Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Sledgehead

Members
  • Posts

    13,245
  • Joined

Everything posted by Sledgehead

  1. As to whether two years elapsed post referendum before action, whose fault is that? The electorate? Hardly. As I have said in the post you referenced, the decision was made, whether or not the EU liked it or not. Just because parliament and government dilly-dallied, doesn't change the result of that decision. Yousay that 67% voted to join. The passage of time has changed all that. Now 52% vote to leave. If the enaction of ' join' was frustrated and dilly-dallied with since that vote, by the same logic you employ, we would never - according to your position - have ligitimately joined in the first place. You need to make up your mind whether a vote stands as it occurs or can be abrogated merely by the passage of time.
  2. And Leave is leave. Now where are we? Simple fact: old people are voting leave because Join didn't mean join in the way they thought. The EU project has changed beyond all recognition. And it will continue to change. Remain means whatever future direction is adopted. Whatever that is is as multifaceted as Leave. And even more beyond our control.
  3. So what. Same as it ever was. I wasn't old enough to vote on joining the project. Should I have a chance to vote on that referendum as well? On that basis maybe we never even legitimately joined!
  4. I see your point. However, just listen to the live footage of the referendum results when the result was incontravertible: "We're out!" declared that national institution, David Dimbleby. And that's what we all thought. All this talk of Article 50 etc was rubbish. We were out there and then. To imagine otherwise would be like telling Bonnie & Clyde they simply couldn't rob banks because it was contrary to current law. They would just laugh in your face and say "what do you think 'outlaw' means?" The electorate declared they no longer wished to be bound by EU law. That obviously included any necessity to invoke article 50 or any other emphemeral, legal nicety invented by the EU.
  5. People are not clueless, as you imply. All that can be known about this and many other issues is a "feeling". Don't suppose otherwise. In that respect the UK population were perfectly well equiped to vote two years ago. All the talk about 'ignorance' is just lack of knowledge of ephemeral detail.
  6. When a god-awful development was passed here, the planning committe, made up of localyl elected councillors, blamed central government for having to pass an unpopular plan. This story, of blaming a "higher power" has been the way government has justified unpopular measures at a national level: in short, 'blame Europe'. The point I am making is that you can, from time to time, reform Europe to match the prevailing views more closely, but this will not stop national governments continuing to blame Europe for further measures from the second the so-called reforms are made. The only reform that would remove this situation is a wholesale reverse-feret on European policy: a shrinkage rather than an expansion. If you think Brexit is controversial, just try that!
  7. You could say that about any point two years down the road from any referendum on anything. Given this must be the case, how then can any referendum on any issue mean anything?
  8. Huh-huh, huh-huh, huuh-huh. Hey, Beavis, he said "massive crack". Huh-huh, huh-huh
  9. Thank you for such a courteous reply. I am no wiser about nutition than you, and you probably have the advantage of a more open mind - certainly more open than you credit yourself with. I'd be really interested to hear how you view these issues once you've conducted the research you intend to do. For myself, I have also had to change my view about nutrition since my Dad developed type 2 diabetes. Actually, the impetus was a little more dramatic than that: he suffered a heart attack. The surgeons gave him a 10% chance of surviving the op, and his cardiologist told me that, throughout his career, he had never seen anyone ever leave hospital after such a heart attack. Cardiovascular issues and diabetes are strongly linked, and although his diabetes is borderline, his heart attack had me furiously researching current thinking on diet (and it is of course pretty muddled). It was during these searches that I formed some inklings of how a man with two allotments, boundless energy, no vices and a low fat diet of fresh fruit and veg came so close to death. I had until that point seen bread, potatoes and pasta as pretty harmless. Accepting that was wrong was one thing. It took me a good while longer to accept that the only real way to fill the carb-calorie hole made by reducing these "staples" was to allow more fat into one's diet (cos protein alone just kills the appetite). Of course, all these things aren't well understood because the body is such a complex thing, so maybe again I have misinterpreted the available data. The important thing is to keep an open mind as you do. And in that vein, I'd like to thank you for bringing dehydration to the front of my mind. Low gylcemic index snacks are a big problem for diabetes, esp for those who can't handle a lot of nuts and pulses (IBS types). It strikes me that a dehydrator might be a great way to make one's own jerky - a great low gi snack. So cheers, and keep me abreast of your searches.
  10. Well, first of all, why bother? We can, as a modern economy, afford to source fresh food from around the world all year long. Secondly, freezing does a much better job at preserving so-called nutritional value. Thirdly, many antioxidants are severely degraded by enzymes within the food itself. What is not appreciated is that these enzymes break down at higher temperatures. This means that an antioxidant such as vitamin C is better preserved by quickly boiling , than by allowing the fruit to dry over a longer period. So, a commonly available dried fruit, such as apricots provides only 1mg of vit c per 100g of dried apricots, a mere 1/10th of that provided by the raw fruit. Canning on the other hand preserves a full 1/2 of the vit c. This preservation of vit c by destruction of natural fruit enzymes with heat is the reason why we 'blanch' fruit and veg before freezing. As for dehydration working "excellently", well, it does, forcalories in general and sugars in particular. But are we really short of those in modern society? Rather, I believe to that many of the techniques we used to use to help us through lean times have produced foods so addictive (because of sugar concentration necessary to preserve the foods), they have, in times of plenty, led to our modern woes of obesity and diabetes. Returning to the apricots (tho your dried apples would produce similar results), 100g of fresh apricots have a glycemic load of 4 (apples 3). That means, taken alone, you could eat 2.5kg of raw apricots a day w/o damaging your insulin response in the long term. 100g of dry apricotson the other hand have a glycemic load of 30. That means you could only eat 1/3rd kg a day before you started to damage your insulin response (over the long term). That's about 50 small dried apricots. That might sound like a lot, but remember, I'm talking about those 50 being all the food you'd eat in a day: that would only amount to 42% of your RDA calories. ie, you'd feel seriously starved. And because they are so sugary, and offer little satiety, you better believe you'd eat at least double this amount. How good would that be for you? Well, it kinda depends on how you feel about peripheral neuropathy, peripheral ischemia, daibetic ulcers, amputations, retinopathy etc, etc. Now consider how much raw apricot you could get down. Even with the inevitable fructose-apetite promotion, I think you'd struggle to eat the 2.5kg. Simply put, dried fruit is not the diabetics friend, because it encourages you to over-do carb intake. That what I meant above when I talked about making good food bad by dehydration.
  11. I know you are not advocating supplements. Anyone could infer that from what I have said. You have however suggested that dehydration is better than using heat to preserve .... what? ... well, as you say, antioxidants. And that is what I have consistently made my posts here, a nutrition thread, about. The fact is however, antioxidants may well be a red herring, and eating seasonal products out of season amy never provide the benefits you hope for, other than, perhaps, through freezing. Dehydration, after all, is hardly new. People have used currants, raisins, sultanas, prunes, dates and dried apricots and figs forever. But are these good for you, or just a way of stemming off starvation when Tescos wasn't down the road?
  12. Forgive me fo rpointing out you did, and rather a lot!? My point about supplements is that they represent concentrated antioxidants. As such they lack water and fiber, both key in bulking out food and adding to satiety. My worry is you are concentrating only on antioxidants, so much so that you process food in a particular way: dehydration. But wahat I am positing is the position that bulk, and hence water, in fresh food may be the real hero .. and seeing as dehydration removes this, you may be half way to making good food bad for you. My feeling is that any kind of flavour intensification, be it boiling or dehydration, can lead to over consumption of non-resitant starches and sugars.
  13. I haven't said anything to contradict this. All I have said is that antioxidants are probably not the key here. If you take a supplement it might well give you antioxidants, but it still leaves you with cravings. That imho is the issue. I repeat, there is no evidence to show antioxiants help in the way people think they do. The whole story is the same specious material Kellogs put our about cereals. Cereals are now known to produce huge spikes in serum glucose. Only whole grains allow us to avoid this. People start banging on about the antioxidants in the bran being good for you, but maybe it has more to do with the bulking effect and slowed glucose release that comes with eating whole grains. The fact is the money to research antioxidants is in elite sport. And what is the research showing? Antioxidants Did Not Prevent Muscle Damage in Response to an Ultramarathon Run You are rightly cynical about the term "supplement", but who do you suppose popularized the term "antioxidant" or "free radical" in nutrition circles? It wasn't researchers, that's for sure! And now we have a new food industry buzzword: "protein". We are now swamped with products sold on the "high protein" ticket. But imho, it's not the presence of protein that is so good for you, but rather the satiety it produces, coupled with the fact that the body uses 20 to 30% of the available calories in protein simply metabolizing it. In other words it puts you off food (like cake) and helps you keep your weight down: obesity and diabetes countered in one go. But ironically the food industry touts high protein products as giving you energy. Quite the opposite really.
  14. No. That was just the first article I came upon. The sad fact is a tiny, tiny proportion of the antioxidants you consume actually make it into your blood stream (~2%) and once there, the body does its usual homeostasis trick: it starts to reduce the blood serum levels either by decreasing production of its own antioxiants, or steps up removal of the "foreign" antioxidants you injested. And worse still, this supression of antioxidants means that serum antioxidant levels are SUPRESSED below normal levels for 24 to 48 hours. But never mind, there is actually evidence to show that the free radicals running riot during this supression of antioxidants ain't so bad for you after all: Free radicals may actually be good for us Just to give you an idea of how much the tide has turned wrt this antioxidants good / free radicals bad story, you might consider what those at the cutting edge of food nutrition are doing. Take the UK Olympic team. They used to take antioxiants to combat the effects of so called "oxidative stress", post training. That proceedure has now been dropped.
  15. But IMHO this does not mean you can eat pizza and burgers with no ill effect. My suspicion is that foods high in anti-oxidants, as you point out, are raw and unprocessed, and as such contain large amounts of water and fiber. It is this bulking effect, I suspect, that keeps those eating a "healthy" diet fit, because it limits both the total calories and the meal glycemic load, stemming the onset of obesity and diabetes. But that is just must suspicion as to why those on "anti-oxidant" diets are also healthy.
  16. But there is no science in the assertion that dietary anti-oxidants do you any good whatsoever, in fact what evidence exists suggests the complete opposite.
  17. Yeah, you've been here long enough for me to know that's all sarcasm. What he's really trying to do of course is get MPs worried that blocking May will make them unpopular amongst their (largely indebted and HPI leveraged) electorate. Same threats no matter what the vote / voters are, right? The -ve HPI in his calcs comes about by having to raise interest rates because of a hard brexit - ie, in his view a hit to the economy. But haven't we been here before? Did he not threaten exactly the same thing if a Leave vote even happened? And what was his response? The EXACT opposite. Everyone now knows that any possible negative for the UK economy is pre-emptively countered by a CUT in interest rates. But where would be the votes in that? We all know Mark missed his calling treading the boards (oh, isn't he soooooooo gorgeous! - well that's his view anyhow). Isn't it time we gave him what he really wants: an appearance on a panel show. May I suggest WILTY? Rob B: "So Lee, who is Mark to you?" Lee M: "This is Mark, and he is my central banker, and he raised interest rates in the wake of bad economic news." Rob B: "David, what do you make of Lee's story?" David M: "Oh, so I thought we were summarily dismissing that option out of hand, no?"
  18. Just how weak her support for remain may or may not have been is not the point: she clearly wasn't a driving force for Brexit, yet that is how he paints her. As for who else is running Brexit, or the merits or otherwise of real Brexiteers, that is hardly a criticism one could level at her. We now know even the Brexit Secs basically carried bags for her, so it hardly mattered who they were or what their merits were. Indeed I'd have thought a leaver would have been pleased with such a situation and would be thankful to May for reigning in such types. And to the rest of the letter and its merits? Who cares what I think? It isn't after all meant for me. Rather, this letter is supposedly, in your view, a precision guided missile, guaranteed to hit home where it hurts. But do you honestly believe any tory, let alone a leader of the Conservative party, would accept one word of what they would doubltess regard as lefty propaganda? Just for future reference, a letter more likely to hit home starts with the words "I have been a lifelong tory and an ardent supporter of Conservative policies, but <insert here one indisputable failing>"
  19. Oh, so you think a referendum held in the UK can actually tie Europe to citizens wishes? We missed a trick: should have included "and will take ownership of all European gold reserves."
  20. Objecctively speaking, it's not very good. You should aim higher. The guy makes no secret of the fact he is anti-Tory, so she will just dismiss it as the ramblings of a lefty. Then there's the war references: kindergarten biology would inform even a child that most people have relavives who fought in the wars. What's the point in mentioning all that? Just more rambling. Then there's the personal blame for Brexit, when May was a Remainer. I could go on, but then I'd be committing the same copy-sin as yer man.
  21. Individual opinions aren't really the issue here, are they? Fact is, tho you think "Remain with adopting the euro" a "good" thing, the majority of the public have long been against this. That is just one example of where an apparent simple issue ("Remain") becomes as complex as Leave. That we are having such trouble on agreeing a form of Leave says nothing about some apparent simplicity of Remain. In reality our hand-wringing over what type of Leave is just another instance of the kind of anxiety brought on when people are asked to change their car insurance supplier. All of a sudden they are asked to come to grips with their policy details and decide whether its cover can be matched elsewhere. It's why many stick with the same supplier, year in year out, paying through the nose. But the reality is that when these same people come to make a claim, they have no real idea what their policy says; that's when all those difficult questions - what their excess is, whether they have insured their excess, how much no claims they have, whether it is insured, whether valuables outside the home above £2k are covered etc etc suddenly become a matter of intense anxiety. The fact is that many who voted Remain simply don't know "what is in the policy". If they did, they would find it no less frightening than an alternative. And in the meantime they are still stuck with those inflated premiums.
  22. What about "Remain with Turkey enrolled into the project"? Or "Remain with us forced to accept the Euro"? Or "Remain with us having to enroll in Schengen"? Or how's about "Remain with us forming the bulk of the military in WWIII with Russia thanks to Ukraine or some other ex-Soviet state being encouraged with massive bribes to join the project"? Or even "Remain with ............ etc etc
  23. Making assertions proves nothing. Worse still, you are attempting to make this all about age. Why don't you throw in sexuality or gender or ethnicity and make it the kind of biggotted statement we can all recognise?
  24. So the change in the complexion of the european project over this period had nothing to do with it? 'Course not, right? Europe is a bastion of stability, steadfastness and reliability. A rock in a ranging torrent of change. That's why "Remain" needs no explanation, right? Only "Leave" has many forms, yes? History says no.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.