HeyBub wrote
Dan Espen wrote

Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.

I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.

The point is that famines are caused by political systems.

Pigs arse they are. The vast bulk of them were caused by natural catastrophes like drought.

In a functioning democracy, food can be supplied by the central government.

You dont need a democracy to do that.

In other words, a democratic government is the solution to difficulties caused by natural disasters.

Different matter entirely to what the cause of the famine was.

In totalitarian governments, often the government is the cause of the famine.

Nope, the natural disaster was.

For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.

There is no famine in Zimbabwe and we have seen some famines in democracys too.

The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.

North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know about Zim, but
North Korea certainly has the capacity for modern industry - witness
their nuclear program.

Irrelevant to what causes famine.

On Apr 25, 2:08*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Rod Speed" wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
aspasia wrote:

Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. *They did not care what
ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
now starving. *Effects even felt in our *neighbor to the South, where
the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- *a
standard food, like wheat bread *in the States.

There has never been a famine in a democracy.

Wrong.

* *Name one, if you would be so kind. I can't think of any.

There haven't been that many democracies, historically speaking. Post-
colonial India has had some starving people from time to time, but
perhaps it is a stretch to call it a true democracy...And that doesn't
mean it can't happen.
Can we get back to the subject matter of the original post? How many
out there are planting garden crops this year?-Jitney

On Apr 25, 10:20*pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In ,

annezie wrote:
I think growing a garden is the smart thing to do this year.

I went and got some more plants today.

About high prices: I have noticed that bread is a lot higher too. At
least a dollar more per loaf here in Kentucky, which to me is a lot.

* Even at today's high prices, the wheat in a loaf of bread costs about
20 cents or somewhat less.

* If I understand right, wheat prices at the Chicago Board of Trade most
recently went for $8-$8.09 per bushel. *(The price peaked in late
February, a bit over $12 at Chicago Board of Trade and about $17 at
Minneapolis Board of Trade IIUC.)

* A bushel of wheat weighs 60 pounds. *That has wheat costing about 8.3
cents per pound. *A loaf of bread usually weighs 22-24 ounces, including
some added water.

* I would encourange gardening to combat the inflation in whatever/whoever
is increasing the size of their slices of the pie.

*- Don Klipstein )

On this and your earlier post on obesity, perhaps growing more of our
own food is part of the solution. Kids play videogames for hours
rather than fieldsports, and we drive our cars to the supermarket and
load up the food rather than planting, hoeing weeds, and harvesting
and preparing. If we do more of what earlier generations did, we will
start looking more like them. Even if we don't grow all of our own
food, we will appreciate more the work that goes into it. The greater
supply will lower the overall market demand, moderating prices. It
will also save some of the fuel used to carry the food from the field
to our table. As much corn as the US grows, it is much less acreage
and effort than goes into our lawns.-Jitney

"HeyBub" writes:

Dan Espen wrote:

Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.

I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.

The point is that famines are caused by political systems.

Disagree. Look at the list again.

In a functioning
democracy, food can be supplied by the central government.

Governments don't supply food.
If there is no food you have a famine.
Theoretically a totalitarian government would have an
easier job of seizing food and giving it away.

In other words, a
democratic government is the solution to difficulties caused by natural
disasters. In totalitarian governments, often the government is the cause of
the famine. For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.

No.

As a simple scan of the that list shows, famines are caused
by war, and natural disasters.

Zimbabwe and Sudan are no where near at peace.
North Korea has serious climate issues including floods.
Part of the NK problem is that they are still officially
at war with the South.

Both Zimbabwe and North Korea also have screwed up ECONOMIC
systems.

The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.

North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know about Zim, but North
Korea certainly has the capacity for modern industry - witness their nuclear
program.

Another leading cause of famine, too many people.
Democracies are helpless when it comes to controlling population.

I still don't see the point.
I'd rather live in a democracy than the opposite
but it's not because I'm worried about a famine.

wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:20 pm, (Don Klipstein) wrote:
In
,

annezie wrote:
I think growing a garden is the smart thing to do this year.

I went and got some more plants today.

About high prices: I have noticed that bread is a lot higher too. At
least a dollar more per loaf here in Kentucky, which to me is a lot.

Even at today's high prices, the wheat in a loaf of bread costs about
20 cents or somewhat less.

If I understand right, wheat prices at the Chicago Board of Trade
most recently went for $8-$8.09 per bushel. (The price peaked in late
February, a bit over $12 at Chicago Board of Trade and about $17 at
Minneapolis Board of Trade IIUC.)

A bushel of wheat weighs 60 pounds. That has wheat costing about 8.3
cents per pound. A loaf of bread usually weighs 22-24 ounces,
including some added water.

I would encourange gardening to combat the inflation in
whatever/whoever is increasing the size of their slices of the pie.

On this and your earlier post on obesity, perhaps
growing more of our own food is part of the solution.

Nope.

Kids play videogames for hours rather than fieldsports,

Plenty still play various sports.

and we drive our cars to the supermarket and load up the food
rather than planting, hoeing weeds, and harvesting and preparing.

Those are a pretty minor energy user with the usual home garden.

If we do more of what earlier generations
did, we will start looking more like them.

Nope, the food we eat is very different for starters.

Even if we don't grow all of our own food, we
will appreciate more the work that goes into it.

Nope, not when the vast bulk of the food we eat comes from industrialised agriculturer now.

The greater supply will lower the overall market demand, moderating prices.

Pure fantasy. The prices that most howl about cant be produced at home.

It will also save some of the fuel used to carry the food from the field to our table.

Such a trivial part of that that its irrelevant.

As much corn as the US grows, it is much less
acreage and effort than goes into our lawns.

But we dont put that much effort into that now, we use machines to do most of that now.

Dan Espen wrote
HeyBub wrote
Dan Espen wrote

Most famines are caused by wars or natural catastrophes.
Democracies were pretty uncommon in the pre-industrial era.

I'm at a loss to understand what the point is.

The point is that famines are caused by political systems.

Disagree. Look at the list again.

In a functioning democracy, food can be supplied by the central government.

Governments don't supply food.

Yes they do, most obviously when first world govts supply food to the third world when there is a famine.

If there is no food you have a famine.

There is always food somewhere.

Theoretically a totalitarian government would have
an easier job of seizing food and giving it away.

In practice they hardly ever bother to do that.

In other words, a democratic government is the solution
to difficulties caused by natural disasters. In totalitarian
governments, often the government is the cause of the famine.
For current examples, consider North Korea, Zimbabwe, and Sudan.

No.

As a simple scan of the that list shows, famines
are caused by war, and natural disasters.

Zimbabwe and Sudan are no where near at peace.
North Korea has serious climate issues including floods.

Mainly the problem was drought and a political system that didnt allow
the usual thing done during drought, import what food is lacking.

Part of the NK problem is that they are still officially at war with the South.

Nope, that was irrelevant to the famine they experienced.

The problem as just a hopelessly inadequate political response to a nature disaster.

Both Zimbabwe and North Korea also have screwed up ECONOMIC systems.

And Zimbabwe doesnt have a famine either.

The cures for famine come from modern industry and peace.
Democracies may lead to more peace but I think that's unproven.
We can certainly see counter examples in modern times.

North Korea and Zimbabwe are both at peace. Don't know
about Zim, but North Korea certainly has the capacity
for modern industry - witness their nuclear program.

Another leading cause of famine, too many people.
Democracies are helpless when it comes to controlling population.

No they arent. The main mechanism for controlling population is a viable
democracy is a decent economy that controls population automatically
like has been seen in every single modern first world democracy.

I still don't see the point.

We are discussing Sen's stupid claim that you dont get famine in any democracy.

I'd rather live in a democracy than the opposite
but it's not because I'm worried about a famine.

Irrelevant to what we are discussing.

In article , h wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...
In article , h wrote:

"Don Klipstein" wrote in message
...

Hogs get fat from high calorie intake. Keep in mind that when the low
carb craze was expanding, America's waistlines and diabetes rates
continued expanding.

It's not a "craze". It's been around forever. I stopped eating all grains in
my 20s, when I discovered my gluten sensitivity. If I ate wheat I got
asthma, if I didn't I was fine. I had already stopped eating most other
carbs because I would crash after eating them. I had never heard of "Atkins"
at the time. It was just healthy, proper eating. I'm now in my 50s and I
weigh the same as I did in my 20s. I've gained an inch or two since my
ballet dancer days, but muscle weighs more than fat, and I only exercise an
hour a day these days, so I'm not as fit as I was then. Still, I have more
energy than any carb guzzler half my age.

The type of calories DO matter, not just the amount. A 1,000 low carb
calorie diet of will cause anyone to lose weight, while a 1,000 high carb
calorie diet will cause most people to gain weight, exercising or not. Plus,
they'll be tired and feel hungry all the time.

I would call a liar anyone who says that an adult can gain weight in fat
from 1,000 calories a day.

Also, if I eat 1500 calories in a day or less, I have high incidence of
feeling tired and hungry and get slowed down on my bike no matter what
form the calories are, though worse with less carb - been there, done
that, tried it!

Also, I have NEVER met someone who didn't lose a LOT of weight on any low
carb diet.

I have! Plenty! Coworkers, friends, relatives!

The problem is that they go back to their "normal" diet of sugar
poison and gain it all back.

Mostly they abandon low-carb after finding low-carb not working after
the first couple weeks once the body efficiently makes use of calories
mostly from fat or protein - or not working at all.

Low carbing is something that should be done
for a lifetime, not just to dump some weight. If every type II diabetic cut
carbs from his or her diet today, most of them would be symptom free in a
few weeks. Fat doesn't make you fat. Sugar makes you fat.

You avoid mentioning starch!

Meanwhile, I have a friend who made a major calorie intake cut after
having a heart attack, cutting mainly fat, after that alcohol, after that
minor cuts in protein and carbs, and his calorie intake intake is now high
majority carbs (was before half carb at most). He eats breakfast cereal
for a late afternoon snack in place of something fattier. He counts every
percentage point of "recommended daily intake" of fat and mostly stays
below half that - in part on advice of his cardiologist, but also because
that reduces calorie density bigtime.

He went from pudgy with a beer belly to nice and lean. His
triglycerides are now a little over half the upper limit of the good
range. His cardiologist has reduced the frequency of need for bloodwork
because that guy has the best numbers his cardiologist sees in any of his
patients. He even got good numbers when his late afternoon (or early
evening) snack bowl of cereal was Froot Loops.

He largely quit fattier meats and pizza, and he quit eating American
chinese takeout food (mostly having a fair amount of soybean oil - unlike
what is usually actually done in China).

His weekend restaurant fare shifted significantly towards buffet places
(pig out on veggies of all carb levels) and Subway (footlong no-cheese
subs with the lean meats). Or a steak place and get a smaller steak and
extra side veggies (including beans, whatever) and buttering his potato
very minimally.

He started walking daily, average of about 2 miles a day.

I credit his highly effective weight loss mostly to reduction of calorie
intake by cutting more where calorie density is higher.

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:59:20 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:



His weekend restaurant fare shifted significantly towards buffet places
(pig out on veggies of all carb levels) and Subway (footlong no-cheese
subs with the lean meats). Or a steak place and get a smaller steak and
extra side veggies (including beans, whatever) and buttering his potato
very minimally.

He started walking daily, average of about 2 miles a day.

I credit his highly effective weight loss mostly to reduction of calorie
intake by cutting more where calorie density is higher.

Counting calories and walking some miles a day worked for me.
Nothing too complicated about it. Calorie cutting diets have been
around a long time and are very effective when done honestly.
Exercise accelerates weight loss and has other benefits.
Some of these weird diets - don't pay much attention to their names -
are plain silly. My dad was going on about a diet he was on where he
could eat all the eggs, bacon, pork roasts, etc he wanted.
Gimme a break! Of course that never worked.
I think my diet was 1200-1500 calories a day, and was basically small
portions of a well balanced diet. There was nothing I couldn't eat,
but common sense dictated certain foods worked better than others.
It takes some thought to set up a plan that you can live with.
After that it's just sticking to it. Didn't eat out at all except
when necessary, then just had a bit to eat. Nobody forces you to wolf
down a lot when you're dieting.
I had a bit of a splurge on Sundays, maybe an extra 500 calories, and
once a month all the pizza I could eat.
That kept me sane. I do love pizza.
My weight had gone up slowly over about 10 years after I started a
desk job, leading to the diet. Only took about 6 months to drop the
50 excess pounds. I think I just bought a cheap calorie counting book
and used that to set up my meals.
The experience gave me a good feel for the simple steps to lose weight
whenever I bump up a few too many pounds. And it's mostly plain and
simple don't eat so much.
I've been around a lot of overweight people and see it as a
psychological problem more than anything.
They just think about food all the time.
Some blame it on metabolism. That's bull****.

--Vic

Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the surface than
you get out of it , you have run out of oil

its hard to believe that there are not people smart enough in
gov that can think things thru.its all about money, everything is..if
there was such thing today as goo journalists , all these scams could be
exsposed and the names involved.... another one noone wants to do
anything about is oil speculation and he fact we cant get more
refineries built. lucas

----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

habshi wrote

Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the
surface than you get out of it , you have run out of oil

Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.

You could use nuclear energy to pump the oil but uranium
reserves would vanish within a decade

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:23:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.

habshi wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
habshi wrote

Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the
surface than you get out of it , you have run out of oil

Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.

You could use nuclear energy to pump the oil but
uranium reserves would vanish within a decade

Wrong. And there are breeder reactors even if that was true.

On Apr 27, 4:18*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
habshi wrote:
Rod Speed wrote
habshi wrote
Once it takes more oil energy to pump oil to the
surface than you get out of it , you have run out of oil
Not necessarily, depends on what energy you use to do the pumping.
You could use nuclear energy to pump the oil but
uranium reserves would vanish within a decade

Wrong. And there are breeder reactors even if that was true.

And spent fuel reprocessing, MOX reactors, heavy water reactors that
can use depleted uranium, etc.-Jitney

On Apr 26, 12:13*am, h wrote:
"Cindy Hamilton" wrote in message

...
On Apr 24, 2:57 pm, h wrote:

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
corn,
and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't imagine that
stuff fed to anything but livestock.
Of course. *What ivory tower do you live in? *Carbohydrates are the
staple
food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn. There's
no
magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces swings in blood
sugar
that makes it difficult to control one's intake. Low-carb diets don't
enable
one to violate laws of physics.

Our recent ancestors lived mainly on carbohydrates, but their energy
expenditures were much higher than ours. Consequently, they were
less prone to obesity than we are.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't
imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins particularly
does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Our recent ancestors lived mainly on carbohydrates, but
their energy expenditures were much higher than ours.
Consequently, they were less prone to obesity than we are.

Its more complicated than that too. Societys like the Japs that havent had
any higher energy expenditures than other modern first world countrys,
havent seen the same epidemic of obesity that the worlds of the modern
first world countrys have seen, even tho they do eat a rather high carb diet.
The real reason is that their consumption of western fast food is significantly
lower and they have much more of a clue about sensible portion sizes.

In article , Rod Speed wrote:
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't
imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins particularly
does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Calories expended to digest food become heat, which offsets need of the
body to burn calories to produce heat.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of
grains, corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity,
I can't imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins
particularly does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Calories expended to digest food become heat, which
offsets need of the body to burn calories to produce heat.

The body doesnt always need to burn calories to produce
heat, because the body doesnt always need to be heated.

And not all calories that go into the mouth are digested either.

In article , Rod Speed wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of
grains, corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity,
I can't imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins
particularly does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Calories expended to digest food become heat, which
offsets need of the body to burn calories to produce heat.

The body doesnt always need to burn calories to produce
heat, because the body doesnt always need to be heated.

And not all calories that go into the mouth are digested either.

The calorie labeling on food packages in the USA are normally according
to a method that takes into account digestion. That's why fiber does not
have its calories included in the calorie count on food packages, and why
protein is counted as 4 calories per gram instead of 5.3.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't
imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins
particularly does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Calories expended to digest food become heat, which
offsets need of the body to burn calories to produce heat.

The body doesnt always need to burn calories to produce
heat, because the body doesnt always need to be heated.

And not all calories that go into the mouth are digested either.

The calorie labeling on food packages in the USA are normally according
to a method that takes into account digestion. That's why fiber does not
have its calories included in the calorie count on food packages, and why
protein is counted as 4 calories per gram instead of 5.3.

That last is a pretty crude simplification tho.

In article , Rod Speed wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of grains,
corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity, I can't
imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins
particularly does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Calories expended to digest food become heat, which
offsets need of the body to burn calories to produce heat.

The body doesnt always need to burn calories to produce
heat, because the body doesnt always need to be heated.

And not all calories that go into the mouth are digested either.

The calorie labeling on food packages in the USA are normally according
to a method that takes into account digestion. That's why fiber does not
have its calories included in the calorie count on food packages, and why
protein is counted as 4 calories per gram instead of 5.3.

That last is a pretty crude simplification tho.

Actually, I meant to say metabolizability in the case of protein. The
human body does not completely oxidize it.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote
Cindy Hamilton wrote
h wrote

But...are there really people in the US who still eat lots of
grains, corn, and rice? As a low-carber with a gluten sensitivity,
I can't imagine that stuff fed to anything but livestock.

Of course. What ivory tower do you live in?
Carbohydrates are the staple food of millions of Americans.

Yep. And that's why so many Americans are so fat.

They're fat because they ingest more calories than they burn.

Correct.

There's no magic about a low-carb diet, except that it reduces
swings in blood sugar that makes it difficult to control one's intake.

Its a bit more complicated than JUST that. The Atkins
particularly does exploit more than just that blood sugar effect.

Low-carb diets don't enable one to violate laws of physics.

But they do see less of the calories that go into your mouth end up
being stored as fat, because of the calories used to digest the food.

Calories expended to digest food become heat, which
offsets need of the body to burn calories to produce heat.

The body doesnt always need to burn calories to produce
heat, because the body doesnt always need to be heated.

And not all calories that go into the mouth are digested either.

The calorie labeling on food packages in the USA are normally according
to a method that takes into account digestion. That's why fiber does not
have its calories included in the calorie count on food packages, and why
protein is counted as 4 calories per gram instead of 5.3.

That last is a pretty crude simplification tho.

Actually, I meant to say metabolizability in the case of protein.
The human body does not completely oxidize it.

Yeah, thats what I meant too, digest was a poor way to describe it.

Kurt Ullman wrote:



Name one, if you would be so kind. I can't think of any.




May want to try a little harder. Or does thinking make your head hurt?

Bob Eld wrote:


BTW, when was the last time you put any ethanol in your SUV?




About an hour ago. From what I recall, all gasoline is New England
has 10% ethanol.

["Followup-To(Opvolgend bericht naar):" header ingesteld op sci.agriculture.]
On 2008-04-25, aspasia aspasia expressed:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:43:34 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

The low carb craze has increased grain demands by increasing demand for
livestock. Ethanol demand came in time to rescue grain farmers from the
decline of the low carb craze.

- Don Klipstein )

Or rather corn ethanol demand was craftily engineered by influential
agribusinessmen in certain "heartland" states, shoveling out their
contributions to our beloved Congress-whores. They did not care what
ripple effects this would create in the Third World, where people are
now starving. Effects even felt in our neighbor to the South, where
the price of corn went through the ceiling, affecting tortillas -- a
standard food, like wheat bread in the States.

The farmers needed a higher price (just like the Mexican farmers). They
should have raised the price this way, before they bankrupted the
Mexican farmers.

Greetings,
Frank