Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: prevention <---> treatment
Message-ID: <34@unc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 16:55:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.34
Posted: Fri Jul 26 16:55:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 03:21:38 EDT
References: <1049@cbdkc1.UUCP> <cadre.467>
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Distribution: na
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 44
Summary: 

In article <cadre.467> geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks) writes:
>
>2)  Re the sugar debate.  The posters who said the only disease
>sugar is implicated in scientifically is dental caries are right.
>Most physicians would agree that overindulgence in sweets is probably
>not a healthful practice, but the evidence is largely lacking unless
>you have diabetes, obesity, or some other disease exacerbated by
>sugar or calories.

And how many people DON'T have a problem with obesity?  After age 30,
it's the _uncommon_ person whose weight is right where it should be.
Conclusion:  Sugar is not likely to be harmful for you unless you are
an ordinary American :-(.

>However, the "raw honey" information posted was sheer superstition.
>Raw honey has been reported to cause botulism in infants, but otherwise
>no significant health differences have been discovered between this
>bee-sugar and cane or beet sugar.

The "quack" book I read said that honey soothes inflamed mucous membranes.
If this is just an old wives tail, then why does my doctor recommend honey
and lemon juice in a glass of tea to soother sore throats?  Why didn't he
just recommend sugar in the tea, instead of honey, assuming there is no
difference?  After all, sugar is cheaper, and more convenient to handle.

I've read that Roman soldiers used honey as a balm for binding wounds.
If honey really has no such antiseptic effect, then why doesn't it spoil
when stored at room temperature?

>Many parents have believed the quack theory that a taste for sweets
>is acquired and not innate, despite evidence to the contrary
>in humans and animals, only to find that their child, upon tasting
>his first candy, is wildly enthusiastic about it.  It seems that
>a taste for sweets has some evolutionary advantage after all (oh,
>excuse me all you creationists out there).  

No one says that a taste for sweets is acquired.  It's the taste for
NON-SWEET foods that must be acquired.  But you eat a lot of sugar,
you won't aquire this taste.  Heathy food like vegetables and grains
will taste bad in comparision (as an analogy, it's unlikely that
you'll discover a love for good books unless you can first break
yourself of the TV habit).

	Frank Silbermann