oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (07/27/85)
In article <1061@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: > ...Sugar does come from natural sources but is over-refined > therefore making it non-natural, and dangerous. Mr. Stanions, for a reward of $25.00, to you or your favorite charity, could you cite to the net your references for that statement? [Forgive me for insisting such references come from refereed journals. If you'd rather point to a book, feel free, but I want to see research results at the end of the bibliography trail.] Before you go for the dough, please resolve some ambiguities in your statement: ... but is over-refined... Means what? What is the substrate? What the final product? What steps occur in the refinement process? Which is the first gratuitous one? Why is it gratuitous? What are its inputs and outputs? How did you come by that knowlege? ...therefore making it non-natural... What is natural? If the answer's long, just point us at a reference. Is non-naturalness a result of refinement or merely over-refinement? Which refinement step makes the intermediate compound between substrate and final product non-natural? Does that apply to products other than sugar? In particular, can you supply an algorithm for identifying the refinement-step-that-makes-its-product-non-natural in the general case? In even ONE other case? ...and dangerous. Dangerous because it's non-natural? By extension, is anything non-natural inherently dangerous? Is the relationship commutative? Does natural imply not-dangerous? Under what conditions? Dangerous to everyone or just some people? Dangerous under all circumstances and dosages, or just certain ones? In what way dangerous? May we have a damage-causing mechanism, please? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I apologize to the public at large for the nitpicky nature of my questions. Mr. Stanions's postings mangle the English language so badly that I don't really know what he's trying to say. [YOW, am I ******* ****** yet? Name that person!] Hence my request for low-level explanations. Furthermore, since the questions I asked require acquaintance with first-year organic chemistry techniques and nomenclature, his answers may tell us whether he knows anything about that subject. Feel free to flame me if you think that kind of knowledge isn't necessary for uttering a continuous stream of unsupported positive public statements. Or for any other reason. Anyone who wants to answer or improve on the questions above is invited to do so. Mr. Stanions, I await your reply with (artificially) sweetly bated breath. -- Oded Feingold {decvax, harvard, mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf MIT AI Lab oaf%oz@mit-mc.ARPA 545 Tech Sq. 617-253-8598 work Cambridge, Mass. 02139 617-371-1796 home
siritzky@acf2.UUCP (Brian Siritzky) (07/29/85)
Before we take this support of 'artificial' things too seriously, note the author's address. The AI Lab at MIT?! Nuff said.
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (07/30/85)
>In article <1061@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@dkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: >> ...Sugar does come from natural sources but is over-refined >> therefore making it non-natural, and dangerous. >Mr. Stanions, for a reward of $25.00, to you or your favorite charity, >could you cite to the net your references for that statement? >[Forgive me for insisting such references come from refereed journals. >If you'd rather point to a book, feel free, but I want to see research >results at the end of the bibliography trail.] Before you go for the >dough, please resolve some ambiguities in your statement: You seem new to this discussion or else you would know that I don't need a bribe to respond to a criticism. I hope you are also aware that my answers will almost certainly not satisfy you. I have great faith and am a believer in the scientific method, however, when a scientific experiment (such as the one being performed on peoples diet and health at this time) fails to recognize the lessons of the past and ignores vast amounts of data (probably because it is unexplainable/unusable in a scientific nature) I stop agreeing. At any rate I will answer your questions in the manner I see appropriate. If you feel I have done as you asked please don't insult me by sending money, however, I would appreciate it is you would spread the word to others. But, I doubt you will like what you read. References: I have repeated this list many times. Please reference earlier articles. > ... but is over-refined... > Means what? > What is the substrate? > What the final product? > What steps occur in the refinement process? > Which is the first gratuitous one? Why is it gratuitous? > What are its inputs and outputs? How did you come > by that knowlege? I am into electronics not chemistry therefore I will use layman's language. Does that mean I am disqualified? I think not. People have been eating for many years before chemistry. Over-refined means that sugar as used does not exist in a natural state. Sugar is natural in that it is produced by a living thing, but once it is taken from that thing it is only a substance, with little if any natural qualities. Fiber in the diet will slow the digestive process. If you go into a field and eat a natural sugar-cane plant (not a hybrid) I'm sure you will get a great deal of fiber with the sugar. Sugar in many processed foods exists in a state similar to eating sugar without the rest of the product. Soda and candy are good examples, the sugar is so dominant and the rest of the product so fiber-free that the sugar passes very quickly into the blood stream (faster than if taken in a natural form). The blood sugar level is controlled by many organs and each of these goes into action. With sugar the drop in blood sugar levels is also fast and the cycle continues. Can you say that this does not cause any problem over the long run? I do not endorse eating large amounts of honey or sugar cane. However if you must use a sweetener then honey is the better choice. > ...therefore making it non-natural... > What is natural? If the answer's long, just point us > at a reference. > Is non-naturalness a result of refinement or merely > over-refinement? > Which refinement step makes the intermediate compound > between substrate and final product non-natural? > Does that apply to products other than sugar? In particular, > can you supply an algorithm for identifying the > refinement-step-that-makes-its-product-non-natural > in the general case? In even ONE other case? As I said above sugar is removed from it's natural origins. Natural refers to the package, total and complete as supplied by nature. Also not corrupted by heating or chemical processes. Reference earlier articles. > ...and dangerous. > Dangerous because it's non-natural? By extension, is > anything non-natural inherently dangerous? > Is the relationship commutative? Does natural imply > not-dangerous? Under what conditions? > Dangerous to everyone or just some people? > Dangerous under all circumstances and dosages, or just > certain ones? > In what way dangerous? May we have a damage-causing > mechanism, please? See above. I do not/did not say any specific problems. Diabetes is of course the obvious one. Also hyper-insulinism. Here is one that could start a long discussion and I offer only as a statement and without medical proof as I think none exists. One of the organs damaged by this blood sugar merry-go-round is the adrenal gland. When women reach menopause they stop producing estrogen. At this point in life the adrenal gland produces another hormone which greatly reduces the problems associated with this phase of life. However, due to excessive sugar usage the adrenal gland could be damaged to the point where this hormone is not or is poorly produced and the person must endure the full problem without the natural assist. How's that for one to trip some triggers. Then there is this mood change problem... >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >I apologize to the public at large for the nitpicky nature of my >questions. Mr. Stanions's postings mangle the English language so >badly that I don't really know what he's trying to say. [YOW, am I Don't apologize, I don't, this is the "net". Maybe I do mangle the language somewhat or maybe you keep looking for something that I won't give. Much of what I have to say doesn't exist in an engineering/scientific environment. Maybe if you stop being an engineer for a while you will see things differently. I don't care to give to many scientific examples when I talk about health, there are to many variables to fit all of them into scientific calculations. >******* ****** yet? Name that person!] Hence my request for >low-level explanations. Furthermore, since the questions I asked >require acquaintance with first-year organic chemistry techniques and >nomenclature, his answers may tell us whether he knows anything about >that subject. I did take some of organic chemistry as required, however, I have forgotten most of it. Does that mean I don't qualify to speak on the subject of health? How did mankind survive this long without it? Maybe common sense and an open mind are more important. I do listen to what "learned" people have to say on the subject, but once they close off a fact, or fail to address an issue then I turn them off. This eliminates the current medical establishment. I have covered my credentials in previous postings. >Feel free to flame me if you think that kind of knowledge isn't >necessary for uttering a continuous stream of unsupported positive >public statements. Or for any other reason. >Anyone who wants to answer or improve on the questions above is >invited to do so. >Mr. Stanions, I await your reply with (artificially) sweetly bated >breath. No doubt. >-- >Oded Feingold {decvax, harvard, mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf >MIT AI Lab oaf%oz@mit-mc.ARPA >545 Tech Sq. 617-253-8598 work >Cambridge, Mass. 02139 617-371-1796 home {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs
kscott@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Kevin Scott%Kuntz) (08/01/85)
In article <940001@acf2.UUCP> siritzky@acf2.UUCP (Brian Siritzky) writes: > >Before we take this support of 'artificial' things too seriously, note the >author's address. The AI Lab at MIT?! Nuff said. Yes. Thank you. I take him very seriously now, anyone working on that cutting edge of science, whether or not the goal is ever realized or realizable, has credibility as a thinker.