There’s another method, in which you get to drive your car daily, park it for free, and have plenty of room on the road to do anything with it you’d like: don’t live in New York City (or, if possible, any other city with more than, say, a thousand people). I can’t possibly recommend it enough.

My solution to the problem of hinged doors was a rotary saw and a healthy dose of apathy as regards weather conditions.

What the hell, Tracy?! It seems like several of those Jeeps have doors on them. If XJs were supposed to have doors, why would Torx bits and rotary saws exist? I mean, just think about it for two damned seconds. And here I thought you a brother. For shame!

Choke and pinch collars are potentially dangerous and just sort of unnecessarily dickish. I highly recommend Martingale collars and obedience training (formal if you’re not trained, informal if you’ve been through this rodeo a few times), which are safe when used correctly, comfortable (particularly on dogs with…

There’s a very good chance you don’t need to avoid HFCS, although there’s definitely science left to be done on that one. As a general rule, just keep your sugars at an appropriate level relative to the other nutrients you’re eating, and the form the sugar takes won’t matter much, if at all.

Hmm. You’re upset, and I’m not entirely certain why. I didn’t look up any Latin phrase - I don’t think I could have made the joke by looking it up - and I didn’t expect anyone to be tingly anywhere: I just made a little joke, to maybe lighten the mood. That seems to have failed pretty badly. Go well, and I hope the…

Absolutely! Mangos, for example, are much higher in sugar than fruits of equivalent nutritional value, grapes and cherries likewise. That doesn’t mean that they’re bad for you, but their nutrition to sugar ratio isn’t great, so you’d want to be mindful of that when eating them. Like a granola bar: sure, they’re full…

I think that’s the part that confuses me: how is it helpful to know which sugar is natural and which is added, if it’s the total sugar that matters? In your example, you’re finding something with 40 grams of sugar, and then deciding to get something with only 30; the amount that’s added doesn’t make a difference, all…

But that’s exactly the thing: we care about the whole package, not just the part of it that’s added sugar. Labeling added sugar misleads people into thinking that value is useful in and of itself, which it isn’t: there are natural foods with lots of sugar and not much other nutritious value, and you can easily make a…

But natural sugar isn’t unavoidable: you can get your fiber, protein, vitamins, and minerals from foods with lower total sugar (added or natural). We don’t, for example, just eat nothing but a wide variety of fruit, because irrespective of how much nutrition we’d gotten, we’d have had too much sugar. (And we’d poop a…

Perhaps I’ve been unclear: I don’t believe I said, and certainly didn’t intend to say, that anything with sugar in it is bad for you. My point is that too much sugar, in relation to other nutrients, is bad for you, whether that sugar is added or not, so specifying the added sugars is misleading: we should be looking…

That’s my understanding, as well, roughly speaking. It’s about ratios of sugar to other nutrients; the problem I have with the “added sugar” label is that I feel it’s likely to make people do that calculation with only the added sugar taken into account, and won’t consider the sugar/other nutrients ratio of all the…

Exactly right (although I will say that sugars come in many, many, many foods that aren’t fruit, such as milk, carrots, beets, yogurt, etc). The reason 40 grams of sugar in fruit is better than 40 grams of sugar in candy is because of the buffering fiber, and the other nutrients being taken in. It’s all about ratio of…

How does natural sugar appear at just the right rates for healthy bodies? Don’t human diets vary so incredibly that such an assessment is impossible? If you eat 40 pineapples in a day, that’s all natural sugar, but how is it coming in at the right rate for healthy bodies?

No, that’s exactly the point: 40 grams of sugar is 40 grams of sugar, whether it’s 40 included grams, or 20 included grams and 20 added grams. That’s exactly why this label is dangerous and misleading: because it’ll make people think added sugars are worse than included sugars, and they’re absolutely not.

So when the milk companies tell you to drink more milk, do you assume you should drink less milk because they’re clearly doing something nefarious? I think people and groups can do good things for bad reasons.

Better avoid all fruit, then, since that’s all fructose, too. I think you’ll find it’s quantity of sugar (and its relation to other nutrient intakes) and not type of sugar, that is most important to focus on; the differences between sugar types, in studies I’ve encountered, have been little or none, whereas the…

Why cut out all added sugar for 30 days, if added sugar and included sugar are biochemically identical? It would make better sense to permanently limit your intake of all sugars, added and included, rather than temporarily cutting out one type of sugar while still taking in the other.

What do you mean by “the benefits?” If included sugars and added sugars are biochemically identical - and they are - why would one have benefits the other does not?

It’s most definitely true that the “added sugar” label should be viewed as “added sugar,” but the problem, I suspect, is that it won’t be. By putting it on the label, we’ve given it artificial importance: we should instead highlight the actual important bit, which is total sugars.