Here's a crazy fact: Thanks to soda and the sneaky added sugars in store-bought foods, 25% of Americans consume a diet that is 25% sugar. In fact, all it takes to hit that is three cans of soda on top of an otherwise sugar-free diet. What does eating like that mean for your health in the long term?
Scientists are still trying to figure that out. Scicurious breaks down a recent study in mice that successfully demonstrates both why our sugar intake has health experts concerned AND why we don't yet know exactly what we're doing to ourselves. — Maggie
Happy Halloween! Mother Jones has a video and multi-part "long read" feature with Gary Taubes on how the sugar industry works to fight research that links sugar consumption with chronic diseases. Taubes is the author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories," and is working on a book about sugar.
In "Big Sugar's Sweet Little Lies," Taubes explores the industry's campaign to "frost its image, hold regulators at bay, and keep scientists from asking: Does sugar kill?"
There's a document dump here with internal memos revealing a strategy to safeguard sugar from "opportunists," "pseudoscientists," and "enemies."
Also, "How a Former Dentist Drilled the Sugar Industry," some classic creepy vintage sugar ads, and a timeline of "sugar spin."
Right, then. Enjoy your trick-or-treating!
"Why aren’t my kids hyper after binging on sugar?" asked Gillian Mayman at Mind the Science Gap, a blog featuring the work of various Master of Public Health students from the University of Michigan.
The punchline: "A review of 12 separate research studies found that there was no evidence that eating sugar makes kids hyper."
The post is great, but greatest of all? The animated GIFs used to illustrate it. (via @Boraz)
This piece was originally published on a now-defunct website for general audiences. It now lives on here in vaguely inappropriate perpetuity
My first computer was a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, most likely bought at Dixons in Worthing, England, circa 1986. But that's not the one I'd like to talk about, because it was defective and went right back to the store.
Dad, convinced by Clive Sinclair's legendary quality control that you get what you pay for, opted for the expensive Amstrad CPC over a replacement or a Commodore 64. Together, these three machines were the ruling triumvirate of 8-bit home computing in Thatcher's Britain. The Amstrad wasn't much different to the Commodore -- brighter graphics, tinnier sound -- but came with a built-in tape deck, a crisp color monitor, and a decent warranty.
Read the rest