Séverine B

Up

@NoName Sorry : il manque un morceau de trad : " Gillespie: You know, you describe an early battle over many of these questions between academic nutritionists who overwhelming took the energy balance approach to nutrition: you lose weight of you burn more calories than you take in versus what they characterize as quack doctors who writing diet fad books that you can eat all the fat you wan. And yet you say the quacks were actually closer to being right. Taubes: So you have an academic research community that dominated post-World War II in the U.S. by nutritionists, who are studying animals for the most part. 1959, '60, Rosalyn Yalow and Solomon Berson invent the technology that allows hormones to be measured accurately and the school of endocrinology explodes. The science of endocrinology finally has the tools they need to understand things like hormonal regulation of fat accumulation. Yalow and Berson say, look, insulin drives fat accumulation, so maybe this link between type two diabetes and obesity, maybe the type two diabetics are obese because of the insulin. And nobody cares, except the doctors. The doctors are like all of us. They're getting fat, right? What do you do if you're getting fat? Well, you try what everyone tells you to do, which is eat less and exercise more and if that doesn't work, which it doesn't, then, if you're smart, you look for other methods. Some of them read the diet book literature and try various diets. Some of them actually read the same medical literature I did, so Atkins famously read the same studies I read 40 years later. Maybe if I get rid of the carbohydrates and replace it with fat, because fats are the one macro-nutrient that doesn't stimulate insulin secretion, maybe I'll lose weight. If you try it and it works- Gillespie: So it is a place where kind of people outside of the official research community were desperate to get skinny or have their patients get skinny so they tried a bunch of different things? Taubes: They try a bunch of different things. When you find one that works, after a lifetime of failing ... Obesity is one of these subjects where it helps to have a weight problem. If you don't understand what it's like to get fatter and fatter, year in and year out, regardless of what you do, or to be 50 pounds fatter than your schoolmates in high school regardless of what you do, you just don't understand obesity. Gillespie: You're a trim guy. Were you a fat load at some point? Taubes: Nah, I was chubby when I was a kid. It was one of the interesting things, cause my brother who is a mathematician was ... you could see every vein on his body, and I was a chubby. He was taller and thin. He couldn't gain weight if he wanted to, and I was just a chubby kid. Puberty helped and then I became an athlete and that helped. But my brother at his peak was 6'5" and weighed about 195 was a rower. Remember Freud said anatomy is destiny. So he rowed crew. I was 6'2" and could get up to 240, and I played football. We both ate as much as we could. That's what we did. We were kids. He was tall and thin. I was short and thick. Not ... shorter and thick. That's just how we were built. I often wonder it's like why would you possibly think that I was thicker than him because I ate more or exercised less. I was just thicker than him. That was my body. Gillespie: In the book, you document a long history of public nutrition advice being intertwined with politics in this country. So let's talk about the sugar lobby. How did king sugar get its crown in the American economy and kind of in the American diet? Taubes: Well, sugar used to be very expensive and hard to get. It's hard to grow. It only grows in specific and tropical regions. You can't just transport the sugar cane around the world and then refine the sugar out of it afterwards. You've got to get the sugar out quickly on refining. It's a horrible job. Gillespie: It was done by slaves. Taubes: It was done by slaves. The sugar industry is at the heart of the slave trade. The industrial revolution comes along. Now beginning in the late 18th Century and suddenly sugar gets cheaper and cheaper to refine. 1840s the candy industry, the chocolate industry and the ice cream industry all start up. In the 1870s, 1880s, you get the soft drink industry with Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola and Dr. Pepper and suddenly not only are you creating entirely new ways to consume sugar and new vehicles to do it, and you can consume it all day long, you are targeting children and women as the consumers of sugar, children specifically. The soft drink industry in particular just explodes. By 1900, we're consuming about 90 pounds per capita, which is almost a 20-fold increase in a century. Every industry, it's like an arms race, every industry, the nutritionist say, no, no, no, no, no, and the marketers say "If we don't do it also, we're out of business." They fall one after another. By the 1960s, you've got cereals that are 40, 50 percent sugar- Gillespie: And that are advertising as such. Right? This is like Sugar Smacks. It was originally Sugar Frosted Flakes. Taubes: Tastes like a milk shake. You've got all of the smartest minds on Madison Avenue in the PR industry creating not just cartoon characters to sell but entire Saturday morning cartoons, the ones we grew up on, like Rocky and Bullwinkle. I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle. It was a vehicle to sell cereal. Gillespie: Gosh, I didn't realize. So in the Hague trial of cartoon characters against humanity, Rocky and Bullwinkle are as bad as Boris and Natasha then?"

Ok mais c'est au moins pour attribuer le mérite à qui de droit

@NoName Un petit nom pour que tu sois crédité de la traduction en bas de l'article ?

Whaou, déjà ??? Merci !

Merci !

Je ne l'ai pas vu... Ne t'embête pas à transférer sur WP : tu peux copier-coller ici. Je le mettrai ensuite sur WP.

Trad un peu longue mais un bon texte sur "How big government made us fat" : https://reason.com/blog/2018/03/15/gary-taubes-on-how-big-government-made-u

Bon, bon, alors ça va

Merci h16 ! Rapidité, efficacité.

Je re-signale que la page Wiki mentionne toujours en directeur de publication le nom de Pierre Schweitzer. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrepoints C'est du coup aussi ce qu'affiche Google.

Une traduction pas trop longue : https://beinglibertarian.com/dont-gun-control-hysteria-strip-rights/

Merci d'avoir vérifié. Bien me tagger, ainsi que F.mas pour qu'on pense à venir voir ce sujet. Alors non il n'y avait AUCUN problème : si ce n'est un couac pendant la semaine dans le découpage des articles, qui m'a obligée à réintervenir sur le découpage et donc la numérotation. Du coup, elle est dans le désordre, mais il fallait laisser les numéros tels quels. J'espère que rien n'a été changé car j'ai passé plus d'1/2 heure dessus Je n'ai pas le temps d'intervenir, ayant déjà passé plus de temps que prévu là-dessus. Il ne fallait pas tenir compte des dates mais du texte d'origine SVP. Je vous remercie de rétablir l'ordre scrupuleux de l'article d'origine et non en suivant les dates.

L'original... et la version (punk c'est hors sujet ?) de Nirvana. Simple, efficace.

En préparant la une de CP, j'ai eu une pensée pour @PABerryer, @Soda @Extremo, @Restless ... Un festival qui aura lieu au mois d'août http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/la-bretagne-celebrera-les-roux-lors-du-festival-red-love-03-03-2018-7588161.php

@Cthulhu et @calypso13 : vos petits noms pour être crédités de la traduction ? Ou c'était pour la beauté du geste ? Chouette travail ! Merci.

La liberté d'expression peut blesser les gens : https://beinglibertarian.com/science-behind-discussion/

Ah ben mince alors ! Si j'avais su ce que ça allait t'inspirer, je me serais abstenue Cela dit, à propos du HS, c'est la limite de la langue française avec le mot "pourquoi" qui signifie tout autant "pour quelle raison" (=quelle cause) que "dans quel but". L'allemand a 2 mots pour ça : warum/wozu. Même l'anglais a why et what for. Mais on utilise souvent le mot le plus simple et la discussion peut partir en vrille à cause des esprits chafouins...

Question (peut-être pour @Librekom ?) Quand on quitte un club, est-ce que ça enlève les messages qu'on a postés ?

@fryer Je ne suis pas blonde pourtant mais je n'arrive pas à poster dans le club. Pourrais-tu initier un premier message pour que je te suive ?

Un club a été créé pour en discuter en privé.

Merci beaucoup !!

Merci Fryer. Quelqu'un peut-il s'en occuper ? je n'ai pas trop le temps là... Club privé plz. Et avec filtrage sérieux.

Vous me confirmez que cette partie du forum est strictement privée ?

"Tous ont été condamnés pour "incitation au refus des assujettis de se conformer aux prescriptions de la législation de sécurité sociale", un délit prévu par le code de la sécurité sociale." (Figaro, voir plus bas) Une explication d'un de mes contacts : "Il n'y a qu'un mot, un seul, à retenir à la lecture de cet article: c'est le mot "convictions". Je cite la phrase complète: Alors que les prévenus soutenaient que des directives européennes ont supprimé le monopole de la Sécurité sociale, les magistrats ont rappelé que "contrairement aux interprétations et convictions des prévenus", ce monopole "demeure en France". Je rappelle qu'en matière pénale, il faut trois éléments pour caractériser une infraction: - un "élément légal": le fait que l'infraction soit prévue par la loi - un "élément matériel": la preuve que l'infraction ait été effectivement commise - un "élément moral" ou dol: le caractère intentionnel de l'infraction, clairement défini à l'article 121-3 du code pénal: "Il n'y a point de crime ou de délit sans intention de le commettre." (les seules exceptions étant l'imprudence, la négligence...) Si les prévenus sont "convaincus" de ne pas enfreindre la loi, il ne peut y avoir d'infraction pénale. Il est d'ailleurs extrêmement étonnant que le jugement fournisse sur un plateau, avec autant de clarté et d'évidence, le moyen de droit qui permettra de contester ce même jugement en appel et en cassation." Extrait de l'article en question : "L'incitation à quitter la Sécurité sociale constitue "une atteinte majeure au socle de la solidarité",... "La désinformation délibérément portée par les prévenus a conduit un grand nombre de cotisants à entamer des démarches dangereuses" pour eux-mêmes comme pour les finances des organismes de recouvrement, notent encore les juges." Bienvenue en URSS.