If you have any doubt that the very rich have decided to do away with the relevance of the middle class, you need look no farther than the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 and the current S510 bill in Congress.
The former effectively made it illegal for any individual or small-scale manufacturer to produce anything for sale for use by children, through demanding such absurd testing that no small producer can possibly afford to meet the requirements - and ANY breach allows the producer to be hauled into civil court and slapped with a million dollar fine. It applies to anything sold for use by children, including books, and it makes no exception for used, hand-made, or unique items. It has been used already to shut down thrift stores - places that sell NOTHING new! - in my own state. I have ceased to offer to produce anything in my own shop that is not in adult sizes, and many others in my position have done likewise. Do you really think that having only suppliers of the size of Wal-Mart will make your children safer?
It gets worse...
S510, which has not yet passed but shows signs of getting to the President's desk too soon, effectively makes it illegal (through grossly impractical or factually impossible paperwork requirements) for local small farmers to sell anything direct to the consumer, or sell it at all in most cases; it will also severely degrade the quality of produce available to restaurants, many of which rely on nearby small farms to obtain supplies of the quality of vegetables that you just can't get any other way. It takes the current privilege-of-monetary-power of hyper-abusive giants like Monsanto, to run roughshod over the production end, and enshrines those unconscionable practices as rights under the law; in some cases, it enlists the government itself in visiting those abuses upon the farmers. And it denies access to the market to any who dare try to simply continue the old, traditional ways of food production that have served humanity well for millennia.
Many links are out there about this; here's just one: http://hartkeisonline.com/food-politics/s510-may-mean-10-years-in-prison-for-farmers/
If this passes, it can be fairly said that we no longer have a government of, by or for the people; it will have passed to a tyrannic rule of the corporations and moneyed few, and will remain so unless WE get off our collective asses and vote in some people who have the integrity and unpurchasability to restore the government's true role as the protector of the RIGHTS of the people. This is NOT the goal of the Tea Party, whose dupes of the rich are simply seeking to dismantle the only remaining mechanism that might have a chance of being reformed to serve us again - the government itself. This is NOT the goal of the Republican Party, which is funded by those same corporations and moneyed few. This is also, sadly, NOT the goal of the current Democratic administration, which has utterly failed to meet any of the reasonable expectations that came from its win in 2008. But I see no party other than the Democrats which might be possible to direct toward this end; the Tea Party makes a joke of itself at every turn, and the Republicans...are Republicans, dedicated to precisely the opposite goal from what is needed.
Postscript: The Tester Amendment to S510 exempts only the smallest farms - those with a gross revenue of under $500,000 per year, who are no threat to Big Farma - from the documentation requirements of the bill and from some of the USDA-backed meddling in their operational practices which results from it. This does not really change the impact of the bill very much; although the kind of semi-pro small-scale farmer who sells direct to the public at a small-scale farmer's market in the town square would probably be exempt, the kind of farmer that's running an operation large enough to reliably supply a dozen restaurants with fresh vegetables, eggs and other products would almost certainly fall under the regs - and probably succumb. It's fair to say that the *average* family farmer is still directly under threat from this bill, and it is certain that the bill does more to erode the overall long-term safety of the food stream than to bolster it; the idea that forcing agriculture to be done only via the methods used by the largest industrial farms (where quality control is nothing more than a very bad joke, and the only thing that matters is the appearance and quantity of product that goes out the gate) is what needs to be struck down, and that basically means that this bill needs to be soundly defeated. Just look at who's really supporting S510; the same Big Farma outfits that essentially created it. This is a case of the fox demanding that only foxes be allowed to guard a henhouse, folks. It's NOT good for any of us. If you think letting the huge agribusinesses run the show is a good idea, think back to the last time you bought one of those huge, perfect-looking peaches in late summer...and it turned out to be lovely on the outside, and tasteless (and often half-rotten) on the inside. That's the kind of food that comes from following USDA "Best Practices", and NO farmer should be forced to follow them!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
That's not an auction.
Lots of people will not have run across this particular scam, so I think it's worthwhile blowing a whistle here. A large number of sites have popped up with what they claim is an "auction" service; biddi.com, quibids.com, swoopo.com... the list is much too long already, and keeps getting longer. They all share one essential characteristic, however: they are NOT auctions.
In a real auction, the bidder selects the amount that they wish to pay, and bids it explicitly; when the highest bid has been posted (as indicated by the fact that no higher bid comes in), then the auction ends and the item is sold for that amount, which represents the bidder's entire outlay (possibly plus an auctioneer's fee that is fixed and knowable before the bidding begins). But the so-called "auctions" on these sites just increment the "price" by a fixed amount for each "bid", so the bidder never has the option of simply placing his bid for the amount he'd be willing to pay, and being done with it... and the advertised final "auction price" of any given item does not include the amount that the winning bidder had to spend on "bids" in order to be that eventual last bidder, so the "price" is fictitious in fact.
In these competitions, the "bidders" drop out only due to exhaustion of patience or money to buy more "bids" (possibly after they've spent a ludicrous amount fruitlessly), not due to the auction's "price" having exceeded their limits... though dropping out may very well cost them every bit as much as they'd have bid or more, without producing a win as a result! That's because of the second striking difference between these sites and actual auctions; even if an actual auction requires a cash deposit prior to participation (which is very, very rare), there is never a fee for placing a bid. On these "penny auction" sites, every bid requires payment of a fee. So "bids" aren't free, and "bids" are not actual BIDS, they are just tokens; places in line. And that brings me to the next point: These are more like a lottery, in that you have to buy bid packs (like jar-drawing tickets), but they differ from a jar drawing in that the last ticket dropped in the jar is ALWAYS the winner.
Do you see the problem yet? Perhaps it will become clear with the addition of one more detail. During the final countdown period of these "auctions", if a "bid" comes in, the countdown timer resets to a fixed value (typically 20 seconds) and restarts. This means that you CANNOT just wait until the timer is at 1 second, and try to flip your bid in last; others will ALWAYS have the option of being last "bidder", because your "last" bid will give them more time to flip another one in.
I looked at the bids on several of these sites, and it became obvious that the site owners are making a huge profit, with what amounts to a lie. They may say that (for instance) an $800 Canon digital camera went for $43 (in a process where each "bid" increased the price by just one cent), but what they aren't saying is that the actual amount that the "winning bidder" paid in order to "win" is higher - probably MUCH higher. To place the bids at all, the bidder had to buy "bids" - probably lots of them - and may have spent hundreds of dollars more on "bids" than on the final "price" of the item. In order to wear out the competition and take that final-bid spot, a lot of other folks had to drop out along the way; they, too, may have already spent quite a lot on "bids". In the Canon camera example, if bids cost 50 cents each (not unusual; some sites require more, some less) and there were 4300 "bids", the site received $2,193 for that $800 camera: 50 cents for each "bid", plus the $43 that the "winner" still had to pay to complete the transaction. Oh, and unless the other bidders were given the option of converting their bids to cash against the purchase of the same item as a "buy it now" deal, they got NOTHING, despite having put over a thousand extra dollars into the site's coffers.
Also, consider the time factor. If that Canon camera required 4300 "bids" to be "sold", and all but 150 of them were placed during that seemingly-endless "final 20 seconds" at the rate of one every 10 seconds (which isn't far off, based on my observations), then that "final 20 seconds" lasted a whopping ELEVEN AND A HALF HOURS.
So, what amounts to a rigged raffle is being passed off as an auction. Unless the Buy It Now price is really attractive to you (and you had best read the fine print about shipping charges and other fees first... if you can find them!), these "auctions" offer you only a way to lose substantial sums of money and time.
I call them a scam, pure and simple. And I suspect that they probably violate both the auction and lottery statutes of multiple jurisdictions, but I haven't seen anything being done about them by the legal system so far.
In a real auction, the bidder selects the amount that they wish to pay, and bids it explicitly; when the highest bid has been posted (as indicated by the fact that no higher bid comes in), then the auction ends and the item is sold for that amount, which represents the bidder's entire outlay (possibly plus an auctioneer's fee that is fixed and knowable before the bidding begins). But the so-called "auctions" on these sites just increment the "price" by a fixed amount for each "bid", so the bidder never has the option of simply placing his bid for the amount he'd be willing to pay, and being done with it... and the advertised final "auction price" of any given item does not include the amount that the winning bidder had to spend on "bids" in order to be that eventual last bidder, so the "price" is fictitious in fact.
In these competitions, the "bidders" drop out only due to exhaustion of patience or money to buy more "bids" (possibly after they've spent a ludicrous amount fruitlessly), not due to the auction's "price" having exceeded their limits... though dropping out may very well cost them every bit as much as they'd have bid or more, without producing a win as a result! That's because of the second striking difference between these sites and actual auctions; even if an actual auction requires a cash deposit prior to participation (which is very, very rare), there is never a fee for placing a bid. On these "penny auction" sites, every bid requires payment of a fee. So "bids" aren't free, and "bids" are not actual BIDS, they are just tokens; places in line. And that brings me to the next point: These are more like a lottery, in that you have to buy bid packs (like jar-drawing tickets), but they differ from a jar drawing in that the last ticket dropped in the jar is ALWAYS the winner.
Do you see the problem yet? Perhaps it will become clear with the addition of one more detail. During the final countdown period of these "auctions", if a "bid" comes in, the countdown timer resets to a fixed value (typically 20 seconds) and restarts. This means that you CANNOT just wait until the timer is at 1 second, and try to flip your bid in last; others will ALWAYS have the option of being last "bidder", because your "last" bid will give them more time to flip another one in.
I looked at the bids on several of these sites, and it became obvious that the site owners are making a huge profit, with what amounts to a lie. They may say that (for instance) an $800 Canon digital camera went for $43 (in a process where each "bid" increased the price by just one cent), but what they aren't saying is that the actual amount that the "winning bidder" paid in order to "win" is higher - probably MUCH higher. To place the bids at all, the bidder had to buy "bids" - probably lots of them - and may have spent hundreds of dollars more on "bids" than on the final "price" of the item. In order to wear out the competition and take that final-bid spot, a lot of other folks had to drop out along the way; they, too, may have already spent quite a lot on "bids". In the Canon camera example, if bids cost 50 cents each (not unusual; some sites require more, some less) and there were 4300 "bids", the site received $2,193 for that $800 camera: 50 cents for each "bid", plus the $43 that the "winner" still had to pay to complete the transaction. Oh, and unless the other bidders were given the option of converting their bids to cash against the purchase of the same item as a "buy it now" deal, they got NOTHING, despite having put over a thousand extra dollars into the site's coffers.
Also, consider the time factor. If that Canon camera required 4300 "bids" to be "sold", and all but 150 of them were placed during that seemingly-endless "final 20 seconds" at the rate of one every 10 seconds (which isn't far off, based on my observations), then that "final 20 seconds" lasted a whopping ELEVEN AND A HALF HOURS.
So, what amounts to a rigged raffle is being passed off as an auction. Unless the Buy It Now price is really attractive to you (and you had best read the fine print about shipping charges and other fees first... if you can find them!), these "auctions" offer you only a way to lose substantial sums of money and time.
I call them a scam, pure and simple. And I suspect that they probably violate both the auction and lottery statutes of multiple jurisdictions, but I haven't seen anything being done about them by the legal system so far.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Inkjet, Laser, or FedEx Office?
Getting your document (or webpage, or whatever) printed out attractively on paper seems, intuitively, like it should be one of the cheaper things that you can do with your computer. And for some people, it is. But there are some interesting and/or infuriating exceptions.
The inkjet printer market used to be dominated by models that shared a common design feature; the widgetry that actually sprayed the ink was built into the replaceable ink cartridge. On the one hand, this meant that if everything worked as designed, the most crucial working parts wouldn't clog, and you'd never have to worry about their wearing out. On the other hand, the cost of replacing them with every cartridge change was much higher than for just tanks of ink. To make matters worse, those early printers often didn't work as designed, and often had to have the cleaning cycle run several times if the last page printed was more than a day previous. Since each cleaning cycle discarded a bunch of ink, it could easily mean that an infrequently-used early inkjet could have a per-sheet cost of printing that exceeded 50 cents per page. (In one particularly memorable case for me, an HP 855c managed to have a per-page cost of over $5 per properly-printed full-color-output page over the three years I had it. I still use their lasers, but I don't buy their inkjets at all.)
Later versions of inkjets arrived on the market using just a replaceable ink tank; the better ones used individual tanks for each color. Although the cost of the ink remained high, the per-page printing cost was reduced...and if generic ink tanks were available, the cost could drop to under a penny a page. To reduce the competition from generic ink, the printer manufacturers switched to ink tanks with a small, inexpensive (but proprietary) chip in the end; without the chip, the printer failed to recognize the tank's presence, and often wouldn't work at all. If that chip was actually measuring the ink usage instead of just keeping a theoretical tally of it, this might have been laudable...but in reality, the chips tend to tell the printer that replacement is required even though there's still plenty of ink left. And as before, each cleaning cycle uses up a bunch of extra ink. Individual chipped tanks can cost $60 for a set, and may last for as few as 30 pages or as many as 1200, depending on what's being printed and how often the printer is used. For people who print things multiple times per day, every day of the week, the newer inkjets usually aren't a bad deal...but if you often go for days at a time without generating any hardcopy, even these later inkjets can be much too expensive to operate.
Laser printers, on the other hand, have a cost per sheet that's pretty much determined by how much toner is used for each page. Text doesn't use much, and typical lasers can print a page for at most a few cents. Laser cartridges don't remain functional forever, even if they still have plenty of toner left; the user who prints just a single page infrequently may still find that in the long run, a laser's output isn't really cost-effective.
On the other hand, if there's a FedEx Office store nearby, one additional option is to just ditch the whole printer-ownership thing, and upload documents to their printer. The per-page cost still isn't cheap, and you really need to carefully preview what's going to be produced, but it has the distinct advantage of not requiring space on your desk, and not requiring that you keep consumables around that, in the case of inkjets in particular, end up getting wasted more than used.
My recommendations:
For daily, heavy use, if color output isn't needed, get a laser.
For daily, heavy use, if color is needed, get an inkjet that uses separate tanks.
For daily, moderate use, both inkjets and lasers are suitable.
For daily, light use, stay with a laser unless color is required.
For less frequent use, stay with a laser unless color is required.
For occasional use, abandon trying to have color output, and get a laser...or just print out your hardcopy at a nearby FedEx Office if that's a viable option. (You may spend less, even in the long run, than you would by buying a "cheap" printer.)
Color lasers have a high per-page cost regardless of how much they're used; unless you need their specific qualities, I can't say that I would recommend them at all.
There you have it. Kill some trees.
The inkjet printer market used to be dominated by models that shared a common design feature; the widgetry that actually sprayed the ink was built into the replaceable ink cartridge. On the one hand, this meant that if everything worked as designed, the most crucial working parts wouldn't clog, and you'd never have to worry about their wearing out. On the other hand, the cost of replacing them with every cartridge change was much higher than for just tanks of ink. To make matters worse, those early printers often didn't work as designed, and often had to have the cleaning cycle run several times if the last page printed was more than a day previous. Since each cleaning cycle discarded a bunch of ink, it could easily mean that an infrequently-used early inkjet could have a per-sheet cost of printing that exceeded 50 cents per page. (In one particularly memorable case for me, an HP 855c managed to have a per-page cost of over $5 per properly-printed full-color-output page over the three years I had it. I still use their lasers, but I don't buy their inkjets at all.)
Later versions of inkjets arrived on the market using just a replaceable ink tank; the better ones used individual tanks for each color. Although the cost of the ink remained high, the per-page printing cost was reduced...and if generic ink tanks were available, the cost could drop to under a penny a page. To reduce the competition from generic ink, the printer manufacturers switched to ink tanks with a small, inexpensive (but proprietary) chip in the end; without the chip, the printer failed to recognize the tank's presence, and often wouldn't work at all. If that chip was actually measuring the ink usage instead of just keeping a theoretical tally of it, this might have been laudable...but in reality, the chips tend to tell the printer that replacement is required even though there's still plenty of ink left. And as before, each cleaning cycle uses up a bunch of extra ink. Individual chipped tanks can cost $60 for a set, and may last for as few as 30 pages or as many as 1200, depending on what's being printed and how often the printer is used. For people who print things multiple times per day, every day of the week, the newer inkjets usually aren't a bad deal...but if you often go for days at a time without generating any hardcopy, even these later inkjets can be much too expensive to operate.
Laser printers, on the other hand, have a cost per sheet that's pretty much determined by how much toner is used for each page. Text doesn't use much, and typical lasers can print a page for at most a few cents. Laser cartridges don't remain functional forever, even if they still have plenty of toner left; the user who prints just a single page infrequently may still find that in the long run, a laser's output isn't really cost-effective.
On the other hand, if there's a FedEx Office store nearby, one additional option is to just ditch the whole printer-ownership thing, and upload documents to their printer. The per-page cost still isn't cheap, and you really need to carefully preview what's going to be produced, but it has the distinct advantage of not requiring space on your desk, and not requiring that you keep consumables around that, in the case of inkjets in particular, end up getting wasted more than used.
My recommendations:
For daily, heavy use, if color output isn't needed, get a laser.
For daily, heavy use, if color is needed, get an inkjet that uses separate tanks.
For daily, moderate use, both inkjets and lasers are suitable.
For daily, light use, stay with a laser unless color is required.
For less frequent use, stay with a laser unless color is required.
For occasional use, abandon trying to have color output, and get a laser...or just print out your hardcopy at a nearby FedEx Office if that's a viable option. (You may spend less, even in the long run, than you would by buying a "cheap" printer.)
Color lasers have a high per-page cost regardless of how much they're used; unless you need their specific qualities, I can't say that I would recommend them at all.
There you have it. Kill some trees.
Product Review: H-E-B Pomegranate Black Tea
Short version: Eeeeewwww!
For those who live outside Texas, H-E-B is a grocery store chain that serves much of the central and eastern part of the state; it's generally a reliable source for comestibles of all types, and their store brand items have tended to be pretty good in the past. This, sadly, is not one that I can recommend.
For the sake of accuracy, the item is sold under UPC 041220648030, and it's a box of 20 bags with a total net weight of 1.27 ounces. The price was less than $2, which seemed like a relative bargain given the much stiffer tabs for the majority of the boutique brands. At best, this means that I have lost less than the price of a hamburger, and will only be discarding 1.21 ounces of product, plus packaging. (Yes, I could take it back and get a refund, but it's hardly worth the effort for this small amount, and I didn't keep the receipt anyway.)
One would hope that a pomegranate black tea would have some fruitiness about it, including perhaps a bit of the aroma, flavor and color of the presumed ingredient. What presented itself upon brewing was a light-colored non-reddish cup with a pronounced crushed-snails aroma that was not improved in the least by the added slight minty note. It was distinctly reminiscent of the cough syrups containing guaifenesin, a mucus-loosening medicine. I took one experimental sip to discern whether the flavor might redeem the brew, but alas, the taste proved only slightly less offensive than the bouquet, with not a hint of fruit about it in any way.
Recommendation: Serve this brewed very strong, to people who you prefer never to have visiting you again in the future. Use boxes of it as a gift in the annual Secret Santa ritual if you're planning on swapping to a new job in January anyway. Give it to the obnoxious loon next door who's been going on at length about how proud he is to be a teabagger. But don't drink it yourself.
For those who live outside Texas, H-E-B is a grocery store chain that serves much of the central and eastern part of the state; it's generally a reliable source for comestibles of all types, and their store brand items have tended to be pretty good in the past. This, sadly, is not one that I can recommend.
For the sake of accuracy, the item is sold under UPC 041220648030, and it's a box of 20 bags with a total net weight of 1.27 ounces. The price was less than $2, which seemed like a relative bargain given the much stiffer tabs for the majority of the boutique brands. At best, this means that I have lost less than the price of a hamburger, and will only be discarding 1.21 ounces of product, plus packaging. (Yes, I could take it back and get a refund, but it's hardly worth the effort for this small amount, and I didn't keep the receipt anyway.)
One would hope that a pomegranate black tea would have some fruitiness about it, including perhaps a bit of the aroma, flavor and color of the presumed ingredient. What presented itself upon brewing was a light-colored non-reddish cup with a pronounced crushed-snails aroma that was not improved in the least by the added slight minty note. It was distinctly reminiscent of the cough syrups containing guaifenesin, a mucus-loosening medicine. I took one experimental sip to discern whether the flavor might redeem the brew, but alas, the taste proved only slightly less offensive than the bouquet, with not a hint of fruit about it in any way.
Recommendation: Serve this brewed very strong, to people who you prefer never to have visiting you again in the future. Use boxes of it as a gift in the annual Secret Santa ritual if you're planning on swapping to a new job in January anyway. Give it to the obnoxious loon next door who's been going on at length about how proud he is to be a teabagger. But don't drink it yourself.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Artificial Sweeteners - They are, and they aren't.
Over the past year and a half, I've pretty much stopped drinking things that have added sugar of any kind. I'll still grab a little OJ with breakfast sometimes, but otherwise I even avoid most fruit juices. In that time, I've pretty well adapted to drinking things that aren't sweet, but once in a while I still miss the flavor. So I decided to try some of the artificial sweeteners, just to see what might work.
Mostly: Ugh. "Artificial" is definitely the word in the majority of cases. I tried Splenda, Stevia, plain old saccharine (though I pretty much knew it would be a Fail), and a couple of the boutique blends, as well as some commercial products containing things that aren't readily available by themselves. There wasn't any point in trying aspartame (a.k.a. Nutrasweet) because I have known for years that even small doses of that stuff leave me with a raging headache in short order. (Oh, and since Monsanto's patent has finally expired, it can be listed under new names as well; beware.) Various websites in the US and elsewhere have reported on the facts about aspartame adequately enough that I won't go into them here; suffice it to say that I wouldn't feed it to the roaches under my neighbor's trash can. (Okay, I might, but I don't think roaches are likely to eat the stuff.)
But that still left me with the rest.
Splenda (the most common brand name used for sucralose) is currently first and favorite among the people who want their sweet tooth polished without sugar or aspartame. The packages proudly proclaim that it tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar. The chemical process involved in the conversion is such that this is akin to claiming that potassium-based salt substitute tastes like hydrochloric acid...and in my estimation, is about as accurate. Splenda's flavor is sweet-ish, like all of the artificial sweeteners, but it has an even more persistent aftertaste than average, and though some find that it is the closest to actual sugar from among the readily-available alternatives on the market, I feel that this is like saying Boston is close to New Hampshire. (By comparison to Atlanta, sure, it is...but that doesn't make it close in absolute terms.) After trying both the sweetener itself (in things of my own concoction, such as tea and limeade), and a variety of commercially-produced beverages and drink mixes containing it, I concluded that I'd prefer to avoid it.
Some beverage mixes and commercial drinks blend sucralose with another sweetener, acesulfame potassium. I was unable to buy Ace-K (as it is reportedly called) separately, so all I can report is that it failed to make sucralose dramatically more palatable. The strongly-artificial sweetishness and long-lingering aftertaste remained, though the initial hit on the tongue was slightly less jarring. Conclusion: Still worth avoiding.
Saccharine has been around for ages; it proved no more pleasant today than it did when I was a kid in the late '50s and early '60s. No surprise here.
Next up was Stevia in its many guises and combinations-with-other-things. Once again, the pure form is more sweetish than sweet, and it has a peculiar mint-like aftertaste that I find unpleasant. The brands which mix it with other sweeteners have varying levels of success in improving palatability in my estimation, but none rose to the level of something that I could actually say I liked. Score: Only tolerable if there was some strong reason to need to mask something INtolerable...in which case, the intuitive move would seem to be avoidance of both, no?
Then there's the class of things known as "sugar alcohols", including xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, and maltitol (among others). Despite being classed as alcohols, they are neither capable of producing intoxication nor do they exist as a liquid at room temperature. Getting the pure form of any of them in convenient quantities isn't easy or cheap; a few boutique-level suppliers carry some of them in small packages, but for the most part they're used as ingredients in finished products instead. If you want a truckload, no problem. They all share several characteristics. First, for the most part, they don't taste all that artificial, which might be a good thing. Second, they are NOT calorie-free, but their effects in the body are far less than that produced by glucose or fructose; as a result they are sold for use by diabetics on this basis in some areas. Third, they all tend to have a laxative effect if overconsumed, as is warned on the labels of many products that contain them (including a couple of fairly decent-tasting ice-cream-substitute products from Breyer's and Dreyer's). Although it has been reported that one eventually adapts to their presence, and can achieve a reduction in the associated problem, I'm not sure now much of such disruption I want to accept in exchange for the privilege of being able to consume larger quantities of something that's sweet but still has caloric content. I will not, however, avoid these when encountered, as long as the amounts involved are fairly small.
The bottom line, for me, seems to remain mostly unchanged. Although I've found a few sweetened-without-sucrose/fructose/HFCS products that I find acceptable, I'll stick with unsweetened for the rest.
A side note: I've run across research which indicates that the body may exhibit a pre-adaptive reaction to encountering certain sensory input, specifically smells and tastes; the reaction in question prepares the digestive system in anticipation of food, and enhances hunger. It operates by stimulating a rise in the insulin level in the blood when sweet tastes or certain smells are detected, so that the presumably expected sugar can be processed right away. One of the other effects of rising insulin levels is a shutdown of the lipid cycle, which causes fat to cease to be pulled from storage for use as fuel; this shutdown is part of what makes you hungrier as you begin eating a meal. If this observed reaction to taste sensations is common, there is reason to avoid causing it if one is trying to control or reduce weight; anything that stops the lipid cycle is working against the system that uses fat from storage to fuel your body. And in particular, given that sensory input may not always distinguish between fake sugar and real sugar, it seems that there is cause to suspect that this insulin release could be happening when you consume artificially-sweetened foods or beverages that are otherwise calorie-free. In that case, the insulin release will block out the fat-for-fuel mechanism, but there won't be any sugar coming in to use up the insulin or to provide alternate fuel, so you'll end up starving yourself while NOT losing weight. (Several years ago, I remember seeing other research which indicated that diet sodas had the effect of increasing hunger, but I don't recall if they established the mechanism involved, and it's possible that the same actual effect may have been observed in both studies.) Of course, without more specific research to confirm the effect and determine its severity and full implications, the potentially counterproductive nature of artificial sweeteners in this area remains at least partially conjecture at this point...but it's conjecture based on observed results, not just something pulled out of thin air.
Back in the '60s, there was a cola-wars ad in which one of the major brands had a fake Russian saying "Put water in mouth, is sufficient!". All in all, I have to say that this is probably the best advice available, though I'll continue to leaven mine with a dash of lemon or lime, thank you.
Mostly: Ugh. "Artificial" is definitely the word in the majority of cases. I tried Splenda, Stevia, plain old saccharine (though I pretty much knew it would be a Fail), and a couple of the boutique blends, as well as some commercial products containing things that aren't readily available by themselves. There wasn't any point in trying aspartame (a.k.a. Nutrasweet) because I have known for years that even small doses of that stuff leave me with a raging headache in short order. (Oh, and since Monsanto's patent has finally expired, it can be listed under new names as well; beware.) Various websites in the US and elsewhere have reported on the facts about aspartame adequately enough that I won't go into them here; suffice it to say that I wouldn't feed it to the roaches under my neighbor's trash can. (Okay, I might, but I don't think roaches are likely to eat the stuff.)
But that still left me with the rest.
Splenda (the most common brand name used for sucralose) is currently first and favorite among the people who want their sweet tooth polished without sugar or aspartame. The packages proudly proclaim that it tastes like sugar because it's made from sugar. The chemical process involved in the conversion is such that this is akin to claiming that potassium-based salt substitute tastes like hydrochloric acid...and in my estimation, is about as accurate. Splenda's flavor is sweet-ish, like all of the artificial sweeteners, but it has an even more persistent aftertaste than average, and though some find that it is the closest to actual sugar from among the readily-available alternatives on the market, I feel that this is like saying Boston is close to New Hampshire. (By comparison to Atlanta, sure, it is...but that doesn't make it close in absolute terms.) After trying both the sweetener itself (in things of my own concoction, such as tea and limeade), and a variety of commercially-produced beverages and drink mixes containing it, I concluded that I'd prefer to avoid it.
Some beverage mixes and commercial drinks blend sucralose with another sweetener, acesulfame potassium. I was unable to buy Ace-K (as it is reportedly called) separately, so all I can report is that it failed to make sucralose dramatically more palatable. The strongly-artificial sweetishness and long-lingering aftertaste remained, though the initial hit on the tongue was slightly less jarring. Conclusion: Still worth avoiding.
Saccharine has been around for ages; it proved no more pleasant today than it did when I was a kid in the late '50s and early '60s. No surprise here.
Next up was Stevia in its many guises and combinations-with-other-things. Once again, the pure form is more sweetish than sweet, and it has a peculiar mint-like aftertaste that I find unpleasant. The brands which mix it with other sweeteners have varying levels of success in improving palatability in my estimation, but none rose to the level of something that I could actually say I liked. Score: Only tolerable if there was some strong reason to need to mask something INtolerable...in which case, the intuitive move would seem to be avoidance of both, no?
Then there's the class of things known as "sugar alcohols", including xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, and maltitol (among others). Despite being classed as alcohols, they are neither capable of producing intoxication nor do they exist as a liquid at room temperature. Getting the pure form of any of them in convenient quantities isn't easy or cheap; a few boutique-level suppliers carry some of them in small packages, but for the most part they're used as ingredients in finished products instead. If you want a truckload, no problem. They all share several characteristics. First, for the most part, they don't taste all that artificial, which might be a good thing. Second, they are NOT calorie-free, but their effects in the body are far less than that produced by glucose or fructose; as a result they are sold for use by diabetics on this basis in some areas. Third, they all tend to have a laxative effect if overconsumed, as is warned on the labels of many products that contain them (including a couple of fairly decent-tasting ice-cream-substitute products from Breyer's and Dreyer's). Although it has been reported that one eventually adapts to their presence, and can achieve a reduction in the associated problem, I'm not sure now much of such disruption I want to accept in exchange for the privilege of being able to consume larger quantities of something that's sweet but still has caloric content. I will not, however, avoid these when encountered, as long as the amounts involved are fairly small.
The bottom line, for me, seems to remain mostly unchanged. Although I've found a few sweetened-without-sucrose/fructose/HFCS products that I find acceptable, I'll stick with unsweetened for the rest.
A side note: I've run across research which indicates that the body may exhibit a pre-adaptive reaction to encountering certain sensory input, specifically smells and tastes; the reaction in question prepares the digestive system in anticipation of food, and enhances hunger. It operates by stimulating a rise in the insulin level in the blood when sweet tastes or certain smells are detected, so that the presumably expected sugar can be processed right away. One of the other effects of rising insulin levels is a shutdown of the lipid cycle, which causes fat to cease to be pulled from storage for use as fuel; this shutdown is part of what makes you hungrier as you begin eating a meal. If this observed reaction to taste sensations is common, there is reason to avoid causing it if one is trying to control or reduce weight; anything that stops the lipid cycle is working against the system that uses fat from storage to fuel your body. And in particular, given that sensory input may not always distinguish between fake sugar and real sugar, it seems that there is cause to suspect that this insulin release could be happening when you consume artificially-sweetened foods or beverages that are otherwise calorie-free. In that case, the insulin release will block out the fat-for-fuel mechanism, but there won't be any sugar coming in to use up the insulin or to provide alternate fuel, so you'll end up starving yourself while NOT losing weight. (Several years ago, I remember seeing other research which indicated that diet sodas had the effect of increasing hunger, but I don't recall if they established the mechanism involved, and it's possible that the same actual effect may have been observed in both studies.) Of course, without more specific research to confirm the effect and determine its severity and full implications, the potentially counterproductive nature of artificial sweeteners in this area remains at least partially conjecture at this point...but it's conjecture based on observed results, not just something pulled out of thin air.
Back in the '60s, there was a cola-wars ad in which one of the major brands had a fake Russian saying "Put water in mouth, is sufficient!". All in all, I have to say that this is probably the best advice available, though I'll continue to leaven mine with a dash of lemon or lime, thank you.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Unsweetened, please.
Back in December of 2008, faced with a waistline that had slowly expanded to the point that I was on the verge of either developing an overlap or buying new pants, I decided that the time had come to shed some excess pounds. I knew that the process would not be easy; although I'd been able to tolerate the kind of self-starvation regime that's usually promoted by our benighted medical and nutritional establishments for such purposes, I was less than thrilled about doing it. Instead, I decided to engage in an intuitively attractive alternative.
I stopped consuming anything that contained high fructose corn syrup, and reduced my intake of sugar in other forms as much as was easy and simple. Period. No sudden increase in exercise, no counting calories, no rice-cake-and-low-fat-cottage-cheese lunches, no prepackaged meals of questionable virtue, NOTHING ELSE out of the ordinary.
And in the following 9 months to a year, I dropped about 30 pounds, slowly and painlessly.
Along about that time, a friend of mine (who'd been afflicted with a multitude of ailments that caused him to be on a daily diet of pharmaceuticals that would have bankrupted someone with my income) was diagnosed with the early stages of diabetes. The immediate response of his physician at the time was to prescribe yet more drugs in addition to those that he was already taking...and when he looked up their side effects in the Physician's Desk Reference, he had a fit. The stuff was next to deadly. After confirming his suspicions via second and third opinions rendered by professional contacts he trusted, he went looking for a new doctor...and found one whose approach to the situation, after reviewing *all* of the meds he was on, was to stop all of them and let his condition stabilize before evaluating which, if any, of the meds would be continued. To control the effects of the diabetes in this period, a limit of 30 grams of total carbohydrate intake per day was imposed. (Before the discovery and synthesis of insulin, this was the only practical treatment for diabetes...and it worked just fine for most.)
If you've never tried to limit your carb intake, I will point out that the bun for a typical hamburger has more than 30 grams of carbs. If you've ever shopped for low-carb prepared food items in most of the parts of a typical grocery store, you'll understand why meeting his new limit was not easy, but it wasn't something my friend felt that he had a lot of choice about, so he started eating a lot more meat and non-starch vegetables. To his immense surprise, in a couple of weeks, it was like he was a different person. Nearly all of his long-term maladies had either vanished or dropped in severity to a tolerable point and were still abating. He'd started losing weight (something he'd never been able to do previously at all) and his stamina and appearance had both improved. The change was remarkable...and although he was sure that the cessation of all of the conflicting drugs had played a large part in the changes, he was still very curious indeed about just what part the low-carb diet might be playing.
What he found out was enlightening, infuriating, and promising.
It was enlightening because he discovered that the low-carb lifestyle was neither hazardous nor unhealthy, as was loudly proclaimed by certain parts of the medical establishment, and was, in fact, far healthier overall than the dietary regime that was followed by anyone who adhered to the "official" guidelines.
It was infuriating because he discovered that there was a large, powerful and entrenched establishment within the medical and nutritional fields which refused to accept the valid, persuasive and conclusive research that demonstrated the fallacy of promoting a high-carb diet (such as the one he'd been following unintentionally for decades) as being healthy in any regard.
And it was promising, at a personal level, because some of the the results he'd already seen appeared to be just the tip of a beneficial iceberg that had been appearing through the fog of misinformation as he delved deeper into the subject.
When I related to him that I'd been able to shed much of my excess weight via the simple expedient of nixing everything that contained HFCS and a lot of sugar, he was understandably not surprised. Over the subsequent months, he shared some information he'd collected along the way which caused me to add starches to my proscription list, and which persuaded me to increase the amount of fatty meats I consumed. My weight loss accelerated, and other benefits started to appear. My stamina improved, my allergies became less troublesome, and my blood pressure (which had been a bit high, but never dangerously so) started to fall back very slowly.
When I started this, I weighed over 210 lbs, which was far from being considered obese for someone who's 6'3" tall. Today, I appear to have stabilized at around 163 lbs, I have lost 5 inches off my waistline, and I feel much better on a daily basis than I did when I was carrying the extra pounds around. By many standards, I am now considered underweight for my height. Well, the folks who think so can just keep their opinions to themselves. This is working really well for me, and I'm sticking to it.
Meanwhile, for anyone who's actively curious about the subject, I can heartily recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes as a long but exceptionally informative read that covers not only the facts and the history of how we got into the dietary mess we're in, but why there's so much information around which is dead wrong...and what that misinformation is still causing as a result.
I stopped consuming anything that contained high fructose corn syrup, and reduced my intake of sugar in other forms as much as was easy and simple. Period. No sudden increase in exercise, no counting calories, no rice-cake-and-low-fat-cottage-cheese lunches, no prepackaged meals of questionable virtue, NOTHING ELSE out of the ordinary.
And in the following 9 months to a year, I dropped about 30 pounds, slowly and painlessly.
Along about that time, a friend of mine (who'd been afflicted with a multitude of ailments that caused him to be on a daily diet of pharmaceuticals that would have bankrupted someone with my income) was diagnosed with the early stages of diabetes. The immediate response of his physician at the time was to prescribe yet more drugs in addition to those that he was already taking...and when he looked up their side effects in the Physician's Desk Reference, he had a fit. The stuff was next to deadly. After confirming his suspicions via second and third opinions rendered by professional contacts he trusted, he went looking for a new doctor...and found one whose approach to the situation, after reviewing *all* of the meds he was on, was to stop all of them and let his condition stabilize before evaluating which, if any, of the meds would be continued. To control the effects of the diabetes in this period, a limit of 30 grams of total carbohydrate intake per day was imposed. (Before the discovery and synthesis of insulin, this was the only practical treatment for diabetes...and it worked just fine for most.)
If you've never tried to limit your carb intake, I will point out that the bun for a typical hamburger has more than 30 grams of carbs. If you've ever shopped for low-carb prepared food items in most of the parts of a typical grocery store, you'll understand why meeting his new limit was not easy, but it wasn't something my friend felt that he had a lot of choice about, so he started eating a lot more meat and non-starch vegetables. To his immense surprise, in a couple of weeks, it was like he was a different person. Nearly all of his long-term maladies had either vanished or dropped in severity to a tolerable point and were still abating. He'd started losing weight (something he'd never been able to do previously at all) and his stamina and appearance had both improved. The change was remarkable...and although he was sure that the cessation of all of the conflicting drugs had played a large part in the changes, he was still very curious indeed about just what part the low-carb diet might be playing.
What he found out was enlightening, infuriating, and promising.
It was enlightening because he discovered that the low-carb lifestyle was neither hazardous nor unhealthy, as was loudly proclaimed by certain parts of the medical establishment, and was, in fact, far healthier overall than the dietary regime that was followed by anyone who adhered to the "official" guidelines.
It was infuriating because he discovered that there was a large, powerful and entrenched establishment within the medical and nutritional fields which refused to accept the valid, persuasive and conclusive research that demonstrated the fallacy of promoting a high-carb diet (such as the one he'd been following unintentionally for decades) as being healthy in any regard.
And it was promising, at a personal level, because some of the the results he'd already seen appeared to be just the tip of a beneficial iceberg that had been appearing through the fog of misinformation as he delved deeper into the subject.
When I related to him that I'd been able to shed much of my excess weight via the simple expedient of nixing everything that contained HFCS and a lot of sugar, he was understandably not surprised. Over the subsequent months, he shared some information he'd collected along the way which caused me to add starches to my proscription list, and which persuaded me to increase the amount of fatty meats I consumed. My weight loss accelerated, and other benefits started to appear. My stamina improved, my allergies became less troublesome, and my blood pressure (which had been a bit high, but never dangerously so) started to fall back very slowly.
When I started this, I weighed over 210 lbs, which was far from being considered obese for someone who's 6'3" tall. Today, I appear to have stabilized at around 163 lbs, I have lost 5 inches off my waistline, and I feel much better on a daily basis than I did when I was carrying the extra pounds around. By many standards, I am now considered underweight for my height. Well, the folks who think so can just keep their opinions to themselves. This is working really well for me, and I'm sticking to it.
Meanwhile, for anyone who's actively curious about the subject, I can heartily recommend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes as a long but exceptionally informative read that covers not only the facts and the history of how we got into the dietary mess we're in, but why there's so much information around which is dead wrong...and what that misinformation is still causing as a result.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Just reduce the price, dammit! I HATE REBATES!
This rant pertains mostly to commerce at it is done in the U.S. Elsewhere, the relevance and reasoning may vary.
Reasons why I hate rebates:
1. You're never 100% sure that you'll actually get it. Between documents lost in the mail going to the processing center, checks lost or stolen in the mail coming back, processing errors, claims lost at the processing center, and checks misplaced or mistaken for junk mail (see item 6 below), the chances are good that a significant percentages of the rebates you request will never make it back into your pocket. No matter where the loss occurs, you usually can't get the rebate replaced; it's just gone for good. Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
2. It requires extra time on the part of the buyer, and particularly if the purchase is made at a time of urgent need, there's a good chance that events (including merely being distracted at the wrong moment) will cause the window of opportunity to close, or something required for the rebate claim to be thrown away by mistake, before the rebate gets sent off. In many cases, even if you keep everything (receipt, proof of purchase, etc.), by the time you find the paperwork and realize what it is, the perhaps-as-short-as-5-day period to file for the rebate is over. (Yes, I have seen periods for filing which were that short, or shorter.) Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
3. You have to pay sales tax on a larger amount than you would if they just discounted the item. If what you want has an $80 rebate, for instance, you're paying sales tax on the $80, and you won't get that back. If the price were simply discounted by that amount, you'd save the extra sales tax; where I live, on $80, that's another $6.60 out of my pocket. Businesses get to keep a trivial fraction of the sales tax they collect, usually a fraction of a percent, but it adds up, so once again, Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
4. You're getting no interest on this loan...and that's effectively what it is. They're asking you to hand over the money now and maybe get it back later; essentially, to loan *someone* that money, interest-free, with significant risk and no guarantee, for as much as 180 days. (That's the longest delay I've seen; your mileage may vary, but 90 days is pretty typical.) Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
5. If the rebate demands that you have to deface the packaging and/or send back the original sales receipt as part of the terms of the extortion, you may be surrendering your right to return the defaced item and/or to collect on the receipt-required warranty in the process. Although some states protect the consumer's rights to some extent in this area, not all do, and some manufacturers and businesses will try to avoid honoring warranties using any pretext at all, legal or not; wherever the rebate process creates such a problem, it's yet another instance in which Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
6. When it arrives in the mail, the typical rebate check looks more like a scammish promotion come-on for a timeshare sales track than something with a valid depositable value. As a result, it's likely to get tossed in the trash unopened. While making it nondescript reduces the likelihood of its being stolen, making it look like unwanted junk mail takes extra effort, and the only reason I can see to do this is that they understand that it will increase the number of checks thrown away unopened in error. Once again, Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, And IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM ONE BIT THAT IT'S BAD FOR YOU.
I really, really HATE rebates.
Reasons why I hate rebates:
1. You're never 100% sure that you'll actually get it. Between documents lost in the mail going to the processing center, checks lost or stolen in the mail coming back, processing errors, claims lost at the processing center, and checks misplaced or mistaken for junk mail (see item 6 below), the chances are good that a significant percentages of the rebates you request will never make it back into your pocket. No matter where the loss occurs, you usually can't get the rebate replaced; it's just gone for good. Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
2. It requires extra time on the part of the buyer, and particularly if the purchase is made at a time of urgent need, there's a good chance that events (including merely being distracted at the wrong moment) will cause the window of opportunity to close, or something required for the rebate claim to be thrown away by mistake, before the rebate gets sent off. In many cases, even if you keep everything (receipt, proof of purchase, etc.), by the time you find the paperwork and realize what it is, the perhaps-as-short-as-5-day period to file for the rebate is over. (Yes, I have seen periods for filing which were that short, or shorter.) Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
3. You have to pay sales tax on a larger amount than you would if they just discounted the item. If what you want has an $80 rebate, for instance, you're paying sales tax on the $80, and you won't get that back. If the price were simply discounted by that amount, you'd save the extra sales tax; where I live, on $80, that's another $6.60 out of my pocket. Businesses get to keep a trivial fraction of the sales tax they collect, usually a fraction of a percent, but it adds up, so once again, Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
4. You're getting no interest on this loan...and that's effectively what it is. They're asking you to hand over the money now and maybe get it back later; essentially, to loan *someone* that money, interest-free, with significant risk and no guarantee, for as much as 180 days. (That's the longest delay I've seen; your mileage may vary, but 90 days is pretty typical.) Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
5. If the rebate demands that you have to deface the packaging and/or send back the original sales receipt as part of the terms of the extortion, you may be surrendering your right to return the defaced item and/or to collect on the receipt-required warranty in the process. Although some states protect the consumer's rights to some extent in this area, not all do, and some manufacturers and businesses will try to avoid honoring warranties using any pretext at all, legal or not; wherever the rebate process creates such a problem, it's yet another instance in which Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, Even Though It's Bad For YOU.
6. When it arrives in the mail, the typical rebate check looks more like a scammish promotion come-on for a timeshare sales track than something with a valid depositable value. As a result, it's likely to get tossed in the trash unopened. While making it nondescript reduces the likelihood of its being stolen, making it look like unwanted junk mail takes extra effort, and the only reason I can see to do this is that they understand that it will increase the number of checks thrown away unopened in error. Once again, Businesses Benefit From This; It's Good For Profits, And IT DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM ONE BIT THAT IT'S BAD FOR YOU.
I really, really HATE rebates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)