Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help Shut my CICO Friend Up - THE GHEE CHALLENGE

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

  • #61
    To the OP, so how did the friend change the rules of the game to make it not worth it? Did he inject carbs somehow?

    And yes, if a fat-burner takes in more fat calories than fat calories are burned, he'll gain weight. Duh. The point is that a rea fat-burner won't WANT to take in all those fat calories. He'll be full, he'll forget to eat, he'll get sick, etc.
    5'0" female, 45 years old. Started Primal October 31, 2011, at a skinny fat 111.5 lbs. Low weight: 99.5 lb on a fast. Gained back to 115(!) on SAD chocolate, potato chips, and stress. Currently 111.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Scott F View Post
      Do you always do this type of BS arguing?
      Yeah, I guess I just seek out confrontation, just to get the feelings of self-gratification. That's it. I guess it has nothing to do with people spreading misinformation. You sparked the argument when you posted Dr. Lustig's video, which I find to be extremely misleading.

      Who taught you how to debate and construct and argument?
      Well I guess I learned from experience, because I seemingly seek out arguments for my own enjoyment (according to you).

      Someone falsely accuses me of going against Atkins' stuff (and where that came from I don't know).
      No clue what you're talking about here.

      I mention I'm in the same opinion as Mark when it comes to ratios and consumption sugar, carbs, fats, protein....it's HIS blog...and you come back you this???
      Don't quite understand what you're saying here. We're talking about sugar (specifically fructose) because you linked Dr. Lustig's video. Don't accuse me of seeking out argument when your post and lack of evidence to back it is what has led us to this point. I'm not arguing to be disrespectful to Mark or anyone else, I'm just looking at the facts. If there's a problem with this, let me know.
      My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
        You missed the point. Research should be judged first & foremost on methodology. You cannot selectively dismiss research you don't agree with merely based on funding source.
        Yes I know, which is why I posted the google scholar search giving scores of research papers. I bought Harvard biochemist, Matt Lalonde's, 6 hour webinar. It cost $100 and was worth every nickle. One of the papers JJ posted here was also source in that lecture. The paper was an acute study sponsored by DANISCO. What Mat pointed out that we want to know is chronic cause and effect over time....which btw is what Lustig is focused on. The reason I read Mark's blog post is because I know he digs through the research papers. I don't have the time to do that.
        Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

        Comment


        • #64
          You should eat your friend and see if you gain weight from it. Pretty primal.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Scott F View Post
            Yes I know, which is why I posted the google scholar search giving scores of research papers. I bought Harvard biochemist, Matt Lalonde's, 6 hour webinar. It cost $100 and was worth every nickle. One of the papers JJ posted here was also source in that lecture. The paper was an acute study sponsored by DANISCO. What Mat pointed out that we want to know is chronic cause and effect over time....which btw is what Lustig is focused on. The reason I read Mark's blog post is because I know he digs through the research papers. I don't have the time to do that.
            If you're trying to make a point here, it's lost in irrelevance.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
              If you're trying to make a point here, it's lost in irrelevance.
              His point is that there's a difference between acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. Here's a more thorough statement of the question and some of the problems with answering it: Is sugar toxic? « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
              The Champagne of Beards

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                His point is that there's a difference between acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. Here's a more thorough statement of the question and some of the problems with answering it: Is sugar toxic? « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
                It's apparent that he's stuck on appealing to authority & dismissing data based on funding source. If he's now bringing up acute vs chronic effect, he's now running into a straw man (adding to the existing fallacies).

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                  His point is that there's a difference between acute toxicity and chronic toxicity. Here's a more thorough statement of the question and some of the problems with answering it: Is sugar toxic? « The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D. The Eating Academy | Peter Attia, M.D.
                  Thank you!
                  Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                    It's apparent that he's stuck on appealing to authority & dismissing data based on funding source. If he's now bringing up acute vs chronic effect, he's now running into a straw man (adding to the existing fallacies).
                    Is acute vs. chronic toxicity as it relates to sugar in general and/or fructose specifically a straw man?
                    The Champagne of Beards

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                      It's apparent that he's stuck on appealing to authority & dismissing data based on funding source. If he's now bringing up acute vs chronic effect, he's now running into a straw man (adding to the existing fallacies).
                      Appealing to authority? You're the strawman. Appealing to authority is not a fallacy if the person(s) in question are authorities in that field. A study funded by...DANISCO is automatically suspect and held to a higher standard since the prospects of financial bias are also at play. It's like Lalonde said in that webinar you have to look at who's funding the paper. That's why journals print who's funding the researcher work.
                      Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Whoa, it's Alan Aragon.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                          Is acute vs. chronic toxicity as it relates to sugar in general and/or fructose specifically a straw man?
                          You are straying away from the line of discussion I created with Scott. He rebutted Jake's post on the premise that data can be dismissed based on funding source: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1240857

                          I called this bias to his attention, and he thereafter responded with irrelevant points.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Whether a food or food-product is “toxic”, acute or chronic, is contextual and depend on doses and circumstances. Pure water can be "toxic" under the right or should I rather say wrong circumstances…
                            "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

                            - Schopenhauer

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Some extremely successful trolling going on on this thread.
                              Out of context quote for the day:

                              Clearly Gorbag is so awesome he should be cloned, reproducing in the normal manner would only dilute his awesomeness. - Urban Forager

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                                You are straying away from the line of discussion I created with Scott. He rebutted Jake's post on the premise that data can be dismissed based on funding source: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1240857
                                Well, can't data be considered less powerful if only those studies that "prove" what certain funding sources intend to prove ever get published? Not saying this is the case here, but it certainly might be.

                                Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                                I called this bias to his attention, and he thereafter responded with irrelevant points.
                                Personally, I read him as saying that despite the fact that there's a lot of research to comb through, what hasn't been looked at sufficiently to draw conclusions is the long-term effects of sugar, generally and fructose, specifically. Which I agreed with and posted the Peter Attia link to support.

                                Let's skip a debate on Scott F's rhetorical skills and return to the subject matter, shall we?
                                The Champagne of Beards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X