OT Hydrogen economy, not?

@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

nfo.

on

ilar,

ir

lycemic

e

forms

simple

owle.H.C.shtml

Hey Kris,

I hear what you are saying. Believe me. I used to think the exact same thing for a very long time. I was as surprised as anyone to hear this, but recent research does in fact confirm the findings:

The complexity of the carbohydrate (simple or otherwise) is NOT the defining characteristic when it comes to determining how rapidly a particular food may or may not be digested. (Re-read that if you have to, because I agree with you that it flies in the face of decades of research!) Also, let me state that I am NOT a doctor or a nutrition specialist. So hear the podcast and draw your own conclusion. (The Podcast is by a medical doctor, by the way)

It turns out the primary determining factor is the mechanical soundness of the moledular bond. This explains pasta vs. white bread, for example, AND why pre- processed food typically spike blood sugars. Now that said, yes, there are probably plenty of examples where that soundness might track right along with the simple vs. complex argument

- but this new research seems to explain a great many of the outliers data points. In other words, its a better fitting model, and therefore, likely much closer to the truth.

You can make the same sort of arguments for potatoes, and pineapples, and watermelons, by the way. The reason fiber is not digested is that humans lack the enzymes to break them down, not because they are complex. That is a critical distinction when it comes to undigestable carbohydrate content in the diet. There are also some very simple sugar alcohols that don't digest either. (Another key to the riddle.)

Also, with regard to the Glycemic Index, recall that this is a measure of Insulin Response to blood glucose levels. Those levels come about because of digestion, so of course they should more or less track each other (index vs. actual digestion)

I guess to try to simplify it, it the sugars are positioned on the molecule such that they are easily separated (i.e., digested) either mechanically, chemically, or thermally, then THAT is what determines time of digestion, not simple vs. complex. Some simple carbs are structurally sound and take longer to digest, and some longer chain carbs are more wobbely and quickly decimated. Damn! I sound like the Jenny Craig commercial now... Or Zone, or whatever.

On the Glycemic index, white bread (a very complex carb) has the same index as pure Glucose, for example. And as it turns out, both are rapidly digested. Huh?!

There is an MP3 link at the very bottom of my prior post. Download that, and skip ahead to approx. 12 minutes -- although, the whole interview is worthwhile. Especially, if you're an Adkins fan, or just trying to lose a few pounds through "better" eating.

-mpm

Reply to
mpm
Loading thread data ...

Lots of neat info in there John, Thanks!! I'd like to send this to my friend for his amusement, and/or utility.

He works for Werner, by the way. Big blue trucks. So, company truck I'm sure.

-mpm

Reply to
mpm

Forgot to mention, Kris. No transcript. (that I know of).

Reply to
mpm

More power to those who do so!!!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Let's not forget that population increase is exponential, not linear with time.

Something is gobbling up a big chunk of the CO2 we've been liberating, and even without considering evolution it's likely to accelerate.

We started at something like 80% CO2, then plants 'made' the atmosphere, burying a bunch of carbon in the process. They're important.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

That obviously won't do. The thing that eliminates poverty and brings down birth rates is education, especially education of girls. That's where the windfall carbon taxes should go.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Sorry, I meant "plant populations" in this case to suggest we haven't seen the full effect yet. Any stimulus to plant growth will take time to show up, and then snowball [sic] over time, per the laws of population growth.

IOW the 6.2% increase in plant growth rate of the last ~20 years might not be the last word.

Cheers, James Arthur

Reply to
James Arthur

Presumably there will be some natural selection, so that it may take a long time, centuries maybe, for plants to adapt their chemistry to better utilize higher CO2 levels. Unless we help them, by selective breeding and genetic tweaking.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

It was one of the the last episodes of "Adam Smith's Money World".

Mark Zenier snipped-for-privacy@eskimo.com Googleproofaddress(account:mzenier provider:eskimo domain:com)

Reply to
Mark Zenier

We have been liberating about 24 gigatons per year lately and the atmosphere has been accumulating about 14 gigatons per year from

1999-2004. The other 10 gigatons per year has overwhelmingly been accounted for by increasing dissolved CO2 content in the hydrosphere. Biomass loss from deforestation added a bit to the CO2 dissolved in the world's bodies of water.

Should we actually accomplish much global warming, the hydrosphere's ability to hold dissolved CO2 will decrease, causing the kind of positive feedback that was necessary for the interglacial warmups from ice ages. (This positive feedback also existed in the downward direction, and was necessary for the onset of the glaciations of the ice ages.)

We have been very busy lately returning to the atmosphere carbon that became fossil fuels. To a lesser extent our emissions of precursors to nitric acid, nitrous acid, sulfuric acid and sulfurous acid have been reliberating CO2 that was sequestered as calcium carbonate.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Reply to
Don Klipstein

Yours might . Mine don't. I make starts from unpasturized (read living) milk / yogurt. You may make your any way you want.

Reply to
JosephKK

Similar to my experience, when i have a bag of soda cans and bottles i try to set it out early enough for the "trash can / dumpster" divers. One time it was in sight of one, the gratitude was embarrassing.

Reply to
JosephKK

Well fudge. I only remembered being able to compact top soil back into the same hole. Never did any real mining.

Reply to
JosephKK

formatting link

Yes, but only the last one works from waste heat form an electric generating plant. I guess I should have qualified it when I mentioned 'district heating'.

daestrom

Reply to
daestrom

I think Rochester, Minnesota also does this.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Reply to
Morris Dovey

I've found that putting a $10 sign on the item works better. No one wants it if it's worth nothing. If it's worth $10, free is a bargain.

--
Keith
Reply to
krw

I didn't have it quite right - but RPU (Rochester Public Utilities) was willing to share this info:

>
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
Reply to
Morris Dovey

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.