[BTS] Blimey. Most extreme luxury resource roll ever?

[lindsay40k]

How has Justinian not got, like, EVERY TECH EVER?

Next War mod, Multiplayer, Large Hemispheres map, no tinkering. He's an AI on his own ikkle continent - the only one outside of the big mass on the West with its indigenous religion rather than my exported Hinduism or Islam >

[xcrissxcrossx]

"Constantinople, the City of Rotted Teeth"

[Verarde]

And the three clams to his south.

Dang.

[TheWilltoAct]

In before Sugar Is A Terrible Resource.

There is certainly more food here than can be put to use, sugar plantations are like Biology farms.

[Riflin'Joe]

You should research Dentistry so you can trade it to him.

[GGracchus]

He should have founded on the sugar. Wait, which sugar?

If he did found 1E, he would have gotten two extra sugar and lost the one he founded on, while keeping the 3 clams, unlike 1NE.

[bhavv]

I'd definiately have settled that 1E.

Early on you cottage all those sugars and you have flood plains minus the unhealthiness, and actually if you settle on a sugar you can leave all the rest cottaged forever.

After biology you could farm them too for 5 food tiles. Sugars are great tiles, plantations on them just suck though.

[tdy99]

It would be a great GP farm city, but I don't see how it necessarily translates into super-research.

[GA econ FTW]

Little Justinian: "boy, mom, I'm Starved, what's for dinner?"
Momma Justy: Oh, you know dear, the Usual, Linguine with Clam sauce?
Little Justinian: "moooohooommm, Clams AGAIN??"
Momma Justy: Son, stop throwing tantrums, you know when you do your funny little Jughead-hat falls off sometimes and we have to take it to the CivJewels Branch office to get it repaired...now, say when you want me to stop putting powdered sugar on it...."

[Lemon Merchant]

Originally Posted by Riflin'Joe

You should research Dentistry so you can trade it to him.

Put some gold into Diabetes research, too.

[bhavv]

Originally Posted by Lemon Merchant

Put some gold into Diabetes research, too.

20 turns later -

'Intake of sugars does not appear to play a deleterious role in primary prevention of type 2 diabetes. These prospective data support the recent American Diabetes Association’s guideline that a moderate amount of sugar can be incorporated in a healthy diet'.

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/4/1008.full

Wasted gold

[Abegweit]

From your study:

The status of type 2 diabetes was evaluated at baseline, and women with a history of diagnosed diabetes were excluded.

This aside from the fact that questionnaire-based studies are less than useless.

[bhavv]

Actually there is no clinical link anywhere that increased sugar intake increases the chance of developing type 2 diabetes, this is one of those things that is a widely believed medical myth, rather than a fact.

Ive read up on clinical trials from the top medical journals where two groups of people with low and high sugar intakes were monitored over a significant time, and neither group had a higher or lower chance of developing diabetes type 2. There has never been any scientific evidence of a high sugar intake leading to diabetes, however being overweight is a strong contributing factor, and people who eat far too much sugar would likely end up overweight, which would increase their likelihood of developing diabetes, but eating a moderate balanced amount of sugar has not been linked to increased chances of developing diabetes, the only contributing factors are genetics and obesity.

I know, completely offtopic, but its all about sugar.

[Abegweit]

Do you understand the difference between sugar and carbohydrates? Hint: to your body, there isn't one. If you eat bread instead of sugar, it's the same freakin' thing. Which is precisely why the studies you quote are useless.

BTW, studies are not science. Science is about making theories to explain the interaction of data. Studies are data, not science. And the hacks who deliberately conflate the one with the one are exactly that - hacks. They are not scientists.

But you are quite right that this discussion is off-topic. I will not be responding to you any more.

[bhavv]

I studied a BSc in Biology thanks, and you seem to be completely unaware that clinical trials are the foundation of medical research. Any research that follows the scientific method is science.

OFC I know that both sugars and starch are converted into glycogen, and I also know that neither of these lead to diabetes otherwise just about everyone would end up with type 2 diabetes.

[Lemon Merchant]

DISCLAIMER

Lemon Merchant - BSc, B.N., R.N., MSc, PhD, and a diabetic herself, knows very well that the ingestion of sugar does not cause or contribute to the formation of type 2 Diabetes.

T'was a silly joke, boys. Don't beat each other up about it.

[bhavv]

Yea, my first comment on that was meant to be a joke about that too, until it got taken seriously.

[Abegweit]

Originally Posted by Lemon Merchant

DISCLAIMER

Lemon Merchant - BSc, B.N., R.N., MSc, PhD, and a diabetic herself, knows very well that the ingestion of sugar does not cause or contribute to the formation of type 2 Diabetes.

T'was a silly joke, boys. Don't beat each other up about it.

Question: how many letters do you need after your name to understand that bhavv's link has nothing to do with science. In fact, it isn't even decent data.

And, Ms Diabetic, this is even more important - surely to you in particular. What does cause your disease? With all the letters after your name and all the things you claim to know, shouldn't this be the one thing you would want to know above all else? After all. Your life depends on the answer to the question. What is the cause of your disease?

Before answering that question, start by asking why it's called a "Disease of Civilisation".

[Lemon Merchant]

Originally Posted by Abegweit

Question: how many letters do you need after your name to understand that bhavv's link has nothing to do with science. In fact, it isn't even decent data.

The link reads like a preliminary report on on a clinical trial, and I agree that the data may not be relevant, since the participants self diagnosed. And I never said that the link had anything to do with science.

And, Ms Diabetic, this is even more important - surely to you in particular. What does cause your disease? With all the letters after your name and all the things you claim to know, shouldn't this be the one thing you would want to know above all else? After all. Your life depends on the answer to the question. What is the cause of your disease?

To be perfectly frank, I don't know why I have diabetes. I'm not overweight, I eat healthily, and I exercise regularly. I don't fit any of the criteria for the "Disease of Civilization" (sedentary lifestyle, high BMI and high fat/carb intake, causing further weight gain). The likely cause of my diabetes is delayed type 1, since my pancreas has sharply decreased its' capacity to produce insulin since my late 30's.

Before answering that question, start by asking why it's called a "Disease of Civilisation".

We've raised a generation of fat, lazy kids, that live on a diet of junk food and food additives. It's no bloody wonder that type 2 diabetes is on the rise.

[mizzile]

Delete his city! And build yours!!!!!