101–110 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Inuit did pretty well on a diet of whale blubber, so I doubt that fat is a problem. The Italians and French are pretty healthy, and they don't skimp on fats either. However, I do agree that we should all eat more fresh produce.
The French don't skimp on baguettes (= evil heavily processed white bread) either. There's no silver bullet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Diet soda, although technically not containing carbs, prompts a similar insulin response to drinking sugared soda Is there any scientific basis for this claim?
I get annoyed when people stop a discussion dead in its tracks by asking for references like this, especially when they can easily look it up themselves if they actually cared about the answer rather than winning. If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. Hmmmm I wonder if this will fit into receptors in other places in the body, not just…
But this all assumes there is evidence available. Is there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't even make sense at all. Fat stored in cells != Dietary fat. You can gain tons of weight by just eating carbs.
Dietary fat -> Bloodstream -> Cells
Whether or not you believe in low/no carbs for everyday health, it is uniquely horrifying that the Diabetes association is promoting a high carb diet. Having recently made changes to my own eating, which still includes carbs but at a much less extreme amount, I'm amazed at the differences. I don't have diabetes and the doctors say my blood sugar control is very good, but the energy differences I feel before and after…
> Diet soda, although technically not containing carbs, prompts a similar insulin response to drinking sugared soda Is there any scientific basis for this claim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm pretty skeptical of your claims that starch and simple sugars played an important part in human diets for the past 150,000 years. Here's why: 1) Throughout most of the world, fruit is generally only available during an extremely limited window in any given year. And it spoils in a matter of days. 2) The big agricultural revolution was the domestication of grains. Grains are important because they keep for a long…
We evolved near the equator. There are more sweet things there year-round. Don't forget about honey. Fiber, fiber, fiber. Sugar seems to be okay when it is packaged together with its copartner, fiber.
You can get a 5 pound yam out of the ground with a stick. Given a few thousand years, fire using apes are going to look at what is under most plants that they see day to day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get annoyed when people stop a discussion dead in its tracks by asking for references like this, especially when they can easily look it up themselves if they actually cared about the answer rather than winning. If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. Hmmmm I wonder if this will fit into receptors in other places in the body, not just…
I don't think "keeping an open mind" means accepting statements without evidence until they are debunked. Rather, it means that if evidence arises which contradicts your presuppositions, you must not ignore it. But this all assumes there is evidence available. Is there?
I've read "scientific" articles that make use of the most cutting-edge statistical models in order to "prove" that something like "emotional intelligence does not correlate with success."
Ok, poor example, and I made it up. But there are many research articles out there that look impressive because of all the tools they throw at the problem. Under the surface these studies are bunk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We evolved near the equator. There are more sweet things there year-round. Don't forget about honey. Fiber, fiber, fiber. Sugar seems to be okay when it is packaged together with its copartner, fiber.
Also starchy tubers. You can get a 5 pound yam out of the ground with a stick. Given a few thousand years, fire using apes are going to look at what is under most plants that they see day to day.
Cooking also breaks down starches into sugars. And we are the cooking species. It helped drive our evolution forward.
It all seems to be about balance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get annoyed when people stop a discussion dead in its tracks by asking for references like this, especially when they can easily look it up themselves if they actually cared about the answer rather than winning. If you think about it, any molecule that isn't sugar but tastes like sugar will have a similar molecular shape to sugar. Hmmmm I wonder if this will fit into receptors in other places in the body, not just…
I don't think "keeping an open mind" means accepting statements without evidence until they are debunked. Rather, it means that if evidence arises which contradicts your presuppositions, you must not ignore it. But this all assumes there is evidence available. Is there?
Whether or not you believe in low/no carbs for everyday health, it is uniquely horrifying that the Diabetes association is promoting a high carb diet. Having recently made changes to my own eating, which still includes carbs but at a much less extreme amount, I'm amazed at the differences. I don't have diabetes and the doctors say my blood sugar control is very good, but the energy differences I feel before and after…
Why people drink diet soda? If someone cares about his sugar intake, why not skip the soda and drink some water? It also amazes me how people associate some dishes to sodas. For example, at lunch with my colleagues (I'm in France), I observed that when they eat a pizza or a burger, they order a soda. But if they eat a salad, they order a bottle of water! (I don't like sodas so my opinion is probably oriented)
Used to drink 5 mountain dews a day. Havent had one in 10 years now. Much happier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think "keeping an open mind" means accepting statements without evidence until they are debunked. Rather, it means that if evidence arises which contradicts your presuppositions, you must not ignore it. But this all assumes there is evidence available. Is there?
What I am trying to say is that if we close our minds right away then we will miss obvious answers. We will tend to overcomplicate things and reach for our most-expensive tools. I've read "scientific" articles that make use of the most cutting-edge statistical models in order to "prove" that something like "emotional intelligence does not correlate with success." Ok, poor example, and I made it up. But there are many…