If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Orlando Sentinel)   Sugar is killing us   (orlandosentinel.com) divider line 442
    More: Obvious, American Love, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Orlando Regional Medical Center, uc san francisco, Community Reinvestment Act, metabolic diseases, toxic substances, sugars  
•       •       •

17602 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Jun 2012 at 10:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



442 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-17 03:08:47 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What the hell is Corvus' point? Has he even asserted anything or is he just asking questions wholly unrelated to the topic at hand?

So this has nothing to do with starch intake?

FTA:

Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center.

That has nothing to do with "starches" when they say "starches"?

A simple "no" would have sufficed. If you don't have a point of view, that's fine.

Wow talk about just ignoring what I said to believe what you want.

When someone says "Refined sugars and starches are a metabolic problem because humans weren't made for today's Western diet, said Dr. Devendra Mehta, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center." How is a discussion based on starches and how they affect people not relevant?

Really this is like arguing evolution with Bevets.

So your point is "I don't understand Japanese diets therefore Japanese diets are healthy" ??

Heh. How sad.


Since my family is Japanese I feel like I know a little.
 
2012-06-17 03:10:17 AM

Corvus: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Have you ever been to Japan? Fyi, most Japanese folks eat fresh fish, chicken, and a variety of vegetables. In fact, the tallest/healthiest Japanese populations are the coastal regions who eat the most protein. The smallest Japanese are the western/inland populations who eat western diets and a lot ofbrc

1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.
2) HEIGHT IS NOT OBESITY SO STOP TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT AGAIN!!!

this is how this has bee going:

Me: Look these people in these countries have low calorie high starch diets and they are very thin.

Paleo-Relgion: They are shorter! They have XYZ health issue!!!

Me: Umm aren't we talking about obesity not about other health related issues. I never said there wasn't other issues with the types of food but we are talking specifically about over weight.

Paleo-Relgion:Your an idiot!!! shut up!!!!! You are a liar!!!


What is "paleo-religion"? I'm drunk, are you? It's saturday night, chillax bro. Adjust your tinfoil and have a good time :)
 
2012-06-17 03:17:12 AM

Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.


Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:12 AM

morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.


I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:36 AM

AbbeySomeone: I found a recipe for baconaise.


Haha, well real mayo is just eggs and oil, I'm sure there's nothing the Paleo diet would restrict in a mayonnaise recipe, lol.
And I'm sure the ketchup was tasty, but did it taste like ketchup? I'm not saying I wouldn't eat it, just that it isn't really a substitute.


Corvus: Well why can't you answer my question and then clarify it with more detail? Why would that be so hard.


They did.


Corvus: Paleo-Relgion: They are shorter! They have XYZ health issue!!!

Me: Umm aren't we talking about obesity not about other health related issues.


They were talking about insulin/diabetes issues, which are INEXTRICABLY related to obesity and the ability to handle starches in the diet. The fact that you don't understand how insulin works doesn't mean that they were changing the subject, it means you were simply unable to comprehend how it was related to the issue at hand.
 
2012-06-17 03:19:49 AM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What is "paleo-religion"?


He's whining about a type of low carb dieting that take as a model what a human diet would have been before the agricultural revolution in the neolithic. Thaat' why I found his Bevets/Evolution comment ironic. Because thats a foundation of the concept. Eat what your species spent millions of years adapting to, rather than what was 'invented' a mere several millennia ago.
 
2012-06-17 03:22:42 AM

Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.


O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.
 
2012-06-17 03:23:15 AM

jaylectricity: spaten: Seriously, the left is more authoritarian then the right and have less of a clue.

Actually, anybody who identifies with the "left" or the "right" is more authoritarian than anybody else.

The rest of us just point and laugh.


Better start paying attention, those bastards are in charge. The only shiatheads who get into politics are authoritarian.

thechive.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-17 03:28:53 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.


Western diets aren't lacking in calcium, either, and I never said they were. The source of calcium is different in Western diets, and most Western diets are at least slightly higher in magnesium (which is necessary for the body to metabolize calcium) than Japanese diets. So it is entirely possible that Japanese people will tend to grow taller on a Western diet. But that's not because of the calcium. It could be magnesium, but twin studies that have been done consistently point the finger at the protein content of the Western diet rather than anything else.

I'm not arguing that Asians on a Western diet do tend to grow taller. I'm only arguing your assertion that Japanese diets are deficient in calcium.
 
2012-06-17 03:29:02 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What is "paleo-religion"?

He's whining about a type of low carb dieting that take as a model what a human diet would have been before the agricultural revolution in the neolithic. Thaat' why I found his Bevets/Evolution comment ironic. Because thats a foundation of the concept. Eat what your species spent millions of years adapting to, rather than what was 'invented' a mere several millennia ago.


Right because we all became fat 10,000 years ago... Oh wait the much higher increase in obesity actually really started to manifest in only the last few decades not for the last 10,000 years and that obesity rate increase goes hand in hand with increases caloric intake!

There is not one food item you get in a store today that has changes post-agricultural revolution. Have we made more calorie dense foods since then? Hell yes! Are some of these foods like sugar and simple starches bad for you and can cause things like diabetes? Hell yes.

But lets not make up a BS science that major dietician organization say is complete bullshiat. Oh also scientists who study evolution also say his theories are complete BS.
 
2012-06-17 03:30:46 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.


Can you give me the citation that they have as much calcium as people in the US?

And like I said before:

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT ABOUT OBESITY!!!

Why do you guys keep trying to change the subject.
 
2012-06-17 03:33:01 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: morgantx: Corvus: 1) actually the tallest Japanese are those who come to America and that is because their diets in Japan are low in calcium.

Japanese diets tend not to be low in calcium, BTW. Soy is an extremely rich source of calcium, and soy in its myriad of forms is very common in many styles of Japanese cooking.

I'll tell that to my 6 feet tall Japanese cousins that they should be short because of their western diets. They'll love to hear the news.

O_o

That was a total non-sequitur.
The fact that Japanese food doesn't lack calcium has nothing to do with your Japanese cousins who are on a Western diet.


So how is talking about height of Japenese when I was making a point about obesity not a non-sequitor?

Why didn't you have a problem with that?
 
2012-06-17 03:33:14 AM
KarmicDisaster:
It looks like the salt intake/death relationship is maybe going to be a curve with a (broad) sweet spot for salt intake.


quityourdayjob.com.au
Salt intake/death ratio with a sweet Salt broad --
VERY high, but SO worth it.
 
2012-06-17 03:37:33 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: What is "paleo-religion"?

He's whining about a type of low carb dieting that take as a model what a human diet would have been before the agricultural revolution in the neolithic. Thaat' why I found his Bevets/Evolution comment ironic. Because thats a foundation of the concept. Eat what your species spent millions of years adapting to, rather than what was 'invented' a mere several millennia ago.


Yeah about that being based on "evolution"

The evolutionary assumptions underlying the Paleolithic diet have been disputed.[18][21][22][36] According to Alexander Ströhle, Maike Wolters and Andreas Hahn, with the Department of Food Science at the University of Hanover, the statement that the human genome evolved during the Pleistocene (a period from 1,808,000 to 11,550 years ago) rests on an inadequate, but popular gene-centered view of evolution.[22] They rely on Gray (2001)[82] to argue that evolution of organisms cannot be reduced to the genetic level with reference to mutation and that there is no one-to-one relationship between genotype and phenotype.[22]

They further question the notion that 10,000 years is an insufficient period of time to ensure an adequate adaptation to agrarian diets.[22] For example, alleles conferring lactose tolerance increased to high frequencies in Europe just a few thousand years after animal husbandry was invented, and recent increases in the number of copies of the gene for salivary amylase, which digests starch, appear to be related to agriculture.[citation needed] Referring to Wilson (1994),[83] Ströhle et al. argue that "the number of generations that a species existed in the old environment was irrelevant, and that the response to the change of the environment of a species would depend on the heritability of the traits, the intensity of selection and the number of generations that selection acts."[84] They state that if the diet of Neolithic agriculturalists had been in discordance with their physiology, then this would have created a selection pressure for evolutionary change and modern humans, such as Europeans, whose ancestors have subsisted on agrarian diets for 400-500 generations should be somehow adequately adapted to it. In response to this argument, Wolfgang Kopp states that "we have to take into account that death from atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD) occurs later during life, as a rule after the reproduction phase. Even a high mortality from CVD after the reproduction phase will create little selection pressure. Thus, it seems that a diet can be functional (it keeps us going) and dysfunctional (it causes health problems) at the same time."[84] Moreover, S. Boyd Eaton and colleagues have indicated that "comparative genetic data provide compelling evidence against the contention that long exposure to agricultural and industrial circumstances has distanced us, genetically, from our Stone Age ancestors"[12] however they mention exceptions such as increased lactose and gluten tolerance, which improve ability to digest dairy and grains, while other studies indicate that human adaptive evolution has accelerated since the Paleolithic.[85]

Referencing Mahner et al. (2001)[86] and Ströhle et al. (2006),[87] Ströhle et al. state that "whatever is the fact, to think that a dietary factor is valuable (functional) to the organism only when there was 'genetical adaptation' and hence a new dietary factor is dysfunctional per se because there was no evolutionary adaptation to it, such a panselectionist misreading of biological evolution seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view of life."[22]

Katharine Milton, a professor of physical anthropology at the University of California, Berkeley, has also disputed the evolutionary logic upon which the Paleolithic diet is based. She questions the premise that the metabolism of modern humans must be genetically adapted to the dietary conditions of the Paleolithic.[18] Relying on several of her previous publications,[88][89][90][91] Milton states that "there is little evidence to suggest that human nutritional requirements or human digestive physiology were significantly affected by such diets at any point in human evolution."[18]

Evidence suggests the diet of Stone Age humans did include, in some form, the refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleolithic diet. There is evidence that Paleolithic societies were processing cereals for food use at least as early as 23,000[92][93] or 30,000 years ago,[94] and possibly as early as 105,000[95] or 200,000 years ago.
[96]


Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".
 
2012-06-17 03:41:05 AM

Corvus: Right because we all became fat 10,000 years ago


Sure, because there is only black and white, no gray. There is only one variable, And it is only on or off.

Link
 
2012-06-17 03:47:53 AM

Gawdzila: cuzsis: Ketchup tastes just fine on it's own, it doesn't need sugar.

While I'm not necessarily a fan of HFCS, I must point out that virtually any homemade ketchup recipe will include things like molasses and/or brown sugar. The entire flavor profile of ketchup is supposed a sweet/tangy combination. There IS NO ketchup without sugar.


I should clarify, Ketchup as is regularly made, tastes just fine on it's own. Very slight sweet flavor (almost subliminal) with a nice zesty zing to it. The abomination sold as ketchup with hfcs is overly sweet and nasty tasting.

/we have both non hfcs ketchup and abomination ketchup in our fridge.
//glad heinz is switching over
 
2012-06-17 03:54:37 AM
My metabolism is farked. Thinking back, it's been so at least since I was 10 (1991).

I'm 5'10" and my peak weight was right around 270. That was very fat.

These days I'm between 160 and 165 and watch my diet pretty closely. Apparently that's rather skinny, although I still see the same person in the mirror as I did at 270.

Things that I've learned about my own metabolism (and no one else's) in the last few years are as follows:
1) The wheat that was engineered in the 1950's is farking poison and shouldn't be eaten.
2) Vegetable oil is nasty shiat and shouldn't be eaten by me.
3) Sugar isn't good and will cause me to balloon rather quickly. (fark if I care if the sugar came from a beet, sugar cane, or corn.)
4) Gorging and fasting works well for me. (ie. 2k calories in a meal followed by nothing for 16+hours.)
5) 50-70% of my calories from fat works for me. Mostly because steamed veggies have damn near no calories and ribeye is farking awesome.
6) Alcohol doesn't hurt my metabolism. (Yay for a scotch liver/brown fat.)
7) Carbs beyond about 100g/day will make me gain weight. If I'm lifting, that's a good thing. If not, it's not.
 
2012-06-17 04:05:02 AM

Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".


'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.
 
2012-06-17 04:10:30 AM
FizixJunkee:
Patients are so big now that you have to be nearly superhuman strong to move some of these patients.

upload.wikimedia.org
Has a solution
 
2012-06-17 04:12:08 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".

'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.


farkin laughing my ass off. Could you live off a dry lake that was abandoned 9 to 12 thousand years ago?
 
2012-06-17 04:13:16 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".

'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.


Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.

All I am saying is the scientist who are experts in these fields have repeatedly said these arguments are full of crap. And the only people who seem to support these arguments are people selling books.

Please, it's your duty that you know so much more than these experts in their field explain to them how stupid they are.

I didn't know I was talking to such a genius about these subjects more of an expert then heads of organizations that study these matters.
 
2012-06-17 04:15:59 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".

'He', like there is some cult of personality going on here? Who is 'he'?

I've never seen a paleo advocate say adaptation can't occur in thousands of years. Quite the opposite. I've seen them point out that many populations that have been using agriculture for a long time are less prone to diet related dietary diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Its populations that were the more recently hunter-gathers that have a high susceptibility when going on a western diet. Like native Americans and Eskimos.

Saying something is better adapted for doesn't mean there can't be other adaptations. Just watch how quickly the old genotype re-asserts itself when a domesticated animal escapes to the wild form a feral population. The wild boar in Floridas swamps look and act like ancient European wild boar, yet they are the descendents of farm animals bred for generations.

I've never seen anyone advocating a paleo diet say that all humanity should adopt it. Its pretty obviously unsustainable at current population levels. But that is quite different from saying it can't be healthier if you can afford to adopt it.


Where you the one bringing up fallacies earlier?


What's the name for the fallacy where you attack a small portion of the argument and pretend that also discounts the 5 or so other points that were made?

Is that "chink in the armor" or is it a "hasty generalization"? Not sure. That's the one that global warming deniers and anti-evolution people use a lot too.
 
2012-06-17 04:17:05 AM

morgantx: Western diets aren't lacking in calcium, either, and I never said they were.


I'm assuming meant to reply to Corvus ;)


Corvus: So how is talking about height of Japenese when I was making a point about obesity not a non-sequitor?


No, your response to morgantx about your cousins height was a logical non-sequitur in relation to his point that the Japanese diet is NOT low in calcium, as you alleged. YOU'RE the one who brought up dietary calcium and height. The fact that it is on a tangential topic has nothing to do with whether your response to morgantx was a non-sequitur or not from a logical standpoint.

And why should I have a problem with talking about height? Sure it's a tangential topic, but I'm not a moderator. I was just pointing out that your response didn't make any sense.


Corvus: Yeah people who study the field for a living biatch slapping him saying he is full of shiat is not "based on evolution".


And there are people who study the field for a living who would agree with him, too.
It means there is a debate about it, and it may or may not be correct, as is the case with MANY things in science. It doesn't mean he got "biatch slapped", and the fact that SOME experts disagree doesn't mean that he is absolutely wrong. As usual, though, the people who disagree with him see any contrary argument as absolute proof that the ideas are 100% bunk. How typical.

The truth is generally in the middle somewhere.
 
2012-06-17 04:19:25 AM
sycraft:
Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.

This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.
 
2012-06-17 04:23:16 AM

Gawdzila: And why should I have a problem with talking about height? Sure it's a tangential topic, but I'm not a moderator. I was just pointing out that your response didn't make any sense.


So you can yell about non=sequitor to me but not for anyone else? Got it!

Gawdzila: And there are people who study the field for a living who would agree with him, too.
It means there is a debate about it, and it may or may not be correct, as is the case with MANY things in science. It doesn't mean he got "biatch slapped", and the fact that SOME experts disagree doesn't mean that he is absolutely wrong. As usual, though, the people who disagree with him see any contrary argument as absolute proof that the ideas are 100% bunk. How typical.

The truth is generally in the middle somewhere.


Actually not really. This is the same "Global warming is not settled science" BS. The vast majority of people who are experts in the field about this subject thinks it's bullshiat. There was a recent report of nutritionists and scientist ranking diets on best to worst and Paleo was ranked the worst.

Can you lose weight with it? YES! But that's because it's a diet the moves you away from calorie dense foods and huge studies are quiet clear that a diet like this is not healthy for you in the long run.
 
2012-06-17 04:25:17 AM

GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.


So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!
 
2012-06-17 04:29:08 AM

Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field.


He didn't say they were your arguments, nor does his response have anything to do with who made the argument.


Corvus: Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron.


He didn't need to quote them, it seemed pretty obvious to me which part of their objection he was addressing.
And in fact he wasn't even saying that your experts were wrong so I don't know why you're getting all huffy and indignant, like he is saying that he knows more than your experts. It really doesn't seem like you actually understand what is going on here.

He didn't disagree with or dispute their arguments. He was merely pointing out that their points don't actually argue against the Paleo Diet in any way. In other words, their objections are correct, but their assumptions about what the Paleo Diet is saying is wrong.
 
2012-06-17 04:31:23 AM
Corvus:
The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.

You really should try to avoid criticizing others, since you apparently can't even construct a sentence. And, I can also assure you that insulin plays a very major role in weight gain, and your vehemence in denouncing others who discuss it does not make up for your lack of knowledge. I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but it really is not my job to educate you. I can tell you, however, that you will look significantly less stupid if you quit going off on people who know much more than you do. Just sayin'.
 
2012-06-17 04:32:34 AM

Corvus: GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!


No, just that words have meaning, even though we may choose to ignore them. "Narcotic", like "Toxin" is a word with a very specific meaning. referring to drugs derived from opium, which marijuana is not.
 
2012-06-17 04:35:02 AM

Gawdzila: Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field.

He didn't say they were your arguments, nor does his response have anything to do with who made the argument.


Corvus: Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron.

He didn't need to quote them, it seemed pretty obvious to me which part of their objection he was addressing.
And in fact he wasn't even saying that your experts were wrong so I don't know why you're getting all huffy and indignant, like he is saying that he knows more than your experts. It really doesn't seem like you actually understand what is going on here.

He didn't disagree with or dispute their arguments. He was merely pointing out that their points don't actually argue against the Paleo Diet in any way. In other words, their objections are correct, but their assumptions about what the Paleo Diet is saying is wrong.


I really think you are just trolling. How is arguing against one of the points invalidate them all? Either you're a troll or you have your head totally up your ass where you can dismiss a big list of exerts in the field who have studied something and said it is wrong as just "well they are confused" because you don't actually want to deal with the actual points they made.

You logic is this:

If someone disagrees with the Paleo-diet obviously, the don't understand it enough. So I will dismiss every point someone makes against it because I believe they don't understand it.
 
2012-06-17 04:36:13 AM

GeneralJim: Corvus: The word "unhealthy" and "toxin" is not mean the same thing. And if you think it doesn't you don't know shiat about what you are talking about.
You really should try to avoid criticizing others, since you apparently can't even construct a sentence. And, I can also assure you that insulin plays a very major role in weight gain, and your vehemence in denouncing others who discuss it does not make up for your lack of knowledge. I'm sorry you're so ignorant, but it really is not my job to educate you. I can tell you, however, that you will look significantly less stupid if you quit going off on people who know much more than you do. Just sayin'.


So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?
 
2012-06-17 04:37:07 AM

Corvus: So you can yell about non=sequitor to me but not for anyone else? Got it!


You're not making any freaking sense.

It sounds like you think a "non-sequitur" is a response that is off topic.
It isn't.
A non-sequitur is an argument whose conclusion doesn't follow logically. You're the only one who made one of those.
Anyway, whatever. It isn't important.


Corvus: Actually not really. This is the same "Global warming is not settled science" BS. The vast majority of people who are experts in the field about this subject thinks it's bullshiat. There was a recent report of nutritionists and scientist ranking diets on best to worst and Paleo was ranked the worst.


If you think the science of nutrition is anywhere close to being as settled as the science on GW, you're absolutely delusional.

There is more and more evidence that lots of things we take for granted about nutrition are absolutely untrue, and more and more evidence that we still have a lot to learn. And you have the nerve to bring up a panel of old-guard experts on nutrition as "proof" that these new ideas are wrong? Gimme a break. Last I checked, science worked on results, not on the conglomerated "conventional wisdom".
 
2012-06-17 04:38:27 AM

Cyno01: Corvus: GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!

No, just that words have meaning, even though we may choose to ignore them. "Narcotic", like "Toxin" is a word with a very specific meaning. referring to drugs derived from opium, which marijuana is not.


Your right words do have meanings:


narcotic
Popularitya : a drug (as opium or morphine) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not

Maybe you should tell Merriam Webster they got it wrong.
 
2012-06-17 04:40:46 AM
Corvus:
Do Japanese eat a lot of white rice?
Is Japanese a simple starch?
Are Japanese more then then Americans?
So is the statement that simple starches make you fat not calories bullshiat?

Yes, Japanese eat "a lot" of white rice.

No, Japanese is not a simple starch.

WTF does "Are Japanese more then then Americans?" even mean?

And, no, the statement is correct.

Japanese people do not over-eat in the same way as Americans do. They use rice as their staple, where as Americans use bread and potatoes. Rice is better, albeit not by much. The important factor is that they don't eat several times what they need. And, as the Japanese have not destroyed their bodies response to insulin by repeated blasting with the "sugar howitzer," their bodies can handle any excess starches they consume properly.

It's good to know that your knowledge of nutrition science is on a par with your knowledge of climate science. Consistency is important.
 
2012-06-17 04:42:04 AM

Gawdzila: If you think the science of nutrition is anywhere close to being as settled as the science on GW, you're absolutely delusional.

There is more and more evidence that lots of things we take for granted about nutrition are absolutely untrue, and more and more evidence that we still have a lot to learn. And you have the nerve to bring up a panel of old-guard experts on nutrition as "proof" that these new ideas are wrong? Gimme a break. Last I checked, science worked on results, not on the conglomerated "conventional wisdom".


I never said it was. You are making a "hasty generalizations". I said this ISSUE has consensus settled around it not all nutritional science.

Oh so now saying that most experts say he is wrong is something bad and I am not allowed to do that? This is rich.
 
2012-06-17 04:42:20 AM

Corvus: GeneralJim: sycraft: Anyone who makes a statement like "Sugar is a toxin," is either a fear monger or a moron. Reason is that we absolutely rely on a sugar, glucose, to live. It is a metabolic intermediary and important source of energy. You have no glucose in you, you will die.
This is not surprising. Our government has declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant, and marijuana to be a narcotic.

When used in a legal context in the US, a narcotic drug is simply one that is totally prohibited, or one that is used in violation of strict governmental regulation, such as heroin or morphine.

So you are arguing that the US hasn't banned marijuana? OK!


Unconstitutionally,

No ban on San Pedro cactus. fark the nannies in NYC and LA.

/Prohibition was Constitutional, a bad idea with the WW1 vets.
//Woodrow Wilson was evil
 
2012-06-17 04:42:30 AM

Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.


Sorry, I don't care to match your walls of text by quoting you in full.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a vast cult whose reason for existance is believing that pre-agricultural humans lived solely on mammoth steak and walnuts. That's the stawman your quotes are in opposition to. Another way of putting the rational behind the paleolithic diet followers is that humans have a multiply fuel capability. Carbs and fats and proteins. But back in per-agricultural times, there was not the 24/7/365 availability of high energy carbohydrate foods available like is found in our culture these days. Instead, such foods were a windfall, usually seasonal, and the survival adaptation for that was to eat those calories, even in excess of current needs. Stored as fat for leaner times. They are saying that running that carbohydrate full out with no rest is what causes metabolic disease. And the tendency to want to store carbohydrates gives a tendency toward obesity when given an unlimited supply.

You can keep knocking down strawmen you set up, But it really says little regarding the heart of the subject. But keep on fighting your jihad against the paleo cult.

Geesh.
 
2012-06-17 04:44:10 AM

GeneralJim: It's good to know that your knowledge of nutrition science is on a par with your knowledge of climate science. Consistency is important.


Wow you mean a climate denier also buys into this crap. Color me SHOCKED!! Oh wait no, that's the point I have been making this entire thread.
 
2012-06-17 04:48:07 AM

Corvus: So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?


Gee, he could either mean that, or he could mean that a sentence with a subject containing multiple objects woutd take the plural declination of the verb.

Which interpretation would you choose?

/tldr just call him a grammer nazi and move on to the next strawman
 
2012-06-17 04:48:45 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.

Sorry, I don't care to match your walls of text by quoting you in full.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a vast cult whose reason for existance is believing that pre-agricultural humans lived solely on mammoth steak and walnuts. That's the stawman your quotes are in opposition to. Another way of putting the rational behind the paleolithic diet followers is that humans have a multiply fuel capability. Carbs and fats and proteins. But back in per-agricultural times, there was not the 24/7/365 availability of high energy carbohydrate foods available like is found in our culture these days. Instead, such foods were a windfall, usually seasonal, and the survival adaptation for that was to eat those calories, even in excess of current needs. Stored as fat for leaner times. They are saying that running that carbohydrate full out with no rest is what causes metabolic disease. And the tendency to want to store carbohydrates gives a tendency toward obesity when given an unlimited supply.

You can keep knocking down strawmen you set up, But it really says little regarding the heart of the subject. But keep on fighting your jihad against the paleo cult.

Geesh.


What strawman *I* set up. These were experts in their field they read the material. It's their job. Don't try to pretend experts who head departments who job it is to look into these issues is some point *I* brought up because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that the vast majority of experts on this issue say it's full of crap.


I AM NOT KNOCKING THIS DOWN. EXPERT SCIENTISTS ARE KNOCKING IT DOWN.

Don't trust me? Look for yourself! Why not look into what these scientist say about it?? Why do you feel you should only read about one side?
 
2012-06-17 04:50:18 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: So unhealthy and Toxin does mean the same thing?

Gee, he could either mean that, or he could mean that a sentence with a subject containing multiple objects woutd take the plural declination of the verb.

Which interpretation would you choose?

/tldr just call him a grammer nazi and move on to the next strawman


So incorrect grammar makes an invalid argument? Or going back to the insults?

Please take the side of the FARKs Global warming denier. Maybe Bevets can join you too.
 
2012-06-17 04:50:24 AM

Corvus: I really think you are just trolling. How is arguing against one of the points invalidate them all?


When did either he or I say that it invalidated them all?
He responded to one of the bigger points as an illustration that the debate isn't as cut-and-dried as you think.
Maybe he just didn't have the time or inclination to respond to every bit of that huge wall of text? I certainly wouldn't if I were him.


Corvus: You logic is this:

If someone disagrees with the Paleo-diet obviously, the don't understand it enough. So I will dismiss every point someone makes against it because I believe they don't understand it.


You retard, you clearly are not understanding a damn thing I am saying. You've already lumped me into some "Paleo 'Religion' Adherant" category without even bothering to hear what I'm actually saying.
I told you before: I've never studied or adhered to the Paleo Diet in my life. I don't use it, and I don't advocate it. But your arguments are thin or plain wrong, and use tactics like "I have this panel of experts, they know more than you so I win". That's not a debate, that's just an assumption of your own correctness. And you clearly have VERY little understanding of the actual mechanisms behind what is being debated.

I'm not arguing that the Paleo Diet is great (hell I'm just assuming it is something like Atkins), and I'm not saying that your experts are entirely wrong. I'm saying that your arguments are stupid, tiresome, incomplete, and logically moribund, and that the debate is a whole lot less one-sided than your uninformed ass seems to think it is.

Now I'm done here, because it is too late and too frustrating to try and debate with someone who doesn't have a single clue about what is going on, and who uses copypasta from experts they deem infallible instead of actual knowledge of the subject being debated.
 
2012-06-17 04:51:50 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: /tldr just call him a grammer nazi and move on to the next strawman


How was showing experts in the field on the subjects all said the Paleo-diet is BS a "strawman" again?

Oh yeah I remember because you wanted to ignore all the points they made!
 
2012-06-17 04:53:10 AM

Gawdzila: When did either he or I say that it invalidated them all?


Here:

Gawdzila: He was merely pointing out that their points don't actually argue against the Paleo Diet in any way. In other words, their objections are correct, but their assumptions about what the Paleo Diet is saying is wrong.

 
2012-06-17 04:55:10 AM

Gawdzila: But your arguments are thin or plain wrong, and use tactics like "I have this panel of experts, they know more than you so I win".


He said it was founded on evolutionary principals. Showing experts saying that, that is not true and giving arguments, why is not a good counter argument?

I really think you are just trolling.
 
2012-06-17 04:56:33 AM

BigNumber12: spaten: J. Frank Parnell: Dwedit: Because fruit is sugar-free.

Ancient people who ate lots of fruit still left skeletons with heads full of pearly white teeth. They didn't use toothpaste, either.

Anyone who tries to tell you refined sugar is the same as all sugars is full of shiat, or trying to kill you.

Actually tooth decay is a result of the agricultural revolution, thousands of years before refined sugar.

[i158.photobucket.com image 228x243]

Came to say this. Glad that you seem to have it covered.


Living beyond 35 is also the product of the agricultural revolution.
 
2012-06-17 04:56:35 AM

Gawdzila: But your arguments are thin or plain wrong, and use tactics like "I have this panel of experts, they know more than you so I win".


Actually I didn't do that. I think you jumped in without understand the context of the points being made.

And also back to insults. Good job!
 
2012-06-17 04:57:33 AM

Coming on a Bicycle: Living beyond 35 is also the product of the agricultural revolution.


Heh!
 
2012-06-17 04:59:55 AM

Corvus: Vlad_the_Inaner: Corvus: Those weren't my arguments they were experts in their field. Interesting how you didn't actually bother to quote them and you ignored most of the arguments they made showing that the basis of paleo-diet is wron. If you are smarter than them about the subject which you seem to think you are, please call them and show them the errors of their ways.

Sorry, I don't care to match your walls of text by quoting you in full.

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that there is a vast cult whose reason for existance is believing that pre-agricultural humans lived solely on mammoth steak and walnuts. That's the stawman your quotes are in opposition to. Another way of putting the rational behind the paleolithic diet followers is that humans have a multiply fuel capability. Carbs and fats and proteins. But back in per-agricultural times, there was not the 24/7/365 availability of high energy carbohydrate foods available like is found in our culture these days. Instead, such foods were a windfall, usually seasonal, and the survival adaptation for that was to eat those calories, even in excess of current needs. Stored as fat for leaner times. They are saying that running that carbohydrate full out with no rest is what causes metabolic disease. And the tendency to want to store carbohydrates gives a tendency toward obesity when given an unlimited supply.

You can keep knocking down strawmen you set up, But it really says little regarding the heart of the subject. But keep on fighting your jihad against the paleo cult.

Geesh.

What strawman *I* set up. These were experts in their field they read the material. It's their job. Don't try to pretend experts who head departments who job it is to look into these issues is some point *I* brought up because you don't want to deal with the cognitive dissonance that the vast majority of experts on this issue say it's full of crap.


I AM NOT KNOCKING THIS DOWN. EXPERT SCIENTISTS ARE KNOCKING I ...


As a field scientist, I'm sick of the politicization of this. Geologic time needs to be taught. An old prof told me if you extend your arm and run a nail file over your middle finger once, you have erased human history. Time being from your shoulder to your hand.
 
2012-06-17 05:09:09 AM

austin_millbarge: Altitude5280: Sometimes I can find Coca Cola made with real cane sugar. And it's bottled in Mexico. Rum cokes taste better with sugar than that diet stuff. And my favorite candy is dark chocolate that is at least 70% coaca. I drink my coffee black and think sweet tea is gross.

Passover Coke is your friend. Look for the yellow caps around Passover.

[paxholley.files.wordpress.com image 300x225]


Careful, I came across some Mexican Coke that was made with HFCS so just because it's made in Mexico doesn't mean you don't need to read the ingredient list.

I did a blind side by side Pepsi v Pepsi Throwback and Throwback won easily. Interestingly enough the 'regular' Pepsi had a much much stronger smell/aroma.
 
Displayed 50 of 442 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report