4 ms·

> "This imbalance caused heart disease" is very different from "this imbalance caused me to die". Well, the mechanism through which licorice might cause you to

> "This imbalance caused heart disease" is very different from "this imbalance caused me to die". Well, the mechanism through which licorice might cause you to die is hypokalemia, which causes heart disease, which causes you to die. They only look dissimilar because you ignore this. > There's taste-based regulation of salt. Do you want scientific references? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_appetite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_appetite here's some links. Taste is not the same thing as appetite. > You just claimed the body doesn't do that with salt. My mistake. I also explained why exactly I don't think I would be able to live on a licorice-based diet, an explanation which doesn't pertain to taste. > I'm skeptical that there are inbuilt licorice systems. I think the burden of proof is on you there. I don't care that you are skeptical of "inbuilt licorice systems", and there is no burden of proof there because no one has mentioned it until now. > Going to a doctor is a good idea! But I thought your claim was that they would "feel" licorice was the problem, not that a doctor could tell them. Yes, as you would feel a knee pain even if you didn't know you'd hurt it in your sleep. > Right, but I'm saying that someone who wasn't sustaining themselves on licorice candy could still be getting the same amount of actual licorice. Again, entirely speculative that this would cause an issue if you have an otherwise healthy diet. > I mean that they won't know it's from the licorice. They will feel "something is wrong" not "I am having too much licorice for my own good". They will feel that they've had too much licorice for their own good. I never intended to claim that they would magically know the cause. Maybe the sentence is ambiguous, but for you to assume the interpretation you have, you must think quite poorly of me.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> Well, the mechanism through which licorice might cause you to die is hypokalemia, which causes heart disease, which causes you to die. They only look dissimilar because you ignore this. No, hypokalemia causes your heart to stop beating. If it just caused heart disease he wouldn't be dead after a month. > Taste is not the same thing as appetite. Are you arguing someone will have an appetite for licorice and keep eating a lot even if it doesn't taste good? Or the opposite? I'm not following the scenario. > They will feel that they've had too much licorice for their own good. I never intended to claim that they would magically know the cause. Maybe the sentence is ambiguous, but for you to assume the interpretation you have, you must think quite poorly of me. I guess I misunderstood you, but if your actual argument is just that they will know something is wrong then your argument is significantly weaker than I thought. Because noticing a single symptom, with no idea of the cause, doesn't stop you from dying. Even if you make a doctor appointment it could be too late. And I misunderstood for a good reason, because this conversation started with someone joking that they "knew" licorice was poisonous because it tasted bad. And I was talking about how that actually happens with overdoses of salt and water, but doesn't happen with licorice. So I interpreted the "feels" sentence in the way that had A) relevance to taste and B) actually disagreed with what I was saying, since you started your reply with "Bollocks". The way you're now telling me to interpret that sentence means that your second paragraph in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 has no actual connection to anything I said in the comment you were replying to. I hadn't said anything about feeling symptoms. I had just said licorice would taste good unlike salt. So I don't know why you even had a paragraph saying "symptoms would exist".
- boomlinde 6y ago
  > No, hypokalemia causes your heart to stop beating. If it just caused heart disease he wouldn't be dead after a month. No, it causes arrhythmia and high blood pressure, heart disease which may have consequences like sudden cardiac death. > Are you arguing someone will have an appetite for licorice and keep eating a lot even if it doesn't taste good? Or the opposite? I'm not following the scenario. I agree that you are not following. I am saying that appetite is not the same as taste. > Because noticing a single symptom, with no idea of the cause, doesn't stop you from dying. Even if you make a doctor appointment it could be too late. Hypokalemia is rarely fatal because the symptoms are obviously alarming > And I misunderstood for a good reason, because this conversation started with someone joking that they "knew" licorice was poisonous because it tasted bad. Yes, which I responded to by saying that many benign and essential substances are poisonous in the right volume. > And I was talking about how that actually happens with overdoses of salt and water, but doesn't happen with licorice. Which you've failed to substantiate. > So I interpreted the "feels" sentence in the way that had A) relevance to taste and B) actually disagreed with what I was saying, since you started your reply with "Bollocks". So you misunderstood my argument. > The way you're now telling me to interpret that sentence means that your second paragraph in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 has no actual connection to anything I said in the comment you were replying to. I hadn't said anything about feeling symptoms. Exactly, which is why I brought it up, because it's another regulator of consumption that healthy people won't ignore. You can't in good faith argue that it is only now that you understand that, because you've accepted that as the premise of my argument throughout our discussion, however confusing it with the notion that people have "inbuilt licorice systems".
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    > You can't in good faith argue that it is only now that you understand that Don't call me a liar, thanks. I really thought your premise was that "too much licorice" would be what the person felt. Because noticing "a weird symptom" won't save your life unless you can figure out the puzzle fast enough. > Which you've failed to substantiate. Did you not look at the article I linked? "Very few specific appetites for particular nutrients have been identified in humans. The most robustly identified are salt appetite/sodium appetite." Also here's why it's not entirely ridiculous to think something like that about licorice: People will figure out associations over time, so you can in fact have a learned ability to detect too much licorice. That's what I thought you were arguing. So I was trying to argue that this particular situation wasn't enough to learn such an association. I didn't think you were saying something so ridiculous that I must "think quite poorly" of you.

Dylan16807 6y ago

> Well, the mechanism through which licorice might cause you to die is hypokalemia, which causes heart disease, which causes you to die. They only look dissimilar because you ignore this. No, hypokalemia causes your heart to stop beating. If it just caused heart disease he wouldn't be dead after a month. > Taste is not the same thing as appetite. Are you arguing someone will have an appetite for licorice and keep eating a lot even if it doesn't taste good? Or the opposite? I'm not following the scenario. > They will feel that they've had too much licorice for their own good. I never intended to claim that they would magically know the cause. Maybe the sentence is ambiguous, but for you to assume the interpretation you have, you must think quite poorly of me. I guess I misunderstood you, but if your actual argument is just that they will know something is wrong then your argument is significantly weaker than I thought. Because noticing a single symptom, with no idea of the cause, doesn't stop you from dying. Even if you make a doctor appointment it could be too late. And I misunderstood for a good reason, because this conversation started with someone joking that they "knew" licorice was poisonous because it tasted bad. And I was talking about how that actually happens with overdoses of salt and water, but doesn't happen with licorice. So I interpreted the "feels" sentence in the way that had A) relevance to taste and B) actually disagreed with what I was saying, since you started your reply with "Bollocks". The way you're now telling me to interpret that sentence means that your second paragraph in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 has no actual connection to anything I said in the comment you were replying to. I hadn't said anything about feeling symptoms. I had just said licorice would taste good unlike salt. So I don't know why you even had a paragraph saying "symptoms would exist".

boomlinde 6y ago
> No, hypokalemia causes your heart to stop beating. If it just caused heart disease he wouldn't be dead after a month. No, it causes arrhythmia and high blood pressure, heart disease which may have consequences like sudden cardiac death. > Are you arguing someone will have an appetite for licorice and keep eating a lot even if it doesn't taste good? Or the opposite? I'm not following the scenario. I agree that you are not following. I am saying that appetite is not the same as taste. > Because noticing a single symptom, with no idea of the cause, doesn't stop you from dying. Even if you make a doctor appointment it could be too late. Hypokalemia is rarely fatal because the symptoms are obviously alarming > And I misunderstood for a good reason, because this conversation started with someone joking that they "knew" licorice was poisonous because it tasted bad. Yes, which I responded to by saying that many benign and essential substances are poisonous in the right volume. > And I was talking about how that actually happens with overdoses of salt and water, but doesn't happen with licorice. Which you've failed to substantiate. > So I interpreted the "feels" sentence in the way that had A) relevance to taste and B) actually disagreed with what I was saying, since you started your reply with "Bollocks". So you misunderstood my argument. > The way you're now telling me to interpret that sentence means that your second paragraph in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24602628 has no actual connection to anything I said in the comment you were replying to. I hadn't said anything about feeling symptoms. Exactly, which is why I brought it up, because it's another regulator of consumption that healthy people won't ignore. You can't in good faith argue that it is only now that you understand that, because you've accepted that as the premise of my argument throughout our discussion, however confusing it with the notion that people have "inbuilt licorice systems".
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > You can't in good faith argue that it is only now that you understand that Don't call me a liar, thanks. I really thought your premise was that "too much licorice" would be what the person felt. Because noticing "a weird symptom" won't save your life unless you can figure out the puzzle fast enough. > Which you've failed to substantiate. Did you not look at the article I linked? "Very few specific appetites for particular nutrients have been identified in humans. The most robustly identified are salt appetite/sodium appetite." Also here's why it's not entirely ridiculous to think something like that about licorice: People will figure out associations over time, so you can in fact have a learned ability to detect too much licorice. That's what I thought you were arguing. So I was trying to argue that this particular situation wasn't enough to learn such an association. I didn't think you were saying something so ridiculous that I must "think quite poorly" of you.