1186: "Bumblebees"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

GreyingJay
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 3:18 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby GreyingJay » Fri Mar 15, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

How about: we use less than 10% of our brain power.

Affirmed by TWO television shows I've recently watched (Fringe and The Dead Zone), therefore it must be true!

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby AvatarIII » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:09 pm UTC

Someguy945 wrote:
keithl wrote:Hokay - One widely popular urban legend is that "natural" sucrose (cane or beet sugar, for example) is healthier than high fructose corn syrup.


keithl wrote:Glucose is better for you, because your metabolism reacts properly to it, but it is not nearly as sweet.


So first you say it is an urban legend, and then you agree with it?

For anyone wondering what keithl might be referring to, a recent study showed that high fructose corn syrup may leave you hungrier, which could cause you to consume more total calories.
http://news.yahoo.com/corn-syrup-might- ... 00069.html


I'm a bit confused here, Keithl's first quote was about the difference between sucrose and fructose, the second was about glucose. Sucrose is a disaccharide of glucose and fructose.

Surely it's possible that 0% fructose isn't as bad as something which is 50% fructose which is in turn almost as bad as 100% fructose, right?
Logically sucrose's badness/healthiness should be right in the middle between those of glucose and fructose, however that may not necessarily be the case.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Klear » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:14 pm UTC

RogueCynic wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_in_the_Sky_with_Diamonds

The urban myth that "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" was about lsd was started by the Nixon administration to destroy the Beatles. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-lennon-files-the-fbi-and-the-beatle-429429.html


Yeah... and then Nixon used his mind control powers from beyond the grave to make McCartney say in a 2004 interview that the song is obviously about LSD. It is clear that the song is about drugs, and it is also obvious that the Beatles denied it for so long because they had to.

CharlieBing
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby CharlieBing » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:33 pm UTC

This is getting silly.

I'm formally declaring an Arkwright Manoeuvre and say Mornington Crescent.

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Rotherian » Fri Mar 15, 2013 3:34 pm UTC

Someguy945 wrote:
keithl wrote:Hokay - One widely popular urban legend is that "natural" sucrose (cane or beet sugar, for example) is healthier than high fructose corn syrup.


keithl wrote:Glucose is better for you, because your metabolism reacts properly to it, but it is not nearly as sweet.


So first you say it is an urban legend, and then you agree with it?

For anyone wondering what keithl might be referring to, a recent study showed that high fructose corn syrup may leave you hungrier, which could cause you to consume more total calories.
http://news.yahoo.com/corn-syrup-might- ... 00069.html


The first quote contrasts natural sucrose and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), while the third refers to glucose. I can understand where there may be some confusion, as glucose is a component of HFCS. However, regular corn syrup (which is derived only from maize corn - or just "corn" if you are from the US - and is almost 100% glucose) is not near as sweet as HFCS - because in HFCS a large portion of the glucose has been converted to fructose.

tl;dr - Three different forms of sugar under discussion.
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.
Image

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Роберт » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:06 pm UTC

Tout d'abord pouss'e par ce qui fait en aviation, j'ai applique' aux
insectes les lois de la resistance del'air, et je suis arrive' avec
M. SAINTE-LAGUE a cette conclusion que leur vol es impossible.

From http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sciurban.htm

It's partially true, depending on the version you heard.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

MisterCheif
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 1:24 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby MisterCheif » Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:36 pm UTC

snowyowl wrote:
Istaro wrote:
keithl wrote:Because all the currently popular urban legends are accepted as fact, not yet exposed as urban legends. We have more than ever, and if I listed a dozen here you would call me insulting names.


Aww, come on, that's like telling a joke minus the punch line.

Cracking your knuckles doesn't cause osteoporosis, HDMI cables don't have any impact on sound quality, Islam does not promise 72 virgins to martyrs but rather an unspecified number to all who go to heaven, the assembly line predates Henry Ford, and Super Mario eating mushrooms to grow is inspired by a scene from Alice in Wonderland and has nothing to do with psychoactive drugs.

I kind of doubt cracking your knuckles leads to calcium deficit in the bones...
I can haz people?
lulzfish wrote:Exactly. Playing God is a good, old-fashioned American tradition. And you wouldn't want to ruin tradition. Unless you hate America. And that would make you a Communist.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:14 pm UTC

CharlieBing wrote:This is getting silly.

I'm formally declaring an Arkwright Manoeuvre and say Mornington Crescent.


I didn't realise we were using the Banbury variant?

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3006
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby orthogon » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:37 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
CharlieBing wrote:This is getting silly.

I'm formally declaring an Arkwright Manoeuvre and say Mornington Crescent.


I didn't realise we were using the Banbury variant?


That's because he isn't. In the Banbury variant, an acetal oxygen bridge in the alpha orientation would block the Arkwright manoevre. I'm surprised a normally erudite poster like yourself would make such a basic mistake.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:43 pm UTC

Klear wrote:... For example - I heard that glass in very old windows eventually flows down, making the glass thicker at the bottom. Few years later I heard it was an urban legend. Sure, when I first heard the myth, I didn't know it was an urban legend, but when I heard it debunked, I remembered hearing it earlier....
Glass making at the time when older houses were being made revolved around pouring molten silica on a non industrial quality level surface and so had a tilt of a few degrees and imperfections, this led to glass flowing to one end before it solidified and the thick end tended to be placed towards the bottom of the window pane. Someone offhandedly observing the thickness of the window would assume that the mass flowed down from the upper half of the pane.
GreyingJay wrote:How about: we use less than 10% of our brain power.

Affirmed by TWO television shows I've recently watched (Fringe and The Dead Zone), therefore it must be true!
You watched the Dead Zone recently? I remember the first season from about a decade ago, it wouldn't be good enough to syndicate today.

Fringe's scientific accuracy took a plunge very quickly, I will say no more on that.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Klear » Fri Mar 15, 2013 5:57 pm UTC

Fire Brns wrote:
Klear wrote:... For example - I heard that glass in very old windows eventually flows down, making the glass thicker at the bottom. Few years later I heard it was an urban legend. Sure, when I first heard the myth, I didn't know it was an urban legend, but when I heard it debunked, I remembered hearing it earlier....
Glass making at the time when older houses were being made revolved around pouring molten silica on a non industrial quality level surface and so had a tilt of a few degrees and imperfections, this led to glass flowing to one end before it solidified and the thick end tended to be placed towards the bottom of the window pane. Someone offhandedly observing the thickness of the window would assume that the mass flowed down from the upper half of the pane.


Thanks for explaining that, showing both extensive knowledge and poor reading skills. I was using that as an example of something I though was true when I first heard it, but later found out it's a misconception, in the process learning the explanation you just provided.

User avatar
Aviatrix
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 10:16 pm UTC
Location: California

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Aviatrix » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:24 pm UTC

Rotherian wrote:tl;dr - Three different forms of sugar under discussion.

More than three: glucose, fructose, the glucose-fructose disaccharide sucrose, regular corn syrup, HFCS (a couple of common varieties), honey. We've left out maltose which is a minor component of some of the mixtures - and the crowd roars "but that's just glucose!"

The thing that gets lost in all these HFCS wars is the difference between physiology (sugar = sugar, yes or no?) and psychology (use of HFCS promotes greater Caloric consumption, yes or no?). There's enough meat on them there bones that marketers can spin the research any way they want. Most of the studies I've seen are by people invested in one argument or the other, which is not to say they are biased but it makes me tired.

The statement that "we should eat less of it" seems right no matter to what form of sugar "it" refers. It's probably accurate for most nutrients in moderate-to-high income U.S. households. (Example: a pound of hamburger fed our family of four when I was young, but if I don't put 1.25 pounds of ground turkey into a dinner for two my husband starts roaming the pantry for snacks afterwards. Plates are bigger now, too!)

P.S. If you apply the physics of a Piper Cub to me, I can't fly either. But clearly my pseudonym suggests I can. Having a Piper - sadly, not a Cub - helps.

User avatar
styrofoam
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 3:28 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby styrofoam » Fri Mar 15, 2013 6:29 pm UTC

MisterCheif wrote:I kind of doubt cracking your knuckles leads to calcium deficit in the bones...

People believe the myth because they don't know osteoporosis is the result of calcium deficit in the bones.
aadams wrote:I am a very nice whatever it is I am.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby ahammel » Fri Mar 15, 2013 7:50 pm UTC

JustDoug wrote:Nah. The origin, as I've heard it (I worked from the Aerospace field) was that "normal" aeronautical engineering can't explain how a bumblebee flies when it's treated similarly to a fixed wing aircraft using the SOP methods, which got labeled as, "science can't explain..."
I've always wondered about this. Who would bother to try to figure out whether bumblebees can take off by sticking their wings out at a 90 degree angle from their bodies and running really fast?

There is also a secondary myth, which is that the origin of the first myth is that bumblebees can't fly if you model them like fixed-wing airplanes, but they can if you model them like helicopters. This makes zero sense to anybody who has seen both a bumblebee and a helicopter.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

nowhereman
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 5:46 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby nowhereman » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:19 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:The way I'd always heard it at least implied that bumblebees can't fly because they're too fat for their tiny little wings. Which I don't even need to know any complicated physics to know is baloney; I can demolish it with science I learned on TV Tropes.

(It should be quiet in here for a while.)


You sir, owe me two hours of my life back for linking me to tropes again.
"God does not play dice with... Yahtzee!" - Little known quote from Einstein

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Fire Brns » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:57 pm UTC

Klear wrote:
Fire Brns wrote:
Klear wrote:... For example - I heard that glass in very old windows eventually flows down, making the glass thicker at the bottom. Few years later I heard it was an urban legend. Sure, when I first heard the myth, I didn't know it was an urban legend, but when I heard it debunked, I remembered hearing it earlier....
Glass making at the time when older houses were being made revolved around pouring molten silica on a non industrial quality level surface and so had a tilt of a few degrees and imperfections, this led to glass flowing to one end before it solidified and the thick end tended to be placed towards the bottom of the window pane. Someone offhandedly observing the thickness of the window would assume that the mass flowed down from the upper half of the pane.


Thanks for explaining that, showing both extensive knowledge and poor reading skills. I was using that as an example of something I though was true when I first heard it, but later found out it's a misconception, in the process learning the explanation you just provided.

I was explaining for the other people reading your post and wondering the reasoning for that myth.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

CharlieBing
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby CharlieBing » Fri Mar 15, 2013 9:09 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
CharlieBing wrote:
This is getting silly.

I'm formally declaring an Arkwright Manoeuvre and say Mornington Crescent.


I didn't realise we were using the Banbury variant?


That's because he isn't. In the Banbury variant, an acetal oxygen bridge in the alpha orientation would block the Arkwright manoevre. I'm surprised a normally erudite poster like yourself would make such a basic mistake.


Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's not get our knickers in a knot. You are both right, in a way: it is the Banbury variant, but I cloaked it with a District Distraction, a recent invention of my own that thus far, dare I say it, appears to have bewildered one and all.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby rmsgrey » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:56 pm UTC

CharlieBing wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:
CharlieBing wrote:
This is getting silly.

I'm formally declaring an Arkwright Manoeuvre and say Mornington Crescent.


I didn't realise we were using the Banbury variant?


That's because he isn't. In the Banbury variant, an acetal oxygen bridge in the alpha orientation would block the Arkwright manoevre. I'm surprised a normally erudite poster like yourself would make such a basic mistake.


Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's not get our knickers in a knot. You are both right, in a way: it is the Banbury variant, but I cloaked it with a District Distraction, a recent invention of my own that thus far, dare I say it, appears to have bewildered one and all.

Of course, I was confusing the classic Banbury with the Banbury Cross. Thanks for clearing that up :)

CharlieBing
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 3:50 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby CharlieBing » Fri Mar 15, 2013 11:32 pm UTC

Of course, I was confusing the classic Banbury with the Banbury Cross. Thanks for clearing that up


That might call for a White Horse gambit.

[and to think I didn't even know there was an entire Mornington Crescent forum here until a few minutes ago. How mad is that? Wonderful stuff.]

User avatar
Davidy
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:18 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Davidy » Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:54 am UTC

I declare "shenanigans!"
"It's only funny until someone loses an eye, then it's still funny but they can only see it in 2-D."

FourTael
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:36 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby FourTael » Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:19 am UTC

keithl wrote:
FourTael wrote: Edit: I'm mostly interested in nutrition urban legends these days, but there are quite a few others that annoy me.


Hokay - One widely popular urban legend is that "natural" sucrose (cane or beet sugar, for example) is healthier than high fructose corn syrup.

The physiological effects of the fructose in both is identical, both are heavily subsidized by the Feds, and you should eat as little of either as possible. If you want something even worse, eat refined "natural fruit sugar" (almost all fructose, with the nutrients removed). Local honey is marginally better for you, but worse if it comes from places where they "sweeten" the trees so the bees (wow - on topic!) will pollinate them. Glucose is better for you, because your metabolism reacts properly to it, but it is not nearly as sweet. And Stevia - almost all from China these days - is so variable in composition that it is challenging to study for health effects, one major reason why there's been no reported problems with it.

The above is from a two hour lecture I attended last week by pediatric endocrinologist Daniel Marks. I expect at least one person to be offended enough to respond perjoratively. Should be amusing. Then I can respond with what I learned at a fluoridation lecture I heard tonight ...


Well, I'd like to point out that there are concerns about high fructose corn syrup aside from just the fructose content, but both are pretty bad for you, so whatever.

The thing for which you really want to look is unfiltered honey. The extra bits in there actually help with your insulin response to honey and contain some minor nutrients. But then again, why concern yourself with that sort of stuff? The average healthy person has about a teaspoon of sugar in their blood at any given time. 300g of sugar (the recommended daily allowance)... oops, I mean carbs (cause starches are totally different and not just a chain of glucose that gets broken down to glucose pretty much as soon as it hits your intestines) is a cup and a half.

Fun fact: An increase in your blood sugar results in your body producing insulin in amounts that, quite frankly, it can't handle producing. And let's not forget that your body gets resistant to insulin (known as, believe it or not, insulin resistance), which means that it needs to produce even more, which puts even more strain on your pancreas...

Oh, and did I mention that sugar intake increases your triglycerides, which (when divided by your HDL) is a predictor for the size of your LDL (more triglycerides/HDL = smaller LDL... and guess which size LDL caused the whole "LDL = bad cholesterol" urban legend). Turns out that large LDL is there to fix tears in your arterial walls (small LDL, if oxydized, can end up inside those tears... which is what causes arteries to become clogged)... and, funny story: High blood sugar increases your risk of getting those tears in the first place.

So how about, instead of sucrose or HFCS or glucose... we just... don't?

I'm not saying that all sugar is evil. I myself use unfiltered honey and love snacking on fruit and what have you (and there are veggies, of course, but they rarely contain the level of sugar that fruit does). Y'know, things that are actually high in fiber as opposed to candy bars with good PR (like "whole grain" muffins... which actually raise your blood sugar more than candy bars, or pretty much any "whole grain").

User avatar
bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby bmonk » Sat Mar 16, 2013 4:15 am UTC

GreyingJay wrote:How about: we use less than 10% of our brain power.

Affirmed by TWO television shows I've recently watched (Fringe and The Dead Zone), therefore it must be true!

Yes, because brain tissue is so easy to run that the body can afford to waste 90% of it...

Or the tale that you lose 90% of your heat through your head. It is actually true--if you are wearing full winter clothes on everything but your head. . . .
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

Eutychus
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 6:01 am UTC
Location: France

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Eutychus » Sat Mar 16, 2013 6:41 am UTC

Klear wrote:
Eutychus wrote:In other words, if you repeat an urban legend and then say "it's not true", the thing that sticks in people's minds over the long term is the original rumour and not the rebuttal. Firms that try to overturn nasty rumours about their products often end up actually spreading the rumour.


Isn't that just a rumour, though?


No, I learned this from a book by a sociologist called Kapferer, Rumeurs, le plus vieux média du monde ('Rumours: the oldest medium in the world') which had a fully referenced study on the subject. Unfortunately I can't find the book right now :( but it should be required reading with anyone in the business of passing information on to others. It also discusses a question raised above by another poster about the difference (or otherwise) between a rumour and an urban legend.

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a hitch-hiking monk I have to go and deal with...
Be very careful about rectilinear assumptions. Raptors could be hiding there - ucim

arthurd006_5
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 9:49 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby arthurd006_5 » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:50 am UTC

SEE wrote:But sociologists can't explain anything.

West and Zimmerman have done what strikes me as a good job of explaining how gender really works. It only took them 10 years to get it published, and I'm fairly sure that there are publicly available copies on the web :-)

niky
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:34 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby niky » Sat Mar 16, 2013 10:16 am UTC

FourTael wrote:oops, I mean carbs (cause starches are totally different and not just a chain of glucose that gets broken down to glucose pretty much as soon as it hits your intestines)


Yeah, but the glycemic index of the carbohydrate in question and the sweetener in question have a big effect on how quickly the stuff elevates your blood sugar.

I'm diabetic, and I tend to eat a lot of carbs (and yes, my triglyceride level is not pretty), but my HBA1C (3 month blood sugar average) stays pretty steady as long as I stay away from refined sugars. If I start snacking on sweets but keep my caloric intake steady, it starts to creep up.

But... Yeah... in the end, it's still all sugar.

The Cat

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby The Cat » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:13 am UTC

I," said the Fly, "with my little eye, I'll be navigator."

:D :D :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5geWQLaUSvE

Must Go Faster!

____

I declare "shenanigans!"


Shenanigans be a foot today, mi Laddy! The leprechauns, the weird beards, the hook eyes and lacky leers. Shenanigans be a foot indeed. I can smell it in the air!

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby webgiant » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:25 pm UTC

keithl wrote:
FourTael wrote: Edit: I'm mostly interested in nutrition urban legends these days, but there are quite a few others that annoy me.


Hokay - One widely popular urban legend is that "natural" sucrose (cane or beet sugar, for example) is healthier than high fructose corn syrup.

The physiological effects of the fructose in both is identical, both are heavily subsidized by the Feds, and you should eat as little of either as possible. If you want something even worse, eat refined "natural fruit sugar" (almost all fructose, with the nutrients removed). Local honey is marginally better for you, but worse if it comes from places where they "sweeten" the trees so the bees (wow - on topic!) will pollinate them. Glucose is better for you, because your metabolism reacts properly to it, but it is not nearly as sweet. And Stevia - almost all from China these days - is so variable in composition that it is challenging to study for health effects, one major reason why there's been no reported problems with it.

The above is from a two hour lecture I attended last week by pediatric endocrinologist Daniel Marks. I expect at least one person to be offended enough to respond perjoratively. Should be amusing. Then I can respond with what I learned at a fluoridation lecture I heard tonight ...

Local honey can kill you. Commercial honey, by diluting any toxic batches of local honey, is safer than local honey. Known source local honey is probably the best, though use a batch from too far away and their local pollen might give you an allergic reaction. Obviously don't give any honey to babies.

HFCS is heavily subsidized by the Feds. Table sugar is not, because of a tariff on imported sugar. The former drives down the price of HFCS, the latter drives up the price of sugar, through completely different economic methods.

HFCS has, as its name suggests, large amounts of fructose, more than that found in table sugar. Health problems have been linked to high consumption of fructose so HFCS is worse for you simply by having more fructose in it than table sugar, even though fructose in both HFCS and table sugar affects us the same way: a lot of poison will kill you faster than a little poison. Fruit contains fiber, which limits the bad effects of fructose (and other sugars) in fruit. Juicing a fruit removes the fiber, removing the protective effect of the fiber.

HFCS has additional legitimate health problems not present with sugar. Some HFCS production plants use a process that may add trace amounts of mercury. Trace amounts of corn may persist in the HFCS, triggering corn allergies which are one of the 10 most prevalent food allergies. One problem directly the result of HFCS' cheap subsidized price is that because it is so cheap, companies can add tons of it to food, causing many people to consume massive quantities of it without even knowing they are consuming HFCS. Obviously if HFCS and sugar swapped places in the market, sugar would be the sweetener added in huge quantities to our food.

All non-sugar sweeteners cause the same problem: they disrupt the body's ability to regulate incoming calories. Rats fed a non-sugar sweetened food gained more weight than rats fed a high calorie food, because their involuntary responses caused the high-calorie food to trigger a "sated" response, while the non-sugar sweetener did not generate such a response. Metabolisms altered in the non-sugar rats as well, storing calories instead of using them. However, if the alternative to non-sugar sweeteners is death by glucose intolerance, then one might as well use the non-sugar sweetener rather than live a life devoid of sweetened pleasures.

Finally, I think anti-fluoridation is a crime against humanity and especially a crime against the poor, who would have much more dental problems without fluoridation. If my local city ever stupidly stopped fluoridation, I would seek out methods of re-fluoridating my tap water.

niky wrote:
FourTael wrote:oops, I mean carbs (cause starches are totally different and not just a chain of glucose that gets broken down to glucose pretty much as soon as it hits your intestines)


Yeah, but the glycemic index of the carbohydrate in question and the sweetener in question have a big effect on how quickly the stuff elevates your blood sugar.

I'm diabetic, and I tend to eat a lot of carbs (and yes, my triglyceride level is not pretty), but my HBA1C (3 month blood sugar average) stays pretty steady as long as I stay away from refined sugars. If I start snacking on sweets but keep my caloric intake steady, it starts to creep up.

But... Yeah... in the end, it's still all sugar.

Glycemic Index is not all its cracked up to be. Foods high on the glycemic index kick in quickly, but foods lower on the index kick in much more slowly. This means that eating only low glycemic index foods encourages snacking. Say you desire a candy bar. Eating a candy bar means you no longer desire a candy bar. Eating something much lower on the index, like an apple and some cheese, leaves you still wanting that candy bar 15 to 20 minutes later, so you have another snack. Eventually that first snack's hunger abatement benefits may kick in, but in the meantime you may have eaten far more glucose in all those "low glycemic index" snacks than the original candy bar.

A small high GI snack combined with a larger low GI snack may be the best option: the high GI snack kicks in right away, and as it fades, the low GI snack kicks in to prevent snacking.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby webgiant » Sat Mar 16, 2013 8:48 pm UTC

Himself wrote:Image
Alt Text: "Did you know sociologists can't explain why people keep repeating that urban legend about bumblebees not being able to fly!?"

If I remember it correctly it all goes back to one guy getting his math wrong. Also, is this a reference to Bee Movie?

I blame the Doctor (also known as "the Great Wizard Quiquaequod", a rather humorous Latin play on words) for spreading this urban legend throughout the nerd community, first as the Third Doctor (Second Regeneration) in "The Daemons", then as the Fourth Doctor (Third Regeneration) in "The Robots of Death".

“Bumblebees. Terran insects. Aerodynamically impossible for them to fly, but they do it. I’m rather fond of bumblebees.”
-- Fourth Doctor, Tom Baker, "The Robots Of Death"

If you are trying to remember "The Daemons", think of this: "Chap with the wings. Five rounds rapid."

Fire Brns
Posts: 1114
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:25 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Fire Brns » Sat Mar 16, 2013 11:19 pm UTC

webgiant wrote:Obviously don't give any honey to babies.
Nothing goes without saying, especially if lives are at stake. Infant botulism kills, people.

I swear, you guys leave out too much valuable information.
Pfhorrest wrote:As someone who is not easily offended, I don't really mind anything in this conversation.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:It was the Renaissance. Everyone was Italian.

hoogabooga
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:03 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby hoogabooga » Sun Mar 17, 2013 12:06 am UTC

I remember hearing the bumblebees couldn't fly on the TV show "Science International" (Joseph Campanella and Tiiu Leek). If I saw it on TV 20 years ago it must be right. Please revise your sarcasm.

mschmidt62
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:09 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby mschmidt62 » Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:00 am UTC

I've heard that most urban legends are, in fact, suburban legends.

Dryhad
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:31 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Dryhad » Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:47 am UTC

webgiant wrote:Finally, I think anti-fluoridation is a crime against humanity and especially a crime against the poor, who would have much more dental problems without fluoridation. If my local city ever stupidly stopped fluoridation, I would seek out methods of re-fluoridating my tap water.

I can't help but wonder if there's a better way of improving the dental hygiene of the poor without enforced medication of the entire population as an excuse to dispose of industrial waste.
That said, "nothing" does not qualify as a better way.

portablejim
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:56 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby portablejim » Sun Mar 17, 2013 1:07 pm UTC

(in response to the fructose/glucose discussion)

Glucose is the fuel the body uses to survive. It is not toxic, but the opposite (one of the drips you get put on when you go to hospital - for something extending past a meal - is glucose) and is absorbed directly into the bloodstream and used directly. It is 'counted' by the body's own 'calorie counter' and therefore makes you feel fuller (insulin is actually used as a feedback mechanism for blood glucose level (among other things such as facilitating the turning of glucose into energy and fat) - causing problems for people whose body cannot regulate insulin levels) telling the hypothalamus how 'full' you are). Any excess energy first 'recharges' 'backup batteries' then goes to fat.

Fructose basically goes directly towards fat, skipping the 'calorie counter'.

User avatar
J L
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 11:03 am UTC
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby J L » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:02 pm UTC

As for the question why people keep repeating that legend: One popular version of it is "Aerodynamically, the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumble bee doesn't know it so it goes on flying anyway" (attributed to one Mary Kay Ash here). I've seen it as a kind of inspirational postcard here in Germany. People seem fond of the idea that a) there are still everday wonders science can't explain and b) that you can succeed despite all odds, no matter the nay-sayers. In other words, people don't even care if it's true. The legend is a success because it's appealing.

User avatar
SEE
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby SEE » Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:13 pm UTC

arthurd006_5 wrote:
SEE wrote:But sociologists can't explain anything.

West and Zimmerman have done what strikes me as a good job of explaining how gender really works. It only took them 10 years to get it published, and I'm fairly sure that there are publicly available copies on the web :-)

I read it quite a while ago. “Your work is both true and original. Unfortunately, the parts that are true are not original, and the parts that are original are not true.”

rmsgrey
Posts: 3483
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby rmsgrey » Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:01 pm UTC

bmonk wrote:
GreyingJay wrote:How about: we use less than 10% of our brain power.

Affirmed by TWO television shows I've recently watched (Fringe and The Dead Zone), therefore it must be true!

Yes, because brain tissue is so easy to run that the body can afford to waste 90% of it...


What is true is that we don't use all of our brain at full efficiency all of the time - in fact, there's a word for having all your neurons firing at once - "seizure"

I don't know what the typical activity levels are compared to full-seizure, but 10% would not surprise me, and anything over 50% would.

webgiant
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:36 pm UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby webgiant » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:29 am UTC

Dryhad wrote:
webgiant wrote:Finally, I think anti-fluoridation is a crime against humanity and especially a crime against the poor, who would have much more dental problems without fluoridation. If my local city ever stupidly stopped fluoridation, I would seek out methods of re-fluoridating my tap water.

I can't help but wonder if there's a better way of improving the dental hygiene of the poor without enforced medication of the entire population as an excuse to dispose of industrial waste.
That said, "nothing" does not qualify as a better way.

There is a better way of improving the dental hygiene of the poor. Most industrialized countries already have it. The U.S. does not. Not interested in a discussion about how we'd be better off without it. Still think that not having it means fluoridation is necessary. And its still not a medication.

Dryhad
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:31 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby Dryhad » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:28 am UTC

webgiant wrote:
Dryhad wrote:
webgiant wrote:Finally, I think anti-fluoridation is a crime against humanity and especially a crime against the poor, who would have much more dental problems without fluoridation. If my local city ever stupidly stopped fluoridation, I would seek out methods of re-fluoridating my tap water.

I can't help but wonder if there's a better way of improving the dental hygiene of the poor without enforced medication of the entire population as an excuse to dispose of industrial waste.
That said, "nothing" does not qualify as a better way.

There is a better way of improving the dental hygiene of the poor. Most industrialized countries already have it. The U.S. does not. Not interested in a discussion about how we'd be better off without it. Still think that not having it means fluoridation is necessary.

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to with "it" but I think I get your point. However, if I may indulge in one last cheap shot:

webgiant wrote:And its still not a medication.

So you do prefer the term "industrial waste"? :P

User avatar
faunablues
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:14 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby faunablues » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:47 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
bmonk wrote:
GreyingJay wrote:How about: we use less than 10% of our brain power.

Affirmed by TWO television shows I've recently watched (Fringe and The Dead Zone), therefore it must be true!

Yes, because brain tissue is so easy to run that the body can afford to waste 90% of it...


What is true is that we don't use all of our brain at full efficiency all of the time - in fact, there's a word for having all your neurons firing at once - "seizure"

I don't know what the typical activity levels are compared to full-seizure, but 10% would not surprise me, and anything over 50% would.


It depends on how you define "using your brain." Are you actively, consciously, accessing everything in your brain at once and all the time? Hell no. Are all of your neurons and glial cells performing some sort of activity all the time? Yep.
If it's about whether a given neuron is firing, I'd think that's pretty difficult to quantify. But forgetting the technical issue, there's also the matter that the brain is not 100% neurons, not even a majority of neurons. So I guess one could never have every cell in the brain firing at once (since not all cells are signaling in the neurologic sense), even if all cells are active in some way.

niky
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 6:34 am UTC

Re: 1186: "Bumblebees"

Postby niky » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:24 am UTC

webgiant wrote:A small high GI snack combined with a larger low GI snack may be the best option: the high GI snack kicks in right away, and as it fades, the low GI snack kicks in to prevent snacking.


Probably some truth to that, though as a diabetic, GI definitely IS important to me, as I can't eat as much when I'm eating food with a high GI as opposed to a low GI. Especially since I'm a non-insulin user.

Which means that even if that ice cream has merely as many calories as a sandwich, I can't eat an entire order without suffering a dangerous blood sugar spike. Eating something low-GI lets me spread that spike way out.

Oh, and chewing slowly definitely helps.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests