Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help Shut my CICO Friend Up - THE GHEE CHALLENGE

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

  • #76
    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

    I called this bias to his attention, and he thereafter responded with irrelevant points.
    wrong. I hold bias-industry funded research to a higher standard. Let me give you a different example: I'm in the oil business. There is a big debate as to whether horizontal fracking is damaging fresh water wells. The oil industry has its research claiming that there is no evidence of fracking damaging water wells. Do you think their research should be held to a higher standard and be suspect?
    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


    • #77
      Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
      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.



      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?
      Yeah, I'm the first to admit my writing skills aren't the best. I'm much better in person and am much better at math than English. I think JJ started this with me once before and posted that acute research paper funded by DANISCO in that former debate. What interesting is how this got to where is it. I posted a simply drive-by post and JJ jumps on it as if he a manager for Coke-a-Cola.
      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


      • #78
        Originally posted by Scott F View Post
        wrong. I hold bias-industry funded research to a higher standard. Let me give you a different example: I'm in the oil business. There is a big debate as to whether horizontal fracking is damaging fresh water wells. The oil industry has its research claiming that there is no evidence of fracking damaging water wells. Do you think their research should be held to a higher standard and be suspect?
        There's not much to discuss here. I pointed out your bias, & you are basically ignoring that. You're willing to cherrypick your agreements or disagreements with data based on the sponsor. This is the lazy/biased/unscientific route, as opposed to judging research on the basis of its methodology. Should funding source be taken into consideration? Yes. But is it grounds for complete dismissal (as you've done here in this thread)? No. My advice to you is to do more listening and less preaching on this topic.
        Last edited by Alan Aragon; 07-02-2013, 02:26 PM.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
          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.



          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?
          If you want to open up a completely new discussion, then that's fine. We can start from scratch, just let me know what your questions or points of contention are, & we can pick it up from there.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
            There's not much to discuss here to discuss here. I pointed out you're bias, & you are basically ignoring that. You're willing to cherrypick your agreements or disagreements with data based on the sponsor. This is the lazy/biased/unscientific route, as opposed to judging research on the basis of its methodology. Should funding source be taken into consideration? Yes. But is it grounds for complete dismissal (as you've done here in this thread)? No. My advice to you is to do more listening and less preaching on this topic.
            So funding should be taken into consideration but Scott F is biased because he takes it into consideration? And what happened to getting back on topic?

            edited: I don't have any questions or points of contention. I posted the Peter Attia link because I think that's the best summary of the state of our collective knowledge on the subject. If there's something I'm missing, please point me to it. But not with the snarky type of remarks you've directed at Scott F. Is that really what you registered here for today? Disappointing.
            Last edited by RichMahogany; 07-02-2013, 02:01 PM.
            The Champagne of Beards

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
              So funding should be taken into consideration but Scott F is biased because he takes it into consideration? And what happened to getting back on topic?
              There's a huge difference between taking funding source into consideration versus dismissing research based on funding source. Language: it means things.
              Last edited by Alan Aragon; 07-02-2013, 02:13 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Scott F View Post
                What interesting is how this got to where is it. I posted a simply drive-by post and JJ jumps on it as if he a manager for Coke-a-Cola.
                I'm not going to let that sensationalist nonsense be posted without pointing out the fact that the claims in the video are overextended and have been debunked. For the record, I'm a manager for Pepsi, not Coke-a-Cola.
                My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                  There's a huge difference between taking funding source into consideration versus dismissing research based on funding source. Language: it means things.
                  Point is they're suspect to him based on who funded them. Maybe if he spent an entire weekend devouring the entire papers behind them, he'd have found the methodology convincing. Maybe not. But most people aren't honestly going to put that time in, so we rely on trusted sources to separate the wheat from the chaff. His point was that the companies that stand to profit from the results of the research were not on his list of trusted sources. Is that so hard to understand?
                  The Champagne of Beards

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    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?
                    lol... I'm glad you asked. I was about to ask the same thing. I mean I thought I understand what a strawman was in terms of logical fallacy, but have now idea how expanding the subject topic to include chronic toxicity would be one.

                    Perhaps its not the exact vein of knowledge being pursued (if anyone actually knows what that is for certain), but that probably makes it some other cool word nobody heard of until a few years ago unless you were on your high school debate team.

                    Anyhow.... please proceed.

                    I still think she should kick him in the balls and drink the ghee

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                      edited: I don't have any questions or points of contention. I posted the Peter Attia link because I think that's the best summary of the state of our collective knowledge on the subject. If there's something I'm missing, please point me to it. But not with the snarky type of remarks you've directed at Scott F. Is that really what you registered here for today? Disappointing.
                      Do yourself a favor & review Scott's tone & language in this thread. Snarky would actually be a euphemistic way to put it. He's downright hostile (particularly to Jake). In contrast, my tone is matter-of-fact to him & 100% civil - and borderline gentle - with you. I'm not really sure why you're taking things the way you are. But, if you have no questions or contentions to raise, then our discussion is done.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by RichMahogany View Post
                        Point is they're suspect to him based on who funded them. Maybe if he spent an entire weekend devouring the entire papers behind them, he'd have found the methodology convincing. Maybe not. But most people aren't honestly going to put that time in, so we rely on trusted sources to separate the wheat from the chaff. His point was that the companies that stand to profit from the results of the research were not on his list of trusted sources. Is that so hard to understand?
                        The potential for commercial bias is still not sufficient grounds to completely dismiss research. Is that so hard to understand?

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Oh, God. I would get the runs beyond belief.

                          I'm curious to see what happens with your bowels. Nobody is that fat adapted in bolus amounts (my prediction).

                          Go for it. And report back.
                          sigpic
                          Age 48
                          Start date: 7-5-12
                          5'3"
                          121lbs
                          GOAL: to live to be a healthy and active 100


                          "In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties."
                          Henri Frederic Amiel

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                            There's not much to discuss here. I pointed out your bias, & you are basically ignoring that. You're willing to cherrypick your agreements or disagreements with data based on the sponsor. This is the lazy/biased/unscientific route, as opposed to judging research on the basis of its methodology. Should funding source be taken into consideration? Yes. But is it grounds for complete dismissal (as you've done here in this thread)? No. My advice to you is to do more listening and less preaching on this topic.
                            wrong. I'm not the one cherrypicking. JJ is. He asked me to put up papers refuting his two listed papers. I posted a blanket Google Scholar for "fructose obesity" and "fructose metabolic syndrome". Could it be that is two papers has it right and all the rest are wrong? Sure. But I don't think anyone believes fructose is toxic in the acute, hence my posting the link Dr Richard Johnson's interview. MY belief (is that word good enough for you?) is that Johnson is closer to the truth, that our ancestors only ate fructose during a short window each year and that it appears fructose triggers a metabolic "switch" (Johnson's word) causing animals (not just humans) to put on fat for the coming winter lean months. Orangutans put on weight during times when fruit is abundant (http://cherylknott.files.wordpress.c...999-thesis.pdf), and bears fatten up on berries in anticipation of winter. Johnson believes its the same for humans and that the switch is intracellular uric acid affecting ATP energy production....fructose makes you want to sit on your ass (couch potato?), move less, and eat more. Is he wrong? He might be but I'm not a researcher and his argument make sense, to me (is that qualification enough for you?), from an evolutionary POV.

                            So from Dr Johnson's fructose argument what's changed? Now fructose is available 24/7 and the consumption is no longer seasonally acute but is consumed daily by most people; do our bodies think, all the time, it's that seasonal time of year to put on fat? Is year round chronic consumption of fructose producing the triglycerides and VLDL...and insulin resistance causing Metabolic Syndrome due to the chronic consumption of fructose? IOW causing all those symptoms that Lustig talks about? You're the nutritionist, what do you think?
                            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


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Alan Aragon View Post
                              There's a huge difference between taking funding source into consideration versus dismissing research based on funding source. Language: it means things.
                              I dismissed because I had this argument from JJ before (I'm pretty sure it was him) and he used the same paper which studied the acute affects (as per Lalonde) when what everyone (I think everyone) is interested in is the chronic use of fructose.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by jakejoh10 View Post
                                I'm not going to let that sensationalist nonsense be posted without pointing out the fact that the claims in the video are overextended and have been debunked. For the record, I'm a manager for Pepsi, not Coke-a-Cola.
                                Why am I not surprised? But you don't have a bias....just like I may not have a bias about horizontally fracking oil/gas wells?
                                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

                                Working...
                                X