Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's Opposite Day (totally surreal)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It's Opposite Day (totally surreal)

    I came across this article recently. Spot the stupid:

    http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/feb/starch.htm

    Reading through it though, he makes exactly the same claims about carbs that people do about fat/protein. IE, we're evolved to eat it, it's what most historically healthy societies ate, it has a metabolic advantage, it leads to satiety, etc etc. I wonder if it's done on purpose. Of course, his arguments are suspiciously fact free. He fails to address B-12 when talking about how "complete" starches are, he claims things like corn aren't profitable (!), etc. Particularly amusing are his allegation that the gov't doesn't want people eating starch (you know, that's why the pyramid says 11 servings of it a day!), and his inclusion of "flour" as a bad food, and pasta, bread, etc, as good. I guess he doesn't cook much?

    Anyway, this may have been posted before here, but I had to share. On some level, I want to believe it's an elaborate joke, but I don't think it is.
    Last edited by mdlaw; 10-17-2010, 11:59 AM.

  • #2
    Oh, and I just checked out the rest of his site. In about 20 seconds, I picked up this gem:
    Standing in the presence of T. Colin Campbell, PhD is almost a religious experience.
    . Again, this is either a well done joke, or the most amazing site in the history of the world.

    Comment


    • #3
      "Therefore, scientific documentation of what people have eaten over the past thirteen thousand years convincingly supports my claim."

      And is also entirely meaningless in light of the fact that a species' gut does not evolve significantly in that period of time.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you for that trip to Bizarroville!

        I think I must be suffering from a starch deficiency. Ohnoes...

        Comment


        • #5
          Damn you Mark Sisson, you almost had me fooled! Now THIS is some science I can get behind:

          Sugar is fat-free, cholesterol-free, and sodium-free, and contains very low levels of chemical residues. It is inexpensive, costing about 40 cents a pound, which translates into 45 calories per penny. No animals are harmed in the production of sugar and its environmental impact is extremely small, especially when compared to livestock production. According to the Sugar Association, ďPure and simple, sugar is as perfect as it gets.
          ... I mean, if you can't trust the Sugar Association....

          Studies also show that the higher a personís sugar intake, the lower their calorie intake, and thus, there is less chance of being overweight. This observation makes a lot of sense.
          I'm actually boggling here.

          Fat is almost effortlessly stored, and fat provides little appetite satisfaction. Thus, replacing fat in the diet with sugar will usually halt weight gain and cause weight loss.
          I suppose that's literally true, if you replace all your fats with sugar, and thus are dead.

          Uncontrollable cravings are caused by the Western dietís deficiency of healthy sugars. People chew through platefuls of sugar (carbohydrate)-free beef, pork, chicken, shellfish, fish, and cheese without becoming satisfied.
          I think this might actually be the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet. FTW!!!

          That's all from one newsletter, the first thing I clicked on. Srsly, this is so messed up, I don't know how to react.

          Comment


          • #6
            That's a special kind of stupid.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by bUMbLeB View Post
              Damn you Mark Sisson, you almost had me fooled! Now THIS is some science I can get behind:



              ... I mean, if you can't trust the Sugar Association....



              I'm actually boggling here.



              I suppose that's literally true, if you replace all your fats with sugar, and thus are dead.



              I think this might actually be the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet. FTW!!!

              That's all from one newsletter, the first thing I clicked on. Srsly, this is so messed up, I don't know how to react.
              Ya know, I can eat endlessly on all kinds of proteins, cheeses, and carbs. The body is probably looking for carbs on the SAD, so of course carb-eaters can plow through everything else. Once you go primal (as I am starting to do again), you can eat less and be satisfied on less.

              By the way, as I am still sort of new to all of this...do calories really measure how much weight you'll lose/gain, or is that a factor in it all (once you're primal, I mean)?
              "Carbs are the victim, not the crime" - ChocoTaco

              Comment


              • #8
                Fat is almost effortlessly stored, and fat provides little appetite satisfaction. Thus, replacing fat in the diet with sugar will usually halt weight gain and cause weight loss.
                I suppose that's literally true, if you replace all your fats with sugar, and thus are dead.
                Good point you have there. Also, there are the ensuing economic benefits from reduced postmortem healthcare costs.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by highaerials36 View Post
                  Ya know, I can eat endlessly on all kinds of proteins, cheeses, and carbs. The body is probably looking for carbs on the SAD, so of course carb-eaters can plow through everything else. Once you go primal (as I am starting to do again), you can eat less and be satisfied on less.

                  By the way, as I am still sort of new to all of this...do calories really measure how much weight you'll lose/gain, or is that a factor in it all (once you're primal, I mean)?
                  You make a good point I'd failed to consider - I guess if all you eat is sugar & starch, real food just doesn't scratch the same itch. The only thing I can imagine plowing through is carbs & sugars, and I did. Now I have to make sure I eat enough. And this guy is promoting refined sugar as a weight loss supplement!

                  About the calories, I'm the wrong guy to ask - I've read both sides of the Great Debate here in the forums; my own miserable guess is that yes, they matter at a basic level because of physics, but they're not the only factor, or the biggest culprit. I can't say from my own experience, since for me ditching the sugar and grains made me eat less calories.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bUMbLeB View Post
                    I think this might actually be the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet.
                    True as this statement is, to let it keep you from sleeping would be quite un-Primal.

                    My Primal Journal
                    My Twitter

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's not that often I read something and want to punch the author in the throat. Did I read Correctly? The Mongols were big starch eaters. And all this time I thought it was a high meat, fat, and dairy diet. Oh that's right, it is. In fact it was one of the reasons that they were thought to be such an effective army, they were much healthier and stronger than there grain fed enemies. And I love how his historical record of our being starch eaters goes back a wopping 11,000 years, as apposed to 2,000,000 for eating meat. And does this gut really say growing sugar is good for the environment? Having lived my whole life in Florida and watching how big sugar has completely FUCKED the Everglades makes me want to shove this guys head up his ass, oh wait, it's already there.
                      My blog: My Primal Adventure

                      "I've come here to chew bubble gum and kick ass...and I'm all out of bubble gum."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        A lot of what he says is true though. People can selectively gather evidence to support whatever theory they prefer, adding some plain misinformation as necessary, and many ZC/LC authors have done exactly the same thing to put the blame on carbs. Here is an argument supported by science AFAIK:
                        Examination of the number of copies of the gene for the synthesis of the starch-digesting enzyme, amylase, has found an average of 6 copies in humans, compared to only 2 copies of this gene in other primates.
                        True. If we are meant to eat mostly meat, then why do we have these adaptations to digest starch?

                        And don't you people believe the meat and the dairy lobby exist? Have any of you read Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, where he tells how furious those people were when the government started blaming red meat for CVD? Blaming the industry and the government is a standard tactic.

                        McDougall talks about sugar-phobia in the newsletter and how fear of sugar is the cause of obesity, but we know that despite sugar's bad reputation, people eat sugar nowadays more than ever, so it's a hollow argument. But isn't the fat-phobia argument just as hollow, the one that blames obesity on fear of fat? So fat consumption decreased a couple of percentage points in the last decades when obesity exploded, from like 37% to 35%. Big deal. And we are actually eating more grams of fat than ever.

                        Anyway, I just wanted to point out that people can take the same information and put their own spin on it to make their ideas seem good. It's easy to ignore any evidence that doesn't fit.
                        Height: 5'4" (1.62 m)
                        Starting weight (09/2009): 200 lb (90.6 kg)
                        No longer overweight (08/2010): 145 lb (65.6 kg)
                        Current weight (01/2012): 127 lb (57.5 kg)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          And he is citing refernces like "the coca-cola company", research articles on world food supply FROM THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION and the government nutrition guidelines FROM 1977 !!

                          He only lists one research study from the past 10 years and most are not even form the past 20 years? Citing the NY times and Time Magazine? Really?

                          What a nut job. He does ask for your input and gives his email. We should all take some time to write him back with some detailed arguments against his insane postulates.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Karma View Post
                            A He does ask for your input and gives his email. We should all take some time to write him back with some detailed arguments against his insane postulates.
                            If I emailed him, I'd probably ask very innocently why he lists flour as bad, but bread and pasta as good. Or sugar as bad and sugar as good. Or what sumo wrestlers eat. Hmm.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dsberger View Post
                              True as this statement is, to let it keep you from sleeping would be quite un-Primal.

                              +1

                              Hands up everyone who thinks that a carefully reasoned email with detailed scientific references in support will change his mind.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X