better off with orange juice than a coke, doesn't that count for something?

Don't get me wrong, I love soda, but it is in no way as healthy as Orange Juice.

Roger:

This orange juice study is an example of a general pattern:

Government and business are too big and too cosy and therefore the people suffer.

What part of that do you not understand?

You Wrote:"What part don't you understand?"

The part where there seems to be thousands of conspiracies yet no one seems to be complicit. Just once I want to meet a guy that say "Yeah, I work at Area 51 and we cover up all kinds of alien stuff....seriously, you don't know the half of it". That never happens because conspiracies are generally nothing more than overactive paranoid imaginations.

Roger:

You are arguing against something I didn't say.

What I did say is that big business and big government are too big and too busy looking out for each other's interests, and don't care much about the benefit – or lack thereof – to the consumer.

No "conspiracy" required, just plausible deniability.

But that doesn't make it any less detrimental to the public.

Big business and big government consist of people. People who your theory would require to compromise their principles.

Rather than your argument that there is essentially compromised interests, does it occur to you that people may have philosophical objections to government oversight of something that is neither addictive nor proven to be excessively harmful?

Don't get me wrong, I personally feel the government should regulate, or at the very least tax harmful foods so as to offset healthcare costs. And I'll be glad to debate that point of view with anyone, but I realize that's a political opinion that someone has a right to object to without being complicit in some sort of nefarious plot to maintain the status quo while endangering people who consume these goods.

We have a political system in this country that is designed to protect individual states from the tyranny of an overreaching federal government. The natural progression of this sort of thing starts at the state level, which is in fact happening now. When there is enough consensus with the states, then a national movement makes sense. This is what happened with smoking (North Carolina just caved).

I like that our government is slow and cautious. Eventually it seems to do the right thing. Lets keep the faith and try to lower the cynicism. Remember big business and big government aren't "things", they consist of people, and the majority of people are moral. At least that's the way I feel.

Roger:

I agree that the majority of people are moral. But plutocrats and oligopolists are nothing like the majority of people.

If plutocrats and oligopolists had any principles worthy of the name, they would never make it as plutocrats and oligopolists.

The character traits required to be successful in big government and big business are the exact same ones that define a sociopath.

And these are the people you say we should trust.

That is so unbelievably naive, it makes the wildest conspiracy theory look downright sane by comparison!

The heart of intolerance is the belief that there are group exceptions to morality. It was such intolerance that led to the bloody reign of terror. I'm not suggesting there isn't immoral people, but when you make blanket statements regarding a group of people like you did with "plutocrats" and "oligopolists" you justify punishing the group for the crimes of members in that group.

You Wrote:"The character traits required to be successful in big government and big business are the exact same ones that define a sociopath."

That's nonsense. Their are good politicians and bad ones, just like everything else. Such a reckless statement is immoral.

You Wrote: And these are the people you say we should trust.

What I said is that some of them are moral. Just because a person is moral doesn't mean I trust them. It just means I believe they can be reasoned with.

You speak in absolutes as though this is your world to judge.

You Wrote:"That is so unbelievably naive, it makes the wildest conspiracy theory look downright sane by comparison!"

The only naivety is the simplistic belief that all people of a group can be categorized the same way, which is what you, not I, believe.

Why don't you sign in and we can discuss this further.

Roger:

Characteristics of sociopaths:

1. Glibness, superficial charm and habitual lying.

2. Emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy.

3. Cunning, devious and manipulative behavior.

4. Lack of remorse or guilt for actions that harm others.

5. Grandiosity and exaggerated sense of self-worth.

This is, indeed, the exact set of characteristics that will maximize success in the boardroom and on the campaign trail.

Therefore a person who is successful in big government or big business is far more likely to have these characteristics than a randomly selected person. To ignore this statistical regularity is not tolerance, it is wilful blindness.

When you say "there are good politicians and bad ones," you imply a degree of randomness that does not exist in the real world. In reality, the bad ones far outnumber the good ones, both in big government and in big business – precisely because of the reasons given above.

To acknowledge this fact is not a matter of being judgemental, it is simply a matter of being rational.

No. Sweeping generalizations that allow you to hate unconditionally such as you are suggesting is the true evil. You can justify the generalizations any way you want, in the end you are still making sweeping generalizations about individuals you've never met and don't know directly. What's worse is you don't feel the slightest doubt in your own ability to judge your fellow man (or woman).

You are no different than a Jacobin, self assured in your misconceptions, and amoral when it comes to those groups against whom you hold your prejudices.

Hi Roger,

Who is Jacobin? Man (or woman), good or bad? I want to know and I can refer to Stanhope. Finally, she is the judge in our entertainment about orange juice and pops.

You know what, Roger. I would like to get Stanhope opinion, good or bad about 75 or more blogs. She is responsible for these questions and answers about oranges and pops, good and bad calories, moral and crooks, politicians and people just vote. Probably, she doesn't ask anymore for the Nobel prize, or she refuse all handshakes. Poor girl. She has hard time and can become stressed and turning to have bad habits as cigaret or other liquid with higher calories than orange juice.

We have to do something to change that situation. Help me and her, Roger. You are smart and can suggest something positive for her. Wait for news, Gil.

Nota bene: Did you squeeze your morning orange juice? Good!

The Jacobins, in this context, refers to a political club from the French Revolution called The Jacobin Club. It was they who implemented the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution when tens of thousands of executions took place. Robespierre led the Jacobins during the terror until predictably he was executed by the Jacobins, thus effectively ending the terror.

Here's some of Robespierre's quotes:

"Any institution which does not suppose the people good, and the magistrate corruptible, is evil."

"Pity is treason."

"To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is cruelty."

No one makes the murder of so many thousands sound so high minded and idealistic as Robespierre. It was his highhandedness and self-assurance in the justice of his cause that permitted him to act so immorally. Were all of the French Nobility innocent? Of course not, but there were plenty of innocent French nobility executed during that period of blood-lust. Such is the result of generalizations.

I still don't understand who Stanhope is.

Roger:

And you don't see that Robespierre is a perfect example of the sort of sociopath that I am warning against?

You claim it is unconditional hate to learn from experience by generalizing the pattern we learn by studying Robespierre?

You think it is evil to realize that there are many like him – who tend to be in positions of wealth, power and influence precisely because they are like him – and to be on guard against such people?

Then you are guilty of exactly what you are contemning.

France wasn't a Democracy, it was a Monarchy. Robespierre wasn't Aristocracy, he was middle class, who grew angry at the corruption of the ruling class. He decided that the Aristocracy was corrupt and had to be removed. Later he decided they had to die so that they could put the past behind them. He used the same phrases you did, though he was more eloquent. I posted his comments, they mirror yours.

There is a great scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Prince Faisal is comparing his mercy with that of Lawrence (the hero of the movie who at that point has be brave and passionate in his justice) to a British Officer. He explains:

"With Major Lawrence, mercy is a passion. With me, it is merely good manners. You may judge which motive is the more reliable."

Sure enough we see later in the movie Lawrence kills an entire column of Turks who try to surrender because of a village they destroyed and a man they killed. Essentially he commits an atrocity in the name of his passion.

Conspiracies, fear, hatred and cynicism are tragic, because the those who harbor them mistake them for cleverness and it inevitably leads to their undoing.

I'm sure however you don't see it that way, which is fine.

Roger:

I originally wrote,

"The pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars a year treating the symptoms caused by the garbage sold to people by the food companies for billions of dollars a year.

"These companies are owned by the same people.

"You see the problem."

I clarified this by saying,

"big business and big government are too big and too busy looking out for each other's interests, and don't care much about the benefit – or lack thereof – to the consumer.

"No conspiracy required, just plausible deniability."

Somehow, you want to compare this to the shrill demagoguery of a Robespierre, or the berserk rage of a T. E. Lawrence. You want to characterize my position as "conspiracy theories," "unconditional hate" and "fear."

Roger – really, I have to ask: where are you coming from?

You Wrote: "Somehow, you want to compare this to the shrill demagoguery of a Robespierre, or the berserk rage of a T. E. Lawrence. You want to characterize my position as "conspiracy theories," "unconditional hate" and "fear." Roger – really, I have to ask: where are you coming from?"

Sure, here's where I'm coming from. This is your post #67. Hopefully this clears up your confusion as to why I think you're being a Jacobin.

Roger:

Characteristics of sociopaths:

1. Glibness, superficial charm and habitual lying.

2. Emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy.

3. Cunning, devious and manipulative behavior.

4. Lack of remorse or guilt for actions that harm others.

5. Grandiosity and exaggerated sense of self-worth.

This is, indeed, the exact set of characteristics that will maximize success in the boardroom and on the campaign trail.

Therefore a person who is successful in big government or big business is far more likely to have these characteristics than a randomly selected person. To ignore this statistical regularity is not tolerance, it is wilful blindness.

When you say "there are good politicians and bad ones," you imply a degree of randomness that does not exist in the real world. In reality, the bad ones far outnumber the good ones, both in big government and in big business – precisely because of the reasons given above.

To acknowledge this fact is not a matter of being judgemental, it is simply a matter of being rational.

Roger:

What? Do you see a flaw in the reasoning? Or do you just dislike the conclusion?

Frankly, I don't much like the conclusion either, but see no flaw in the premises or the reasoning... so I see no valid basis upon which to reject the conclusion.

Given the defining characteristics of sociopaths and the characteristics which lead to success in big business and big government, it is only rational to expect to find a high degree of overlap between the two groups. And that is exactly what one does find, in actual fact.

If you don't want to believe me, you may have an easier time accepting the conclusions of professional psychologists, published in a peer-reviewed journal:

Board, B.J., & Fritzon, K. (2005). "Disordered personalities at work." Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(1):17-32.

Current categorical classification systems of personality disorders (PDs) remain widely used amid growing evidence that argues against the conceptualisation of PDs as independent, discrete entities. Adopting the dimensional perspective of Morey et al. (Journal of Personality Assessment, 49:245-251, 1985), this study compared personality disorder traits across forensic, psychiatric and "normal" senior business manager samples. There was particular interest in the relative representations of elements of PD closely associated with psychopathic PD because of research suggesting that some "psychopaths" operate within mainstream society, and links that have been made between elements of these so-called "successful" psychopaths, and characteristics associated with success in senior business management roles. The dimensional Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Scales for DSM III Personality Disorders (MMPI-PD) were shown to be internally consistent for the "normal" sample. Evidence for the qualitative equivalence of the four PD profiles emerged. The PD profile of the senior business manager sample was found to contain significant elements of personality disorders, particularly those that have been referred to as the "emotional components" of psychopathic personality disorders. The findings provide strong support for the continuous distribution of personality disordered traits.

(emphasis added in transcription)

That is very interesting guest.

I wish you two would start a whole new threat.....I mean thread.

I have a question about these socialpaths characteristics, the so called successful one anyways, or think they are successful.

When they feel threaten by someone, do they revert to using some type of transference of their social or psychopath traits to the person they are threatened by?

Basically, No I am not a socialpath, you are.

p911

phoenix911:

I'm not sure if this addresses what you're asking, but one typical strategy used by sociopaths to avoid guilt when confronted with harm they have caused is to disavow responsibility on the grounds that those who were harmed "had it coming" or "deserved what they got." In other words, blaming the victim is a ploy sociopaths use often.

Hi Guest, Better to check the definition of a sociopath! Where? For sure in a good dictionary. If you don't have, every library could allow you to read the text concerning the word. Guest, I hope you get your glass of squeezed orange juice this morning with 112 calories, pulp, and other chemicals, Gil.

As I am sure most people are aware, actually the DSM would have the appropriate, legally accepted, definition for sociopathy, not a common dictionary.

Hi P911,

Please, put the first lettre in capital, I talk about Guest, because he will be upset with us. You see! The next sentence mention right away the word "we = you two" or "you two = we". It's also probably a threat against us or someone else or a Nylon (thread)? We are lucky when is the second because Nylon never attack man!

Also, I am happy to become a successful sociopath! But why I am called as a sociopath and successful. For me a sociopath is a maladjusted, mostly at young age. I am still happy because I am successful, and most people want to be successful and they don't care if they are called sociopath.

Again, words are just opinions and who cares about opinions, Gil.

You Wrote:"What? Do you see a flaw in the reasoning? Or do you just dislike the conclusion?"

I see a flaw in your reasoning. You are misreading the paper you sited. Yes, psychopaths tend to excel in business due to their lack of empathy. And yes there are a higher percentage of psychopaths (sociopaths) found higher up in business as compared the the rest of the population. However, that doesn't mean that most Senior Business Managers are Sociopaths. Not by a long shot.

A→B isn't the same as B→A

Let A=Person is a Sociopath
B=Business Managers

Which reads "If Sociopath, then Business Manager" is not the same as "If Business Manager, then Sociopath. That is quite literally the flaw in your reasoning.

Here is a link that may give you insight as to the origins of your mistaken generalization. **Warning this article requires critical thinking, don't just skim it***

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewContentItem.do;jsessionid=BA58DABEDF3D2C257980BCCEA71192D3?contentType=Article&hdAction=lnkpdf&contentId=1580793

Hmm, maybe sociopathic tendencies can be learned through long exposure periods to environments which require such behaviors in order to progress or survive (keeping in mind that many people conceive of not progressing above entry level as not surviving for their level of effort and accomplishment to get to entry level, and are not far from the truth given the pay scales, workloads and benefits). So maybe through exposure to other sociopaths you learn to swim or drown and begin to take on those same behaviors, and after a while become accustomed to that type of thought process such that you have lost the notion of appropriate behaviors or responses. This would be similar to taking a friendly dog and dropping it in to dog fighting. It learns to fight to survive and becomes vicious, or it dies. thus managers must learn to become sociopathic or fail at their jobs. Of course, however, no manager is going to consider themselves socipathic, much as sociopathic criminals won't consider themselves dysfunctional, but rather it is the employees (or the victims) fault.

So now we are comparing Business Managers to Dogs that Dog Fight? Where are you poor guys working?

Please consider the following. Business Managers are just like you and me, except with different priorities, points of view, fears, and responsibilities. Some are good, some are bad, a very small percentage are sociopaths or saints.

Actually I used the dog in the dog fight scenario as a simplistic comparison such that you might comprehend the impact that an environment can have on the psychological development and change in behavior of a being. Obviously, human beings tend to have much more complicated responses, but at the most rudimentary level we respond much like animals to a perceiived threat to our survival, such as competition for food or other resources (or for human it might be competition for the income we perceive as necessary to support our lifestyles).

You Wrote:"Actually I used the dog in the dog fight scenario as a simplistic comparison such that you might comprehend the impact that an environment can have on the psychological development and change in behavior of a being."

I suppose if I was repeatedly beaten, choked, and occasionally maimed or even killed every time I failed to get promoted it would motivate me to become a sociopath, or maybe quit............Good Point?

And in a psychological (not physical) sense you are beaten maimed or even killed, as these are perceived substantial threats to you life, health and/or welfare, whenever you don't get promoted or get a raise but others do who appear to receive such promotions on the basis of their willingness to be more ruthless or unethical in business behaviors. Business by its nature requires management be able to cut cost while increasing productivity and profitability. Since only a very, very few people are innovative or ingenius enough to truly develop a new process that provides the same relative incomes to their labor forces they manage while increasing profitability and productivity without increasing the required labor efforts of the worker or reducing the quality of product delivered to their clients, all the others must try make up the difference to create the appearance of being similarly capable of cutting costs and increasing productivity or profitability by taking something from their labor force or from their clients. Also, considering that in particular ingenius, innovative people are frequently (which is probably an understatement) directed away from a management path in industry, because upper management feels it is more worth while to utilizes thier skills in R&D or production, you see that even fewer people than would be typical of a random sample of the population are much more mediocre but feel the pressures to appear innovative and creative in their business management to advance their careers. So what you end up with is a bunch of non-creative moderately intelligent people all placed in a position of competing to progress forward for a limited number of positions, or slowly being pushed out (death in corporate world). As they perceive others surviving by being more ruthless or less ethical, they begin to migrate in that direction, imperceptibly at first, after a while they don't perceive the transition, even though others do. The pressure of the environment drives a transition in ethics that favors sociopathic behaviors. Bear in mind that sociopaths tend to perform substanitally better than normal people in interpersonal activities such as meeting people and other introductory or short-term relational activities, tend to be more charismatic, seductive and convincing, are willing to do what they believe is needed without substantial concerns for others (except where it might effect them or for instance their company which could indirectly effect them) and appear more confident (probably since they dont care about the consequences to others), all qualities you want in a manager or to some degree in a general.

Hello RCE,

Thank you cery much!!! Finally, you who I am!! Also, you know what can I do!

How I did obtain this certitude? I your comments.

You called me, and I cite: "Only a very, very few people (I discover my real personality in that pinpointed definition) are innovative or ingenious". This is nicely done, RCE. Thanks again from Gil.

? It is very hard to interpret your comments. I am really hoping this is jsut a issue with a french to english translation or something, and not what i have heard so many times throughout my life about how poor engineers are are grammar and application of the english language. I really do not understand your point here.

Hi RCE,

Just make clear for you, I am not French, I am a proud Canadian and I don't translate when I say something in English. However, I fluently speak, read, and write three (3) languages. If we compare your writing and mine, there are some problems both sides. Just reread them and you get the conclusion that attacking people for their writing is not very victorious for the criticizer, but there is not the point. The real point is orange juice and pop and their differences in calories and other characteristics. Please, contimue in that subject, Gil.

RCE:

Yes. Exactly.

See my post #129 in reply to Roger's post #104.

Hi RCE,

I took 5 minutes after reading comment 100 to yours because the conversation is unbelievable. I laughed and laughed. We, all of us, talking about human comportment, comparison of psychological development, compare and judge business managers and sociopaths, and I pass. Stanhope, poor girl, she cannot sleep tonight because she cannot put together all those people and comportments in a glass of high calory orange juice. No, no! She doesn't want to drink it! Absolutely not, she wants to understand and put all conclusive facts in the next article to prove that she was right the first time! In time, she get the confirmation from someone else that the 112 calories were the exact numbers and she can be sure that no one highly educated blogger, as we are, can menace her position on the sociopathic ladder. Poor Stanhope, within a week she gets 10 years older, she will have difficulties to write another article, let say about independence. Watch it, I talk about independence of a "cat", you know the animal who never smile to anyone when we ask.

Ok, I finish but don't forget your squeezed orange juice tomorrow morning with empty stomach. Why empty? You will digest easily and don't have traffic jam as we have diring transportation, Gil.

Roger:

Well, well. Now you're agreeing with what I said, though our estimates of percentages still differ, and you're still arguing against something I didn't say. Note how similar our statements are:

You wrote "there are a higher percentage of psychopaths (sociopaths) found higher up in business as compared the rest of the population."

I wrote "a person who is successful in big government or big business is far more likely to have these characteristics than a randomly selected person."

In that same post, I also wrote, "to ignore this statistical regularity is not tolerance, it is wilful blindness."

Note that I explicitly called it a "statistical regularity." Nowhere make any claim of the form "this necessarily follows from that". In particular, continuing with your notation,

A = (sociopath)

B = (senior manager or politician)

I did not claim that A => B.

Nor did I claim that B => A.

In fact, it's obvious that both are false.

What I do claim is p(A | B) > p(A | not B)

where p(A | B) means "the probability that A is true, given that B is true."

In addition, I propose a cause/effect relationship which explains why it is so. Namely, that the characteristics that define sociopathy are precisely those that maximize a person's chance of success in politics (whether it be public sector politics or office politics). The article you linked to puts it this way:

"They have a knack of getting employed and of climbing the organisational hierarchy because of their charm and networking skills. This implies that there are more of them at the top of organisations than there are at the bottom."

While the article estimates that sociopaths make up anywhere from 1% to 5% of the general public, it refrains from making any estimate of the proportion of sociopaths in senior management, beyond the vague one just quoted.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the proportion approaches 100% in the upper echelons of big business and big government. I would be very surprised to find that the proportion is less than, say, 75%.

That's just my personal estimate, based on a lifetime of interacting with people at all levels, including directors and senior managers of multinational corporations and high level federal elected officials and bureaucrats.

Your mileage may vary. But I think it's just plain naïve (or wilfully blind) to deny that the ruthless competition for the top posts must lead to a very substantial increase in the concentration of sociopaths at or near the top.

No I'm not agreeing with what you said at all.

You Wrote:"Characteristics of sociopaths:......This is, indeed, the exact set of characteristics that will maximize success in the boardroom and on the campaign trail."

And You Wrote:"Therefore a person who is successful in big government or big business is far more likely to have these characteristics than a randomly selected person."

I pointed out that just because Sociopaths tend to be businessmen more doesn't mean Business men tend to be Sociopaths. That's logic 101.

This basic logic is something you seem incapable or unwilling to understand. I don't enjoy interacting with you, so I'm stopping now. You're gonna believe what you want to believe anyway and rationalize it. So long.

Jaxy, I'm sorry we hijacked your thread with this nonsense.

Roger

Roger:

My statements are about conditional probabilities.

Yet you persist in treating them as though they were deductive propositions in formal logic.

Even after I have carefully explained the difference.

You keep trying to apply modus ponens to an argument that demands Bayes' theorem.

So you continue to argue against something I have not said.

No wonder you're frustrated.

Hi Guest,

You are the winner!!! You are right!!!

Please, finish this arguing because there is not arguable things there. We must talk about orange juice and pops.

If you want to stay in the sociopathic argumentation, please open another blog and you will be the leader for a moment. Is this satisfying your character and writing habits?

Also, please Guest, nobody is plainly naive as you attack and treat people.

Hope for improvements, Gil.

Hi Guest,

This deep my friend! It much deeper than I can imagine a well squeezed orange juice from an squeezed manager in between two difficult problems during a meeting between intellectuels from a corporation.

It is better to read something about orange comes from Brazil and why the presing and squeezing company mention the origin of the fruit, isn't it?

Anyway, I get the "disordered personalities" article from somewhere and make a small message to you. About what? About my opinion of those people and their personalities. Don't worry! It will be only my opinion, Gil.

Hi Guest,

Don't be upset. People who decide to take a pill from those pharmaceutical companies, they decided to take one. Someone else can deny. It's a matter of choice. No one company put a knife on the neck of someone and tel: You have to buy it or you have to take it! We are in democracy.

Profits are necessary because without them there is no business.

The problem of pill's side-effects is not the business, it the customers or better the consumers.

Everyone is loking for it personally for the personal interests, isn't?

Irrelevent the origine of each individual, we are from Earth anyway, and we are on the Internet to spit out an opinion, just an opinion and not necessarily the trouth.

Stay with the squeezed orange juice with 112 calories, Gil.

Ok a little hard to understand, but I think I can address what I discern as one misinterpretation in your statement. Actually, disclosure of adverse or dangerous side effects are the responsibility of the manufacturer when they distribute most products for sale (except agricultural or food products of course). So while they can not force you to take the appropriate dosage for the proper applications, they must inform you of the potential consequences.

Hi RCE,

Yes, the responsibiity on adverse or dangerous products goes to the manufacturers. Who was the manufacturer of the product, silicone, which was injected and killed the girl Tomlinson. The product is banned in the US, but some people still inject. You think that the manufacturer will be prosecuted? No! Prozac or something similar killed people but FDA never attacked the manufacturer.

Now on, I take more time and correct my writing. Sorry for the typing errors, Gil.

And the misuse of a product that people are fully aware of the risk is the responsibility of the person using it. I believe that the whole world, except maybe some parts of africa with no news, is pretty aware of the dangerous effects assigned to potential silicone leakage from breast implant. No matter what you can not control stupid. A good way to look at it might be, what if it had been arsenic instead of silicone (more people are probably aware of the media exposure on silicone health risks than the exposure risks of arsenic). The manufacturer of Silicone paid for the side effects due to use of their product as they intended (though maybe not enough). I don't think you can prosecute someone because someone misused the product when it is clearly and commonly well known the health risks. And as far as when the health risk are misidentified, well who would you prosecute is the actually problem, the CEO at the time it was put on the market, the salesmen who promote the product, the chemists who conceived of it?

With regards to prozac or other pharmaceuticals, well the potential for death is clearly shown on those drugs, due to potential interactions, misuse, physical side effects, etc... However, many times the general public and medical professionals decide that the benefits to the general public outweigh the potential loss of a few lives, i.e. Polio vaccinations have a risk of death or paralysis, but far more people were saved then died so it is deemed worthwhile. Plus again as with all pharmaceuticals there is the common issue of misuse and interactions, many of which users don't disclose, such as alcohol or illicit drug use. I beleive that manufacturers of products who don't not disclose known risks or take substantial steps to avoid learning of potential risks should be held accountable, but the users and those receiving benefits from the use or application of products also have to be responsible for interactions, misuse, unusual physiological conditions which were not or could not be adequately characterized, etc. should be held responsible when they are made aware of the potential for risk. If you drive a car and don't wear your seat belt then die in a accident, which by the way is much more likely to kill you than pharamceuticals, who is responsible the auto manufacturer? No, you knew the risks and decided against the safer choice so you would be responsible for your death.

Hi RCE,

I don't argue with your explanation, which I cannot accept for good. The comparison between automakers and pharmaceuticals is not clear cut and doesn't show real responsibilities. When you drive a car, you are responsible what's happening with your car and its content, and outside dammages caused by the car. I hope my definition is close to cover everything. I am not an insurance person.

When you take a pill as we talk about, advertised as being good for you and solve your health problem(s) and doesn't create another health issues (I really don't like this neutral or positive word). The pill taker cannot be the sole responsible for any future problems, she/he doesn't have any idea about consequences. The manufacturer of the pill created some commercial, sellable item with the promise of solving certain problem, health or other, this pill producer is fully responsible for this advertised product.

I am not against or for this kinds of making and selling. I am saying that people who buy the item need knowledge or need to know about all characteristics of the product. This is not at all the case. Peoplethe buyers, are ignorant about the product, directed in unknown areas throught doctors and advertising, and their health could sometime be in danger. It's the same like our "orange juice". Forget the calories. The grams of sugar in most juice is representing 20% to 35% of the weight of the liquid. We are not drinking orange juice, we absorb sugar in form of solution. Result of the consumption of orange juice/sugar in solution is rampant obesity with desastrous health consequences. Who is responsible for the high level, not necessary sugar added to the orange juice? The consumer? I don't think so! Anyway, people drink solutions of sugar at place of orange juice buy squeezing the fruit every morning. This reality! Business is good!

What I want to tell, when a product goes to the marketplace for consumption or just for use, must be contain not dangerous items for the user or unhealthy ingredients when is absorbed with consequences.

I will recommand for you and all others to squeeze oranges at place of buying sugar in solution. Well squeezed orange juice is better, not dangerous, don't worry about calories as told by Stanhope, and also supply what you need for a day as protection against scurvy. If you have better, please RCE, let me know, Gil.

Ok sort of understand the first portion of statement relatively well, but the grammatical or spelling errors in the last 2/3 of staement really make it incomprehensible. Best I get is something about buying oranges to squeeze them for sugar in water or some such thing.

Hello Roger,

Thanks for the clarification! Stanhope is the person who wrote the article we are talking to each other. When someone talk about calories, cholesterol, and fat, everyone can put a support or negative opinion about the suggested word. Most of the people don't have any knowledge about the importance and the value for humen of all these three ingredients. But we can talk about, good or bad, and time to time we have communication between us to clarify or explain certain things related or not to the subject.

I like deviants. I like people have different ideas than many. I am one of them. I do many things differently because I don't want to be a "me-too" person with "me-too" products.

You acn read the article or copy of it, just before #1 blogger, Gil.

Roger:

You speak of "sweeping generalizations that allow you to hate unconditionally."

What kind of nonsense is that? It certainly has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Indeed, it is nothing but a politically correct incantation, intended to make people ashamed to use their rational faculties to discern patterns in their observations.

Without even pretending to address the logical or factual content of my argument, you immediately reach for these disingenuous bullyboy tactics and stoop to calling me names.

That says a lot more about you than it does about me.

But tell me... if your brain is not for making reasonable generalizations based on observed evidence, and forming rational judgements based on objective facts, then what on earth is it good for?

You Wrote:"When you say "there are good politicians and bad ones," you imply a degree of randomness that does not exist in the real world. In reality, the bad ones far outnumber the good ones, both in big government and in big business – precisely because of the reasons given above."

A sweeping generalization of government and business

Then You Wrote:"Roger:You speak of "sweeping generalizations that allow you to hate unconditionally."What kind of nonsense is that? It certainly has nothing to do with anything I wrote."

Then somehow you twist in your mind that what you wrote wasn't a generalization

And then you wrote:"Without even pretending to address the logical or factual content of my argument, you immediately reach for these disingenuous bullyboy tactics and stoop to calling me names."

Then you accuse me of personal attacks by personally attacking me.

And you're arguing as a guest.

I'll give you the last word.

Roger:

I didn't deny generalizing. Far from it. In fact, I explicitly stated that making reasonable generalizations and forming rational judgements is exactly what our rational faculty is for. Our ability to do that is part of what separates us from the lower primates.

It is your attempt to call that evil by disingenuously equating it with "unconditional hate" that I called a bullyboy tactic. And that's exactly what it is.

If you can't take it when I call you on it, then you shouldn't have thrown the insult in the first place.

I don't think categorizing people who succeed in business and government as usually "sociopaths" is a reasonable generalization or a rational judgement.

Here is a link to your post #67 where you explain your "sociopath" theory.

Roger:

See my post #97 in reply to your post #95.

1. Glibness, superficial charm and habitual lying.

2. Emotional shallowness, callousness and lack of empathy.

3. Cunning, devious and manipulative behavior.

4. Lack of remorse or guilt for actions that harm others.

5. Grandiosity and exaggerated sense of self-worth.

So went from discussing orange juice to George W. Bush?

Hi Guest,

Ya, it's me again! You force me to take my dictionary from home. At the workplace I use simple and comprehensive words.

Just to say, I was in school to lear Hungarian, lived in France to speak French without learned the language in school, and is the same with my Canadian English, you know colour and color, and other waterbournes.

But you push me to the limit with certain things like "emotional shallowness, callousness" but I am learning! It's good!

I cannot see any manipulative behaviour about sqeezed orange juice and orange juice on the shelves of a convenience store. Oh, we have to ask Stanhope to get the verity. No, I am not arguing with you or Stanhope. I want to learn about calories and other things in liquids. We already passed from OJ (not Simpson) to George W. Bush like you mentionned. Carry on and wait for answers, Gil.

Hello Guest,

Don't be upset! Be nice with people have different opinions. There are just opinions! The truth is another opinion or fact or reality.

What you mean "randomly selected" people? Explain.

Statistics has regularities? Where? Oh, you want to mean: all the time or something close to that? Clarify!

Good or bad exist everywhere, including in the animal world.

I am bad with my notes for many people and most of the time but not necessarily I am a bad person. I don't punch no one through our e-mail exchanges. So, I am good! Finally, something positive towards me. No, No, I don't cry but I am close because is nice hear something good about me, Gil.

Hi Guest,

Without orange juice or pops what you say is fine and true. Corporations care about themselves because we are the customers who pay for what the corporation propose us, isn't it? If moral person is honest and don't do bad things, I can tell you large number of people, if not 95% or more, are moral. The bad is that the few crooks, mainly CEOs with millions for salary, plus perks for compensation to bankrupt the corporation, and other accountings or managing people ruin the life of many morals.

The best of it is when you take without paying or rob a lof of bread, you get a month of jailtime. A crook who took illegally millions from others, with a good lawyer as partner, can be free with small bail.

I really enjoy it but we have to return to the main subject started by Stanhope, Gil.

Hello Roger,

There is no "governement conspiracy", there is no "theory". Only one thing is important for Stanhope: "OJ" refrs to orange juice but more importantly to OJ Simpson. He is a well known person, irrevelent what side of the balance of good or bad. Notoriety is an important title and Stanhope cannot get the Nobel prize, not this year, probably later but she needs this particular and "personel consideration". Everyone needs recognition but Stanhope needs more than simple recognition. OJ simpson was a 2,000 yards a year running back. The world of NFL put him on the top for years, and forget what was the story after retirement.

Stanhope wants to on top too, we have to catch it. So she put together a paper, which created all these comments, including this one.

I would like to ask you: Did you received soo many comments about one of your best actions? I don't think so. I am in the same position. We noticed Stanhope and we all promote her to higher position. She is jubilating without asking questions about our opinions, and she has no attention to interfere. Opinion is not important. We talk about her is! She is looking for Oslo! Now, we understand all this broohaha around the newspaper article about healthy and unhealthy liquids we drink without knowing what is it in. We can see the colour, we can feel the taste when is going down, and we appreciate its effects that we stay alive after years we ingurgitate this good/bad or bad/good liquid.

Roger, please follow me by drinking every morning, without failing, one squeezed orange juice every morning and I will salute Stanhope, Gil.

Pfoo, this was practically soo good as an squeezed orange juice!

What's a Stanhope?

Happy New Year Guest,

Fantastic! I just finish my note to the ""STUDY"". Your notes are more virulent than mines. BRAVO!!

Watch yourself Guest, do not attack the pill manufacturers. They are powerful. They already kidnapped people because they told openly that we can buy one kilo of vitame C for around $25 but when an African hospital want to buy, the same product is sold them for over $300 or $3,000 a kilo. HIs wife and dauthers kidnapped, not by the company, but people where directed and paid by the company. He was hiding in England from Swiss.

Finally, we have a good moment to release our frustrations! I love it, Gil.

I avoid OJ because I find it makes my arthritis worse (fresh squeezed less so than processed) - strange because bottled grapefruit does not. However fruit juice in general is too strong in taste for me. I usually drink either apple juice or graprfuit juice but watered down to about 1 part juice to 4 parts water (or more for grapefruit). I can then have a 16 or 20 oz glassfull getting the benefit of a long drink for only the ~100 calorie penalty and it doesn't spoil the taste of food. I eat lots of whole fresh fruit, never drink soda and never water whiskey not that I drink much alcohol either.

You do know that they make a OJ with splenda with less than half the calories. Tropicana has one and most store brands also carry it. Tropicana "sugar free" is around 45 calories per 8 oz serving. Out of all the fruit drinks apple juice is the worst as far as calorie counts, but must brands make a sugar free form of this also.

If you have to watch your sugar / carb intake then OJ and all bottled juices have to be dealt with carefully just like pop / soda / whatever you call it. In fact drinking OJ is the first thing to do to treat insulin shock. Bottled juices are loaded with high fructose corn syrup so those are out too. The only way to go is the artificial sweetners as one poster already mentioned. And, like another poster, I tend to cut the bottled juice with water. It's too much otherwise.

So yeah, I think that juice is probably no better than soda for a lot of people. But it's true, the producers push what they can and hang the consequences. Buyer beware!

Soda has HFT Corn syrup it it unless you by it in Mexico where they tend to use Sugar (Dextrose). Any fructose or dextrose in massive doses is a shock to your endocrine system. 6oz of orange juice is a healthy startup at breakfast because of its sugar, vitamin, mineral and, electrolite balance the is entirely absorbable by your body. Soda with its HFT corn product is a shot that you can't use or absorb that your body tries to protect itself from. Soda does not compare well with OJ. Anything out of balance or in excess is something your body seeks to control. Too much protein is tough on your body too. Strive for a food balance that matches your life style. Trying to sculpt yourself with food shifts that balance toward your goal. Once that goal is reached, shift your diet to youe lifestyle.

Soda is not a choice when pureified water is available. Fruit juices are a food to take in moderation as part of your diet. Water is to drink in excess when you are thirtsty it is what your body uses as its medium for all chemical procceses.

FYI Fructose is a naturally occurring plant derived sugar, as is succrose (standard table sugar). Man doesn't synthesize either, both are common to many edible components of plants, berries, fruits, etc..

Orange Juice contains a lot of both, which are naturally produced in the oranges. High Fructose Corn Syrup is just a concentrate derived from corn, you get the same kind of effect by concentrating orange juice. I don't believe they are indicating you should not drink orange juice, as they also indicated it has a higher than normal concentration of nutrients per calorie. I believe the study is just indicating orange juice in large quantities is no better than soda, and probably not good to substitute large quantities consumed of one for the other. This whole thing again goes to the amount of consumption. Something else to consider, the fruit aciods are extremely effective chelating agents for calcium, thus citrus juice is more effective for degrading teeth when you consider bacterial effects related to the sugars and the chelation due to organic acids.

FYI Fructose is a naturally occurring plant derived sugar, as is succrose (standard table sugar). Man doesn't synthesize either, both are common to many edible components of plants, berries, fruits, etc

Natural initially yes.....but man processes and concentrates it. Thats when anything natural ends

p911

You are right,

nature synthesizes the sugars.

But we eat too much - any type including starch in any form that may be much worse for your insulin-system as the glycemic index may be (depending on many factors) much higher. This is adding up to the risk from high weight!

There was in ancient Greece a doc who told us- Paracelsus around 1500 cited the Latin translation:

Omnia sunt venena, nihil est sine veneno. Sola dosis facit venenum.

Everything is a poison, nothing is without poison. Only the dose makes it a poison.

Human beings are neither totally adopted to high carbohydrate nor to easy access to any amount of food. (Estimates range around 25% of European and North-American population is adopted to high carbohydrate food, so likely you are not!)

Our agricultural history dates back only around 10,000 years, may be +- 20%.

So our early ancestors lived for some million years with only a few sweets: berries, scarce honey, sap from maple and birch trees, anything else?

And these were available only for a few very limited weeks in a year.

So still we are adopted to eat anything digestible but not to high calories food.

Except fat fish and shellfish, from this we could live without problems until pollution made a stop.

Have a look into the book from Barry Sears: The Omega-RX-Zone.

Switch back to natural food: whole grains, whole fruit, drink pure water or tea or coffee without much sugar and without sweetener. Eat a lot of nuts (any type) but avoid things that may still be poisonous (rapeseed i would doubt because there is still 1% of a very poisonous fatty acid contained - only 4% of what was existing in the time when rapeseed was banned as being very poisonous)!

RHABE

Actually, much like foraging primates, or hunter gatherer tribes, fruits and related probably comprise a large part of our diet in our early history. Fruits might only be available for any specific species for a few weeks of the year, but in the tropical areas different fruits ripen at slightly different times. However, this could mean some limitation to consumtpion of a select few fruits, versus a limited diet as things ripen and must be found of a greater diversity of fruits and berries (many of which we likely no longer consume).

Early on homonids would not have been able to process many nuts or grains into their diet. The ability to process these came around with more complicated tools, use of alternative energy sources such as horses, large agriculture and the ability to harvest and process the grains and nuts into something edible. Harvesting and processing of any substantial amount of grains on which to base a diet is very energy intensive and requires some agricultural means. (Also, raw grains collected right from the stalk are not really edible and as an indicator of how recently in our evolution we have been eating large quantities of grains our teeth are not adapted to eating raw grains). Additionally, grains contain large amounts of starches and sugars also, this is why you can make ethanol beverages from them (versus methanol).

Obviously, we have no capacity for digesting and absorbing any significant nutrition from vegetative matter (like cattle can), so we could not have survived on greens.

And if you look at chimpanzees as an example, meat was important and still forms a main nutritional deficiency for many hunter gatherer or other tribal groups (protient defiency). However, meat was a hard thing to obtain early in our history, and only became abundant as hunting tools evolved and eventually the agricultural means to raise and farm our own local sources.

therefoe it is reasonable to assume that upto about 40,000 years ago when homonids we primarily in africa, we consumed a great deal of fruits as they ripened in the tropical climate.

Sugars are ubiqituous to most everything in our diets, they exist in relativiely large quantities in fruits, berries, roots and tubers (carrots and potatoes), grains, etc... The real issues seems to be the quantities of consumption and the extensive periods we survive now which have only very recently increased substantially for the majority of the population (the life span 200 years ago was not much different than the life span 2000 years ago, and maybe less, but has recently nearly doubled in the last 100 to 200 years). You need sugars to survive, whether they be in the form of mono- or di-saccharides or complex poly-saccharides, but you also need to balance the intake against the caloric needs of your body.

You Wrote:"Early on hominids would not have been able to process many nuts or grains into their diet. The ability to process these came around with more complicated tools, use of alternative energy sources such as horses, large agriculture and the ability to harvest and process the grains and nuts into something edible."

I have to disagree with this statement. Chimpanzees in the wild eat nuts smashing them open with rocks. Grains can be eaten in the same fashion. Also, our molars allow us to grind plant matter. Certainly farming is a recent hominid development, and if that's what you meant, then I agree with you.

You Wrote:"Obviously, we have no capacity for digesting and absorbing any significant nutrition from vegetative matter (like cattle can), so we could not have survived on greens."

We evolved from Omnivores, so we survived on both meat and plants. Our Molars are in fact designed for plant matter (grinding). The reason we get wisdom teeth is because under our normal diet we would have ground our molars away so a new bunch grow just when the old bunch were wearing down.

You Wrote:"therefore it is reasonable to assume that upto about 40,000 years ago when hominids we primarily in Africa, we consumed a great deal of fruits as they ripened in the tropical climate."

I agree with this conclusion as it is consistent with the habits of other hominids. For Chimps, fruits account for 60% of their diet.

You Wrote:"You need sugars to survive, whether they be in the form of mono- or di-saccharides or complex poly-saccharides, but you also need to balance the intake against the caloric needs of your body."

Yes, but don't overlook the salient point Terrapin made regarding the fiber found in fruit slowing the absorption of the sugar into the bloodstream.

Hi RCE,

Why everyone talk about calories? The human problem is not the number of calories we put inside of us, it what we eat at the same time and how much of each. The "calory-cutters" never eliminated obesity, they created other health problems and people got back the number of pounds lost. Life is without calories as we see it. We need calories to have energy to move and think, to survive.

Read about diet propositions from many gurus and you discover that all talk about calories, to cut or to add but they all disappear with time because people who pay for the talk and the special menues, get the same or worst than before the expenses.

The word calory means business for most of people, the gurus but no solutions for people need help. All the best for the new year with new calories, Gil.

Hi Rhabe,

Yes, we eat too much, too much bad things. Starch has glycemic index (GI) higher than sugar/glucose, and we encounter in many prepared meals, cakes, cookies, and other prefabricated eatable things. High GI products in excess create reserves but the next day we eat again too much and add to the reserve little bit more. Finally, we become obese with health problems. Check out the size of people walking in your city and you get the idea. Yes, Paracelsus was right: everything is venonous except the quantity determine when is a poison.

We must eat carbohydrates with veggies and never with proteins. We must eat proteins with veggies only, never with carbs. It's a matter of digestion mechanism. We digest the proteins first, they are the harder to chop in pieces and assimilate. Carbohydrates are the next, and finally, it's easy to digest veggies and fruits.

Good example, early the morning with empty stomach for your breakfast eat eggs, sausage, processed cheese, and some veggies as tomatoes and lettuce with white bread. When you finished, take and eat an apple or pear, and let us know the gas coming out within five minutes. Our metabolism is a simple machine with one understanding. We start to digest the hardest we eat, proteins and during this time the fruit go rotten and create like scientific "weight losers" saying, you have acid reflux and take a pill. For two to three hours you let go bad your fruit. Experiment and let me know the effects. Rhabe, you will survive, don't worry!

This is not a joke, try it and let us know how good was your digestion. The next day you can eat the same things without fruit at the end to see and confirm the difference. The difference is the main thing! All the best for experimentation, Gil.

You also encounter starches in high concentrations grain products, tuber and other roots, corn and other seeds, etc.. (And actually it is these plant tissues where we derive our starches we utilize in other products.)

so now as I understand it we can not eat fruits because of the sugars and acid, no carrots/potatoes or other roots or tubers because the starch leads to obesity, no meat as it leads to cholesterol issues, no grains as they contain both starches and sugars, obviously milk is out as it contains sugar and fats that both cause problems. And, anything processed by man is the worst thing imaginable. This just leaves us with vegetative materials and dirt we may scavenge from the wilds of the few reamining forests, which both have negligible nutritional value. I think the stress of trying to eat PC would kill me long before the meat, corn, fruit, grain, or potatoes.

Hi RCE,

It's me agian. I talk about corn starch, which is added to too many processed and cooked products. Also, read again my note #53 at the second paragraph and I just explain to you the consequences of mixtures of all three main items, proteins=meat from animals, carbohydrates=wheat, rice,and other grains, and veggies or vegetables, how we have to handle them. Again, proteins with veggies, carbohydrates with veggies, and never mix proteins with carbohydrates. If there is something unclear for you, let me know. Also, test yourself about the fruit consumption after a good meal with all three participants. Just for the fun, do it!

Read me again and let me know what is wrong or right with my explanations, Gil

so starch is ok, but just not corn starch, and sugars are ok just not sugars from corn. Ok I think I see the trend here.

Sorry again RCE,

Corn starch is a sweetener and probably cheaper than ordinary sugar, mixed with salt to ask for more. For your inrormation, our body transform most of the corn we eat to sugar. There are no trends, ther is only a trade from orange juice to sweeteners, Gil.

Hi RCE,

You play with words but to clarify, starch, all starches are transformed in sugar by our metabolism and GI (glycemic index) of starch is high, between 75 and 85, depending of origin. Corn's GI is 70. In plus, corn is corn and becomes sugar only after eating it. There is no trend, just ignorance in trade, Gil.

Hello my "friend" RCE,

How are you? I hope you don't have any health problem after the absorption of fruit(s) after my proposed breakfast? If you can confirm that you are fine and survived the "fruit attack", and your digestion let you tell us wht is the result. Yes, the gas or production of gases, your difficulties or happiness, please, let us know. Don't hide the reality.

Corn starch, potatoes in any form, yes cooked carrots, not raw, created all these people that we call, not recognized by overweights, obese are eating lots of them. You don't accept this? Come on! Please, visit one of your town's hamburger maker and seller. Sit down and watch around! No, please don't go and measure the circumference of each person judged by you in the category of obese. Ah, you catched that!

Meats don't supply to much cholesterol when we eat small amount of meat. It's simple! When we eat to much fat, we are proposed to have some cholesterol problems. Less fat, less cholesterol! You can catch it? OK, finally!

RCE, no one animal, I talk about mammals, except human, go to get milk after adolescence! Did you see a pork, around one year old and 500 kg, return to mammy for a "sucking"? Ya! No, you are joking! Ah, you never saw that and it will never occur. I agree with you.

Ho! Meat at reasonable quantities is good but not absolutely necessary. Please, never eat beef! It's a very profitable and big business but they send many beef consumers to the hospital with coronarian problems and the rest is well known but forgetten like you do. Come on RCE?! Most of fruits and grains we can eat! Potatoes NOT!

Rce, please, let us know what happened at your breakfast? Why you don't want to tell us? I cannot wait more long time, Gil.

FYI, cooking food is processing it in a far more complex and substantial way than juicing and concentrating, so is combining foods stuffs to form anything from a salad to blueberry muffins. (Let alone the manufacture of things like beer, or cheese or other food stuffs where there is a substantial concentration, separation and biochemical alternation of the food). Heck just growing food, even in your own little garden is a huge anthropomorphic process where in we control the growth and conditions by which we obtain the food stuffs (again much more complicated, man- controlled process than simply concentrating juice). So unless you walk out in to the forests and harvest truly naturally grown (in the sense not process by agricultural methods) foods, everything you eat is highly procesed and has pretty much been since the rise of agricultural some 10,000 or so years ago.