It's a shame that stupid seems to always be coupled with a need to spread itself. Did enjoy the hopeless illogic motivated by the need for casual sexism though. Nicely done there.

"For me I pretty much eat whatever it is that I crave at the moment, I trust my body to give the right signals."
A real intellectual heavyweight. Can't be wrong when what you do is defined to be right.

Nor should they. But the OP was responding to a comment about how "Christians", that meaning "Catholics", regard lack of eating meat as punishment, even as they define away what "meat" even is. The focus is on making sure that "Christians" are not inconvenienced so they can feel good about themselves while doing nothing. And isn't that what Christianity is all about anyway? Why even the slightest personal sacrifice, it was all done on the cross already! God loves me exactly as I am, so fuck you I do what I want.

It's a great insight, the key here is to couch things in such a way that we can claim "good people" are doing "good things" without anyone doing anything. Here we have the incredible achievement of "giving up meat one day a week", where to do so we need to move it to a day where it's already being done, except by a majority who don't practice it or even know what it is, and where "meat" does not include cheese or dairy, or fish, or seafood, or eggs, or poultry. Quite an achievement by a deep thinker, and all this where the goal is NOT to give up meat but to give up sugar.

"This appears to be what I was thinking about...
https://www.webmd.com/breast-c... [webmd.com]"
OMG did you read this article? It says NOTHING that you claim it does. There is no discussion of genes or genetics AT ALL. The article says "...the differences couldn’t be explained by race. Even when they accounted for the differences in race, they still saw an effect of neighborhoods." The conclusion was that causes are environmental, and that environment is affected by racism. Of course it is!

"I'm no such kook because I don't believe there's any attempt to keep it secret."
There it is, out of the closet.

"I don't believe I made any such implication."
You didn't imply it, you called it "a fact".

"sucrose first needs some metabolic energy (slight, but there), to break the molecule apart into a glucose and a fructose, which is then further used. "
True, however this occurs instantaneously using enzymes in saliva and is complete before food is even swallowed. It is of no significance at all.

"HFCS does not have that chemical bond between the fructose and glucose molecules in it, so the body gets the sugar hit directly without subtracting that little bit."
Subtracting a little bit of what? There is utterly no difference, except that HCFS has proportionately a bit less glucose for its sweetness, but a bit more fructose.

"the difference is negligible IMHO"
Think again. Fructose is a health disaster.

"...but will eventually end up as glucose in your bloodstream just the same. so there's no difference in regards of this study's findings"

No. Some fructose will "end up as glucose", a lot will not. There are plenty of reasons to believe that the "difference in regards of this study's findings" would be significant if not profound. And that doesn't mean good.

"...it doesn't produce blood sugar spikes because it is absorbed more slowly..."

Also false. It does not produce a blood sugar (glucose) spike because it is not glucose. Protein also does not produce a blood sugar spike but, like fructose, will cause elevated blood sugar over a longer period of time (longer being relative to what constitutes a "spike").

"...apparently fructose is healthier than sucrose (the primary constituent of cane sugar) because it doesn't cause the same kind of glucose spike in the blood after eating."
Fructose does not cause "the same kind of glucose spike", that does not mean it is healthier. Cyanide also doesn't cause "the same kind of glucose spike".

Also, HCFS is not pure fructose. You know what else it contains? Glucose. A substance that causes "the same kind of glucose spike".

"I prefer the taste of cane sugar over HFCS in soft drinks..."
Sure you do, we know this because of how you demonstrate what careful observer of details you are.

"...which appears to be a common preference among Americans."
Citation please.

"Knowing that fructose might be healthier ..."
It is not. Fructose is poison. HCFS is not fructose.

"... isn't likely to change my desire for cane sugar in my soft drinks because I believe I'm not drinking them in excess. "
Even though you don't know what "excess" is. And it isn't like to change your desire because your opinions are based on emotion and lizard-brain thinking.

"That little bit of sucrose isn't likely to hurt me. The carbonation is perhaps more of an issue, that throws off the acid in my stomach and apparently reduces calcium uptake."
Wow, an even more stunning display of ignorance. It's not a "little" sucrose, soft drinks have enormous amounts of sucrose/HCFS. And carbonation is not even remotely an issue nor does carbonation "throw off the acid" in your stomach. Soft drinks have added acid separate from carbonation, you moron. Heaven forbid that upsets that delicate acid balance in your stomach.

Wait 'til you learn what the long term effects of these things are on your liver and kidneys after a lifetime of mental masturbation over imaginary differences between sugar and HFCS and how it compares to that carbonation boogeyman. The healthiest thing you could do is replace your soft drinks with carbonated water, carbonation is the only thing that isn't suspect.

"News that not enough meat in the diet could put people at risk of cancer is going to piss these people off in a serious way. I'm going to enjoy hearing them scream about this."

Except this is not that news. There is nothing here that suggests that cancer risk correlates with "not enough meat".

It is interesting that you could have simply chosen to answer the question at hand, that the "missing link" here is the glucose involvement. Instead, you thought it important to go on some tirade about alleged racism, advocacies you apparently hate and poorly defined religious sensitivities. Perhaps once you're through expressing your uncontrollable contempt maybe you can consider that decreasing carbs can be accomplished without increasing protein, in fact it is preferred. Excess protein intake is converted to glucose, exactly what you are trying to avoid.

It doesn't have to be better than "good" drivers to make sense. It just has to be better than average drivers.

"Tell that to the people who know that zebra striped crosswalks mean they have the right of way no matter what..."

I don't know about your scenario, I'm sure it exists. But it is a fact that people largely think that crosswalks grant universal, absolute right-of-way. They do not, right-of-way does not include a privilege of violating the right of way of other vehicles/pedestrians. If it did, right of way would mean nothing.

A cross walk does not grant you the right to step out into the street when a vehicle is coming. To step into a street you MUST first stop and yield right-of-way to existing traffic. You may only proceed when it is clear. That's what right of way is, and until you have it you don't have it. Cross walks are not magic.

"In North America, being a pedestrian means you yield to motor vehicles."

This is true everywhere, not just in North America. And it's actual law, not merely law of the jungle as you imply. There are laws that apply to right of way, the apply to all users of the road, including pedestrians.

"Granted, North America should be more friendly towards pedestrians..."

Why granted? It is an absurdly broad over-generalization and a subjective observation. Pedestrians are easily the most ill-behaved users of roads, your judgments reflect only that they are also the most vulnerable.

You speak as though this is a problem. The average daily experience is pedestrians walking into traffic without regard for vehicle traffic or right of way. A cross walk does not convey a right to violate a vehicle's right of way.

"I've rarely seen it here..but in north America it seems to be the norm."

Sure, you're quite the expert on North America seeing's though you don't live there. Citation please.

"The fact that parent doesn't know this, thinks every accident they've been in was the other driver's fault, and sees driving as a "contest" says it all."

Yes, it says that you're willing to grossly misrepresent the parent poster because you're an asshole.

"The point isn't to survive each journey, it's to drive calmly & safely & at moderate speed until you reach your destination."

That's complete bullshit. For most driving, the point is solely to reach the destination.

"It's not a race. It's not a driving skills contest."

False choice. You are not required to drive "calmly", whatever that is, simply because "it's not a race".

That most definitely will not happen