and the gov makes a fuckton of tax on itKmarion wrote:
Alcohol isn't healthy.
Here's another by Smith....paul386 wrote:
I have but one quote for you:Turquoise wrote:
If you think we should legalize all drugs, no regulations for hand washing should be in place, and that the market always follows the best interests of the people.... Well, I have nothing more to discuss with you here. There's nothing I can say that will change your mind, and the same goes for me I guess.
This is one of those agree to disagree moments.
An individual who "intends only his own gain" is " led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good".
- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, 1776.
You've got some sort of credible study to compare them both in moderation? I'm not only talking about the long term effects on society neither.m3thod wrote:
it is in moderation unlike trans fats.
"Conjugated linoleic acid is a trans fatty acid. Some researchers claim that unlike other trans fatty acids, it is not harmful, but beneficial. CLA is conjugated, and in the United States, trans linkages in a conjugated system are not counted as trans fats for the purposes of nutritional regulations and labeling. CLA and some trans isomers of oleic acid are produced by microorganisms in the rumens of ruminants. Non-ruminants, including humans, produce certain isomers of CLA from trans isomers of oleic acid, such as vaccenic acid, which is converted to CLA by delta-9-desaturase."Kmarion wrote:
I've been taken CLA for awhile now. They'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.
You'd better bring more than wikipedia if you are going to challenge me with supplement knowledge.Turquoise wrote:
"Conjugated linoleic acid is a trans fatty acid. Some researchers claim that unlike other trans fatty acids, it is not harmful, but beneficial. CLA is conjugated, and in the United States, trans linkages in a conjugated system are not counted as trans fats for the purposes of nutritional regulations and labeling. CLA and some trans isomers of oleic acid are produced by microorganisms in the rumens of ruminants. Non-ruminants, including humans, produce certain isomers of CLA from trans isomers of oleic acid, such as vaccenic acid, which is converted to CLA by delta-9-desaturase."Kmarion wrote:
I've been taken CLA for awhile now. They'll have to pry it from my cold dead hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjugated_linoleic_acid
It's not classified the same as the trans fats we're discussing here.
they?m3thod wrote:
They still WANT the right to have a heart attack.
Second to letting people make their own decisions, yes.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if this particular trans fat has the same preservative qualities as other trans fats without the health risks, then why not just set it up so that restaurants have to switch to this trans fat? Wouldn't that make the most sense, if people are worried about the convenience of trans fat usage?
It took legislation to put seat belts in cars. This was a good thing. It might take legislation to move food production to a healthy trans fat.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Second to letting people make their own decisions, yes.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if this particular trans fat has the same preservative qualities as other trans fats without the health risks, then why not just set it up so that restaurants have to switch to this trans fat? Wouldn't that make the most sense, if people are worried about the convenience of trans fat usage?
Trans Fatty Acid
Trans fatty acids are synthetic saturated fats. They are generally man-made, however they can form naturally in cow's milk with up to 14% butter fat, and can also occur in vegetable fats (through hydrogenation). The hydrogen molecules attached at the center of the fatty acid carbon chain flips 180 degrees, which straightens the natural curve or kink in the typical cis-configured fat.
When converted, the cis-shape chemically alters to a trans configuration and hence is called a trans fat. Most margarine and vegetable shortening have been trans fat converted through full or partial hydrogenation process. Trans fats interfere with metabolic absorption efficiencies and tend to congregate at adipose tissue sites. They are difficult to excrete from the body and are a low quality energy source.
Hydrogenation Process
The hydrogenation process employs Quan quanquan
1. High heat
2. A metal catalyst such as nickel, zinc, copper, or other reactive metals
3. Hydrogen gas.
The metals are used to react with the hydrogen gas which is bubbled up through the mixture. The metals catalyze the hydrogen and carbon atoms and converts the fatty acids by flipping one of the attached hydrogen molecules and rotating it half the diameter of the carbon chain.
This effectively creates a new molecular shape resulting in a stiffer or more rigid material, hence the change from a liquid to a semi-solid or solid substance. This new shape stiffens with the hydrogenation process making the oil behave more like a saturated fat (such as coconut fat which is 92% saturation and solid at room temperature).
Trans fats are the result of this reaction.
Partial hydrogenation, or "brush hydrogenation" is a minimal conversion step which only offers a small degree of reaction by hydrogenation. Brush hydrogenation increases stability for volatile fatty acids like the omega 3 (alpha-linolenic) and omega 6 (linoleic) polyunsaturated oils. Most commercial salad dressing oils, such as soybean oil, have been brush hydrogenated.
Hydrogenation raises the melting point of the fat and retards rancidity. But as recent health studies have found other problems can ensue when consuming large amounts of trans fats from hydrogenated products.
CLA is conjugated, and in the United States, trans linkages in a conjugated system are not counted as trans fats for the purposes of nutritional regulations and labeling.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-28 19:14:40)
As I said balance is critical. Thats something you can't obtain when the primary goal is to preserve. I take it to retain muscle mass when lowering my caloric intake. It's also been proven effective in lowering cholesterol and losing fat without exercise. For real.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if this particular trans fat has the same preservative qualities as other trans fats without the health risks, then why not just set it up so that restaurants have to switch to this trans fat? Wouldn't that make the most sense, if people are worried about the convenience of trans fat usage?
You don't think seat belts would be in cars now when people really look at safety ratings and five star crash ratings when buying cars?Turquoise wrote:
It took legislation to put seat belts in cars. This was a good thing. It might take legislation to move food production to a healthy trans fat.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Second to letting people make their own decisions, yes.Turquoise wrote:
Well, if this particular trans fat has the same preservative qualities as other trans fats without the health risks, then why not just set it up so that restaurants have to switch to this trans fat? Wouldn't that make the most sense, if people are worried about the convenience of trans fat usage?
Ralph Nader would disagree with you. He lobbied hard for the installment of seat belts at a time when most people didn't even know what they were or why they were important.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You don't think seat belts would be in cars now when people really look at safety ratings and five star crash ratings when buying cars?Turquoise wrote:
It took legislation to put seat belts in cars. This was a good thing. It might take legislation to move food production to a healthy trans fat.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Second to letting people make their own decisions, yes.
Safety is important to people. If it is a big deal and people know about it, then they will dictate change in the market without anyone having to come crying to the government.
Excellent point. I have absolutely no problem with the government helping to educate with safety and health. But deliberately trying to force a lifestyle change is something near to impossible.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You don't think seat belts would be in cars now when people really look at safety ratings and five star crash ratings when buying cars?Turquoise wrote:
It took legislation to put seat belts in cars. This was a good thing. It might take legislation to move food production to a healthy trans fat.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Second to letting people make their own decisions, yes.
Safety is important to people. If it is a big deal and people know about it, then they will dictate change in the market without anyone having to come crying to the government.
It's unnecessary. IF the problem is legitimate, the problem will solve itself relatively quickly. Any human death/injury in the meantime (usually still effecting people who know the consequences, but do it anyways due to the current social acceptance and rationalization) is a small price to pay to avoid other, failed quality and safety laws like prohibition.Turquoise wrote:
Ralph Nader would disagree with you. He lobbied hard for the installment of seat belts at a time when most people didn't even know what they were or why they were important.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You don't think seat belts would be in cars now when people really look at safety ratings and five star crash ratings when buying cars?Turquoise wrote:
It took legislation to put seat belts in cars. This was a good thing. It might take legislation to move food production to a healthy trans fat.
Safety is important to people. If it is a big deal and people know about it, then they will dictate change in the market without anyone having to come crying to the government.
I'm not sure what you have against regulation that puts quality and safety ahead of the curve.
Are you kidding me?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You don't think seat belts would be in cars now when people really look at safety ratings and five star crash ratings when buying cars?Turquoise wrote:
It took legislation to put seat belts in cars. This was a good thing. It might take legislation to move food production to a healthy trans fat.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Second to letting people make their own decisions, yes.
Safety is important to people. If it is a big deal and people know about it, then they will dictate change in the market without anyone having to come crying to the government.
Check out this opinion, see if you see/read anything that sounds familiar?In 1966, Congress passed a law creating today's Department of Transportation and two acts that form the basis for most traffic safety efforts in the U.S. today, the Highway Safety Act and the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety. The legislation authorized the federal government to regulate the safety of motor vehicles, including requiring that seatbelts be installed in new cars at the factory. The legislation also created the National Highway Safety Bureau, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's precursor.
Seatbelt laws are absurd and stupid
Posted on May 24, 2007 by Lance
The state of New Hampshire actually has some legislators with a little bit of common sense and respect for individual liberty. New Hampshire is the last state in the Union without a mandatory seatbelt law. The proponents of the bill are saying it will save lives, whereas the opponents are saying “Hey, no one is going to start wearing their seatbelt all the time just because of the bill.” The best opinion on the issue goes to the opponents.
Ever since seatbelt laws came into effect in my state it has annoyed me. First, the state spends extraordainary amounts of money putting commercials on local televisions channels telling us all to buckle up or else we’ll die (One commercial literally has a person dying because he didn’t wear his seat belt). Second, why should I get pulled over just because I am not wearing my seatbelt? It is fundamentally against liberty in every form and fashion.
The purpose of government according to the classic liberals of the nineteenth century was to keep individual A from interfering with the rights of individual B. If A causes harm to B, then government must step in. Laws are created to keep A from harming B, and everyone can get on with their life peacefully. The seatbelt laws do not fit in to that equation. They are to keep A from interfering with his own rights. What justification is there to keep me from harming myself? None that I can see.
Hurting myself only hurts myself. If I wreck my car, fly out of the windshield, hit a tree and die it is my fault. I most likely wouldn’t have worn a seatbelt anyway regardless of the law, so you’re only penalizing people who don’t get in wrecks and don’t wear their seatbelts. Sometimes wearing a seatbelt could be beneficial. What if you flew out of the car’s windshield into the ditch nearby, but your car caught on fire and blew up? What if it was crushed in where you would have been trapped? Wearing a seatbelt should be a personal decision and not a societal\governmental one.
Nanny government doesn’t help people at all, it only brings them to dependence on other people and weakens society as a whole.
Last edited by topal63 (2008-07-28 22:04:01)
It's the bigger picture Turq. Not only is it ineffective and therefore needless regulation, it's overstepping their authority. These things have a tendency to lead to more and more rules. I know we have bigger problems, but that doesn't mean I will take my eye off the ball with the other encroachments. No one here is seriously arguing for the large consumption of trans fats.. well, except maybe marine .Turquoise wrote:
I'm not sure what you have against regulation that puts quality and safety ahead of the curve.
Yeah... death is a small price to pay... whatever...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's unnecessary. IF the problem is legitimate, the problem will solve itself relatively quickly. Any human death/injury in the meantime (usually still effecting people who know the consequences, but do it anyways due to the current social acceptance and rationalization) is a small price to pay to avoid other, failed quality and safety laws like prohibition.Turquoise wrote:
Ralph Nader would disagree with you. He lobbied hard for the installment of seat belts at a time when most people didn't even know what they were or why they were important.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
You don't think seat belts would be in cars now when people really look at safety ratings and five star crash ratings when buying cars?
Safety is important to people. If it is a big deal and people know about it, then they will dictate change in the market without anyone having to come crying to the government.
I'm not sure what you have against regulation that puts quality and safety ahead of the curve.
edit: I agree with Kmarion about government education about health and safety risks.
It's not ineffective. Do you know how many lives were saved by seat belts in the ensuing forced installment of them? Do you know how many were saved by seat belt laws? Do you know how much cheaper insurance costs became after their implementation?Kmarion wrote:
It's the bigger picture Turq. Not only is it ineffective and therefore needless regulation, it's overstepping their authority. These things have a tendency to lead to more and more rules. I know we have bigger problems, but that doesn't mean I will take my eye off the ball with the other encroachments. No one here is seriously arguing for the large consumption of trans fats.. well, except maybe marine .Turquoise wrote:
I'm not sure what you have against regulation that puts quality and safety ahead of the curve.