Fun fact: I had an appointment at my psychiatrist this morning, and first thing he did was apologizing for having eaten tomato/raw garlic sandwiches last night. I tell you the smell sure wasn’t catnip to me. 
Crouching Tony the Tiger, Hidden Puff the Magic Dragon - I’d watch that movie!
Ouch!
This topic also deserves its own thread, but I think this is unfairly implicating scientists studying climate and associated geosciences in a cabal that just doesn’t exist. Despite decades of study of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), modeling and understanding climate feedbacks with respect to glacial drawdown is still highly speculative with a lot of unknowns. What has become evident is that the melting of marine ice shelves which buffer and stabilize terrestrial glaciers is progressing much faster than ocean circulation models would predict for reasons that are not really understood, and this is causing glaciers to migrate to and collapse into the ocean much faster than expected. Among scientists studying the cryosphere (glaciers, frozen tundra, mountain ice fields) there is strong concern verging on panic over just how much faster climate change and the loss of persistent ice and permafrost fields has become versus even the reasonable worst-case projections from models and how little can be done to stop, much less reverse, this melting and thawing even if all atmospheric carbon emissions were magically stopped today.
Without going into details, I’ll note that there is a distinct difference between the policy statements and metastudy summaries which make up “the consensus” that are widely published in the popular press versus the observations and tentative conclusions in technical literature. That the UN Climate Change Conferences (“COP Summits”) have essentially been co-opted by energy and globalized trade interests tells you everything you need to know about the agendas and biases of those organizing these conferences, but if you read the actual detail reports or even listen to the UN Secretary General’s address, it is clear that the consensus of scientists working fields associated with climate science and those who are actually listening to them is that the consequences are going to be catastrophic without radical global change and adaptation (and likely even with it).
I’ll avoid further disrailing the thread with this particular discussion but I do not think it is fair to malign scientists working in these fields with not being sufficiently honest or forthright when in fact if you delve into their conclusions the dire consequences and uncertainties are laid out very clearly.
Stranger
I don’t think of it as a cabal, rather a bunch of decisions by individuals and small groups to downplay things to make it easier on themselves. So no dishonesty needed, just a series of decisions, which may be reasonable, but are also all biased in one directions.
I completely agree, my unsupported belief is that the conclusions in the technical literature are also biased in the less-dire direction. There really is no way to know other than being in the room when the authors are discussing the models and writing the papers.
This is often going to by hyperlocalized. Nobody except the few people deep into a particular model are going to know they’ve been making conservative predictions. Then when scientists in even closely related aspects find the predicted observations to be worse than the prediction, they are all surprised, while the group that originally made the prediction is thinking, “yeah, that’s what I thought.”
I can’t find anyone who said that sugar is addictive, but it isn’t. That has been pretty thoroughly debunked in spite of the the fact that a lot of parents and teachers still believe in the “sugar high,” withholding sugar from children as much as possible, and letting them know they think it makes them wild, and thus artificially producing the very thing they want to avoid.
I could post a lot more on debunking the myth of the sugar high, but I don’t want to hijack the thread. Anyone who wants to know can PM me.
I have a hypothesis that highly gassy, carbonated drinks can cause a hiatal hernia.
Here’s why I think so: years ago, I drank a lot of diet Coke. One night I woke up with a horrific pain in the abdomen that not only hurt my stomach/chest area, but also gave the illusion that my kidneys were aching badly. I was about to wake up my husband and have him take me to ER, but I felt a huge bubble of air or gas move along to a different place inside and suddenly all the pain vanished. I went back to sleep and didn’t think of it anymore. I never again had such a huge pain, but I did develop digestive issues in the years after that. I gave up commercial sodas, and that alleviated a lot of problems.
But after an endoscopy years later, I was told I had a hiatal hernia, which explained a lot of other issues I was having. I think back to that night years ago and wonder if a huge bubble of air didn’t expand and cause the ballooning out of the hernia.
Anyway, that’s my unsupported belief. At any rate, the aggressive carbonation of commercial soda can’t do anyone any good. They ought to dial it back.
Addictive and sugar high are different things. Yes, sugar high has been pretty well debunked.
The addictive idea, as I understand it, is more exemplified by the old slogan “betcha can’t eat just one”. It’s the idea that processed food has been specifically engineered and tweaked with sugar, fat, umami, and other flavors to make it so people have just one more chip, until the bag is empty. The idea being that the food companies are exploiting natural tendencies to get people to buy more product through overeating.
I know this tendency exists in me, but I’ll do it with things like roasted and salted peanuts. Those might not be the healthiest food, but I would not call them over processed. Similar with the chips I overeat. They have four ingredients: corn, water, oil, and salt. Definitely more processed than the peanuts, but that seems more like a recipe than some kind of devious food engineering.
I read a study that showed HFCS had a lower satiety rating than cane sugar.
Makes sense to me.
Mothers used to tell us that “it will ruin your appetite” and the smallish 7-12oz bottle seemed to do just that.
Now its 32 or even 64 oz.
Not according to the five studies linked on this page.
https://examine.com/articles/is-sugar-more-filling-than-hfcs/
Is Sugar More Filling Than HFCS?
No.
No differences in leptin or satiety have been found between the two.
Ummm. I know definitively there’s a sugar high. Experienced it many times. It is like being drunk. In fact diabetics with high glucose are often confused with a drunken person. This is why I wear a thing around my neck that says I’m an insulin dependent diabetic.
I don’t know about the kids, and teachers thing.
Interesting.
I found
(https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.20.5.LB95-c)
Research support provided by the American Beverage Institute and the Corn Refiners Association.
And all your studies are from the The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, which according to wiki-
Marion Nestle voiced concerns in November 2013 about conflict of interest by the AJCN board. Nestle stated that of the twelve-member editorial board “the majority — 7 of the 12 — list major corporate affiliations. The list of food companies for which they consult or advise … includes Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, The Sugar Association, The National Restaurant Association, ConAgra, McDonald’s, Kellogg, Mars, and many others.”[11][12]
Here is a study that wasn’t funded by Coke, etc-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0091305710000614
Conclusion
In summary, rats maintained on a diet rich in HFCS for 6 or 7 months show abnormal weight gain, increased circulating TG and augmented fat deposition. All of these factors indicate obesity. Thus, over-consumption of HFCS could very well be a major factor in the “obesity epidemic,” which correlates with the upsurge in the use of HFCS.
and another-
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.2047-6310.2013.00173.x
The meta-analysis articles found that consumption of HFCS beverages can contribute to childhood obesity, and limitation of sweetened beverages may help decrease obesity in children.
Now, yes, those studies are not about satiety as such. But it seems The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has spammed Google scholar with articles showing HFCS isnt bad- but the funding of those seems suspicious to me.
Is that in comparison to sucrose? Because if it’s just compared to “not high in sugar”, well, duh, of course adding more sugar results in more obesity.
Sugar seems to satisfy my appetite. n my forties I rented a room from a lady for a few months and I didn’t like using her kitchen so I tended to swing by the donut shop every morning for a cinnamon roll and coffee. The weight just seemed to fall off me. I got down lower than I had ever been in my adult life. About 6 months ago I decided to quit baking cookies and pastry. I packed on 18#. I am eating healthier now but way too much.
No, not talking about that-- yes, that is real, but it’s not something non-diabetics experience. Well, I guess I can’t say never– I haven’t done the research, but it would be very unusual. However, I have seen what you are talking about in diabetics.
I’m referring to the belief of teachers and parents that sugar makes kids hyper– that’s just not true, and was never based in science in the first place-- it was based in theory developed by a single person named Feingold, who concocted the very low sugar “Feingold diet” that was supposed to relieve hyperactivity in duly diagnosed kids. “Hyperactive” was the clinical term at the time-- ADHD did not exist yet.
He made up the whole thing that refined sugar and dye and artificial flavors and other sorts of food additives contributed to hyperactivity.
It was never true, but more to the point, it was never meant to apply to children not diagnosed as hyperactive. However, some people picked it up and ran with it-- like with the “gluten free” thing-- and everyone was keeping their kids away from refined sugar.
It was stupid, because at the time, it was OK to give your kids stuff sweetened with honey, because honey was natural, as opposed to table sugar, which was refined.
Albeit, now, most people who believe in the sugar = hyper myth at least apply it to any sugar.
There was a brilliant study done which I won’t hog the thread by detailing here, but it nailed shut the coffin on the sugar connection. Anyone who wants to know about it can PM me.
I believe the Holocene mass extinction event in general is being under-reported and not being taken seriously enough.
Each of the Earth’s previous five extinction events resulted in ~75 – 97% of species going extinct. The Holocene (the current, ongoing extinction) is estimated to result in at least 75% going extinct in less than two million years. I doubt humans will be among the ~25% survivors.
The Holocene event may not be the most catastrophic event our planet has endured, but it is the fastest in rate. That’s not something to be proud of, considering we caused it.
On the one hand, I understand not wanting to cause a global panic (which could hasten the event, and cause big problems of its own). On the other hand, more productive countermeasures are needed now to lessen the [reverse] decimation of life on our planet. As a collective, I think we need a cold slap in the face—an uncensored wake-up call. Real lifestyle-altering changes need to be made, real soon.
Carl Sagan’s 1985 senate hearing should have been our wake-up call that resulted in a global call to action…but it wasn’t. Too little, [possibly] too late. We’ve taken steps to reduce the extinction (and even made positive strides in some areas), but not stop it. At best, we’ve just slowed the event so that catastrophic effects won’t be unbearable during our lifetimes. Passing the buck to future generations is something we humans are quite good at, especially politicians (scientists, not so much).
The good news is that the planet will rebound after the Holocene, with or without humans, as it did marvelously five times before. [Jurassic Park] Life will find a way [/Jurassic Park]. The result may be an even better world. It just won’t be the Age of Mammals anymore. It will be the Age of [?].
I’ve heard the amphibians want another shot at the title. Sentient frogs: Earth’s next alpha species? 
Yes-
In Experiment 1, male Sprague–Dawley rats were maintained for short term (8 weeks) on (1) 12 h/day of 8% HFCS, (2) 12 h/day 10% sucrose, (3) 24 h/day HFCS, all with ad libitum rodent chow, or (4) ad libitum chow alone. Rats with 12-h access to HFCS gained significantly more body weight than animals given equal access to 10% sucrose, even though they consumed the same number of total calories, but fewer calories from HFCS than sucrose.
I won’t say I believe but I do suspect that as we get better at decoding the neuro chemicals it will start to play a much bigger role in mental health and even personal development.
I suspect that the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K-T) extinction may have been faster, since it was largely caused by a single impact event.
The Holocene extinction is certainly very fast, and is very likely to become even more deadly once anthropogenic global warming is taken into account.
The K-T extinction rate is estimated to be about 2.5 species per million species-years, which means 2.5 out of every million species on Earth went extinct every year during that event.
The Holocene extinction rate is estimated to be between 100 and 10,000 species per million species-years, which means that 100 to 10,000 out of every million species on Earth are going extinct every year during this event
Therefore the Holocene extinction is at least 40 times faster than the K-T extinction, and possibly up to 4,000 times faster.