The Cambridge Chat Thread

OP

jcb914

Well that's taking a particularly cynical and over-cautious view. It was introduced more than a decade ago and every regulatory body that has reviewed it has approved it as completely safe. For the majority of the (increasingly overweight) population, sucralose represents a far better option than sugar.

It creates the same insulin response as sugar does, and so although it doesn't have some of the other bad effects that sugar does, it still has those that are related to insulin responses.
And seeing as the regulatory bodies are happy to tell a diabetic to eat potatoes and other such foodstuffs which are broken down into simple sugars and massively muck up blood sugar control (without immediately killing people), I would be inclined not to trust them. Lots of very widespread health advice is pretty bad (often out of pragmatism - health authorities trying to go for the common denominator finding some small improvement (though far from optimal) that people are likely to not mind trying rather than advice which threatens peoples' lifestyles too much.) And where some of these products have extremely long term effects (like decades) ten years wouldn't be enough.

On the point of giving people moderate advice in the hope that they try to change slightly, its the same with exercise. People are encouraged to go for a walk, where its been shown that the most intense forms of exercise which raise your heartrate significantly and get you totally out of breath, are the most effective forms of exercise which have the best and the most effective long term and short term health benefits.

Reply 6442

jcb914

11

Craghyrax

It creates the same insulin response as sugar does, and so although it doesn't have some of the other bad effects that sugar does, it still has those that are related to insulin responses.
And seeing as the regulatory bodies are happy to tell a diabetic to eat potatoes and other such foodstuffs which are broken down into simple sugars and massively muck up blood sugar control (without immediately killing people), I would be inclined not to trust them. Lots of very widespread health advice is pretty bad (often out of pragmatism - health authorities trying to go for the common denominator finding some small improvement (though far from optimal) that people are likely to not mind trying rather than advice which threatens peoples' lifestyles too much.) And where some of these products have extremely long term effects (like decades) ten years wouldn't be enough.

On the point of giving people moderate advice in the hope that they try to change slightly, its the same with exercise. People are encouraged to go for a walk, where its been shown that the most intense forms of exercise which raise your heartrate significantly and get you totally out of breath, are the most effective forms of exercise which have the best and the most effective long term and short term health benefits.

I was referring to the calorific impact, of course. I still stand by my comments. It's completely wrong to label something "disastrously unhealthy" when there is zero evidence supporting such a statement. "Very slightly risky" may have been a better way to put it, although I still think it's in the best interest of the majority of the population to take that small risk rather than absorb an extra 30-odd calories every time they have a coffee (for example). Regulatory bodies and food standards agencies may not be perfect, but they know more about the science and human responses to the food stuffs in question than both you and I do, so I'm inclined to trust their advice.

I don't really understand the point you're making in your final paragraph. Of course running/getting out of breath delivers better health benefits than a gentle stroll. But many people are lazy - and walking is better than nothing. Telling people to run more would likely be ignored, whereas telling them to walk more might actually make a difference.

Reply 6443

Catsmeat

ukebert

Actually it is probably true that forcing Arts students to do Sciences is probably more productive than forcing Science students to do Arts :p:

Burn

.

It's not a bad suggestion, nonetheless. Luckily I seem to cope well with stats and physical sciences without having done any formal science for about five years.

Can I make a mandatory and oblique reference to C.P. Snow now? Yes. C.P. Snow. Done.

Reply 6444

OP

jcb914

I was referring to the calorific impact, of course. I still stand by my comments. It's completely wrong to label something "disastrously unhealthy" when there is zero evidence supporting such a statement. "Very slightly risky" may have been a better way to put it, although I still think it's in the best interest of the majority of the population to take that small risk rather than absorb an extra 30-odd calories every time they have a coffee (for example). Regulatory bodies and food standards agencies may not be perfect, but they know more about the science and human responses to the food stuffs in question than both you and I do, so I'm inclined to trust their advice.

Health advice based on calorie intake is another perspective that I'm sceptical of, so for me the negative effects to the body resulting from the battering it gets from a diet which produces frequent insulin spikes is far more problematic to the person's health than a few extra calories. If you eat foods which the body is better equipped to metabolise, then excess calories are far less damaging to the body. Eating bad sorts of food both has the result of slowly destroying your bodies ability to regulate and deal with it properly, and also gives you cravings to eat more of it which causes you to eat too much. When you eat good foods you often feel satisfied on less and naturally stop eating as many as it is.

If the research that I've been shown is actually right (and hopefully it will gradually change the course of medical discourse and views on nutrition over time) then it certainly is disastrously unhealthy! I'm merely explaining that I happen to believe newer research on the matter more than I believe the old and very well established consensus which governs the policies of the regulatory bodies you speak of.

Zero evidence? :eyeball:

Did you miss the point where I explained that these views about health are based on the most recent scientific findings which are being published and released this very moment by scientists :lolwut:

I am not attacking other people by stating that I happen to believe that x, y or z is unhealthy. But I am being attacked because I believe it!

jcb914

I don't really understand the point you're making in your final paragraph. Of course running/getting out of breath delivers better health benefits than a gentle stroll. But many people are lazy - and walking is better than nothing. Telling people to run more would likely be ignored, whereas telling them to walk more might actually make a difference.

Yes. Obviously :rolleyes:

I was just giving an example of how some advice might remain popular or in use becauase its less likely to ruffle feathers and put people off making an effort than the actual scientific findings on what is healthy and what isn't actually says. The vast majority would prefer to stick to their comforts as long as it doesn't kill them, even if it means manageable unpleasant symptoms which reduce quality of life slightly.

Reply 6445

OP

Catsmeat

Can I make a mandatory and oblique reference to C.P. Snow now? Yes. C.P. Snow. Done.

Reply 6446

Slumpy

16

ukebert

Am I the only one that would have hated being forced to do Arts at A-Level or equivalent? :s-smilie:

It may suit some people, but not everyone. At that stage I would hope that everyone has a basic idea of what they want to do, to force them to continue with other subjects at the expense of the ones that they are interested in seems a little out of order.

The solution is to make GCSE Science a lot more rigorous and useful.

Yeah, they all looked like so much work when my friends did them :p:

And, I can't really comment on all this, because I didn't do A levels, but some of them sound pretty damn awful.

Also, Craggy, I'd be interested to see/know where you saw your evidence for the starch/sugars stuff you've stated.

Reply 6447

OP

Slumpy

Also, Craggy, I'd be interested to see/know where you saw your evidence for the starch/sugars stuff you've stated.

People keep asking. I'll try to gather together lots of articles.

Reply 6448

fumblewomble

2

Craghyrax

the MPhil thesis he suggested I get hold of is no longer stored in the library! They only keep them for 2 years *argh* And the UL didn't have it

Email the person who wrote it if you can and ask if they would mind emailing it to you. Google them.

If they were a Cambridge undergrad (before the MPhil) bear in mind that Joseph Rory Blogg's email address would be:

[email protected] (if he matriculated in 97)

You can change the cantab.net address formats and have anything you life before the @ these days but earlier on everyone followed the same pattern.

Reply 6449

OP

fumblewomble

Email the person who wrote it if you can and ask if they would mind emailing it to you. Google them.

If they were a Cambridge undergrad (before the MPhil) bear in mind that Joseph Rory Blogg's email address would be:

[email protected] (if he matriculated in 97)

You can change the cantab.net address formats and have anything you life before the @ these days but earlier on everyone followed the same pattern.

Thanks. He's actually an academic at Newcastle now, so I can use his university email address there. I'm just going to hang on a bit and do some more reading before I pester him in case he's friendly and asks too many questions :p:

Reply 6450

OP

I feel so unhealthy this term! Hardly been to gym at all - ugh! :vroam:

Reply 6451

Catsmeat

But you've been exercising your mind. Or something like that.

Reply 6452

BigFudamental

ukebert

I'm sure I don't have to explain this to you, but I'll do so anyway :p:

There is only a certain amount of time that can be spent on teaching in school.

If someone is doing 4 subjects, this will take up time T/4.

If someone is doing 8 subjects, this will take up time T/8.

T/8<T/4

Therefore each subject must have less to it if one is to complete 8 of them. Therefore forcing people to do 8 subjects is at the expense of the subjects that they wish to do.

Double T and you get the same depth over 8 subjects. People here spend, what, 3 hours a day in school?

Or even if that's not possible, you're assuming that each hour teaching is as productive as the one before it. Maybe if you halve the time spent on each subject you just get more focussed lessons with less faff.

(sorry I didn't really want to get all argumentative on you, but I kind of agree with Craggs on this).

Reply 6453

Slumpy

16

BigFudamental

People here spend, what, 3 hours a day in school?

You what?

Reply 6454

BigFudamental