Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence that Taubes and Lustig are both wrong!!!

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

  • Originally posted by charlii View Post
    You proved my point when you said you can get fat on anything, yes you can but people don't choose to get fat they get fat because of a process beyond their control...they overconsume calories from junk food because of the same system that makes a heroin addict shoot up even though they wish they could stop. Oohhh telling the teachers now, what a mong.
    this forum has been ripe with people who aren't able to articulate their points without the help of name calling, using derogatory language and harassment, and a boatload of people have been banned because of it. there isn't a place for anything like that here.

    Comment


    • You started with the attitude, I was articulating my points finely it was other including yourself that started with the hostility. That combined with how wrong you are frustrates me.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by j3nn View Post
        No. That's a strawman. I'm saying we can't just mimic what others eat and assume it translates to health for everyone, including cavemen.
        How's it a strawman. It was a question clarifying what was meant the previous statement and you've agreed with the point I was getting at anyway.

        Just because someone lives to 90 and you've seen him eating a hot dog, doesn't mean that's what we should all do to reach that age.
        If you're interested in my (very) occasional updates on how I'm working out and what I'm eating click here.

        Originally posted by tfarny
        If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/

        Comment


        • Hint: He has already been banned once....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Terry H View Post
            Hint: He has already been banned once....
            Why do you say that? I've never commented on the forums before.

            Comment


            • Here is why these discussions are garbage, pretty much 100% of the time.

              Things like leptin (discovered in 1994) are a very hotly debated topic in the biochem world. If you ask 5 experts, you will get that many opinions.

              The problem is that people TALK AS IF there is scientific consensus on these kinds of mechanisms, which there clearly is not. They simply read ONE person's take on their mechanisms, whether in a book or otherwise, and then talk about it as if it were incontrovertible truth.....a truth that in some cases, you are apparently a low-IQ prole if you don't agree with.

              These discussions are also garbage because no one discussing these topics, to my knowledge, is a biochemist well-versed in this particular area....what that means is that EVERYONE is simply parroting what "smart person A" over here said, with limited knowledge of it themselves. This would be a non-starter in a more urgent discussion....if you were starving in the woods, you wouldn't listen to a guy that read about how to start a fire without matches in a book once; you would be much more comfortable with someone that has actually done it.

              This is all a basic rule of the scientific community; don't parrot someone else's work and be arrogant on your ability to see its unique brilliance. That is being a charlatan....do your OWN work, and even then be humble, because we will probably disprove you.

              If someone thinks they KNOW what is going on here, they are either a fool or a liar. In either case, absolute pronouncements in areas of severe scientific debate are pointless and meant to be sounding boards for the insecure to bounce their latest read off of everyone's forehead. I don't care to participate in that, hence why these discussions are retarded

              Next time, I will tell you how I really feel
              "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AMonkey View Post
                I think the obesity problem is relatively simple. Compare modern life to life 100 years ago when most of humanity was involved in physical labour, primarily agriculture:

                Your point is well taken though off by about 100 years.

                -We've become significantly more sedentary, to the point that many of us do essentially no exercise

                Been going on for a long time.

                -Food has become a luxury, none of us ever starve
                I guess you mean it is no longer a luxury - agreed - but it was probably 200 years since the majority of people grew most their own food

                -Food is extremely cheap, plentiful and accessible
                Plentiful yes. Good food is not cheap

                -There is amazing choice of food and some are engineered to be as addictive as possible
                Agreed.

                -We don't tend to home cook any more, instead buying pre made meals
                Not true for my family or most families I know, but I'm sure there is a lot of that going around seeing what is in the supermarkets.

                -We live in a society in which we blame others for our problems
                There is some of that, though I'm not sure why you are bringing Obama into this

                -We live in a society which constantly tells us to reward ourselves and YOLO
                I guess. What is YOLO?

                So is it any wonder obesity and ill health have sky rocketed? To some degree I'm surprised we aren't fatter. Right now, beside my desk is a table full of various biscuits, juice drinks and sugary snacks. Why aren't I chowing down on them? It will make me feel good and I'm thin enough that it won't impact my weight. And who cares about the future? My reptilian brain only cares about now.
                You've made some good points. You came up with 7, where the OP came with 1. There are quite a few more if you do a little more thinking about it!
                Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                  Here is why these discussions are garbage, pretty much 100% of the time.

                  Things like leptin (discovered in 1994) are a very hotly debated topic in the biochem world. If you ask 5 experts, you will get that many opinions.

                  The problem is that people TALK AS IF there is scientific consensus on these kinds of mechanisms, which there clearly is not. They simply read ONE person's take on their mechanisms, whether in a book or otherwise, and then talk about it as if it were incontrovertible truth.....a truth that in some cases, you are apparently a low-IQ prole if you don't agree with.

                  These discussions are also garbage because no one discussing these topics, to my knowledge, is a biochemist well-versed in this particular area....what that means is that EVERYONE is simply parroting what "smart person A" over here said, with limited knowledge of it themselves. This would be a non-starter in a more urgent discussion....if you were starving in the woods, you wouldn't listen to a guy that read about how to start a fire without matches in a book once; you would be much more comfortable with someone that has actually done it.

                  This is all a basic rule of the scientific community; don't parrot someone else's work and be arrogant on your ability to see its unique brilliance. That is being a charlatan....do your OWN work, and even then be humble, because we will probably disprove you.

                  If someone thinks they KNOW what is going on here, they are either a fool or a liar. In either case, absolute pronouncements in areas of severe scientific debate are pointless and meant to be sounding boards for the insecure to bounce their latest read off of everyone's forehead. I don't care to participate in that, hence why these discussions are retarded

                  Next time, I will tell you how I really feel
                  My problem is that low carber stick the low carb hypothesis of weight loss even when it is disproved. Bread, potatoes and fruit didn't magically appear 100 years ago but sugar laden processed foods did.

                  My point here is Lustig's and Taubes theories easily proved wrong yet the sheep still follow. If anybody can offer any evidence that suggests the food reward theory is wrong I was be ecstatic that you have made me see the light but nobody has anything!! Sheep!! Baaaa baaaaa baaa...

                  Comment


                  • OK, I read the first few pages and this was a great discussion, now it looks like it took a nasty turn. I'd like to make a point, if I could.

                    One thing most people miss on the 'carbs' vs 'processed carbs' difference is their effect on gut microbes. When you eat processed carbs, like white bread, Cheetos, or table sugar, these carbs are utilized very fast by the body without much nutrition and most of them supply nothing to the large intestine where gut microbes reside.

                    When you eat a potato, rice, or fruit, there are many components of these foods that are not digested fast and end up in the large intestine where they become food for our gut microbes.

                    In a society that eats mainly processed carbs, nearly everyone on this diet will have poor intestinal health and obesity is rampant. In societies where little processed carbs are eaten, most will have healthy intestines and obesity is rare.

                    This whole gut health thing transcends CICO. When a person has healthy intestines and a flourishing, diverse gut filled with beneficial microbes, magical things can happen--blood sugar, cholesterol and triglycerides regulate themselves. Important neurotransmitters are produced in the quantities we need for great sleep and appetite regulation, vitamins such as K2, are produced in the gut and don't need to be eaten. Mineral uptake from food is heightened. Toxins and heavy metals are chelated and purged. Anti-nutrients are eliminated and not leaked into the blood where they can cross the brain-blood barrier and do more harm.

                    Primal Blueprint is a pretty good recipe for healthier gut microbes. But try Primal Blueprint with all of the carbs from fruit and veggies coming from refined sugar, or HFCS, on a calorie for calorie basis and you will see worsened gut flora, and worsened health. Beneficial gut flora relies on undigested carbs for food, not meat or fat. It needs fermentable fiber found in fruit, tubers, legumes, etc...without it, it dies and pathogenic gut flora takes over--the kind that cause leaky gut, rosacea, AI diseases, cancer, mental disturbances, etc...

                    Food for thought!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                      Here is why these discussions are garbage, pretty much 100% of the time.

                      Things like leptin (discovered in 1994) are a very hotly debated topic in the biochem world. If you ask 5 experts, you will get that many opinions.

                      The problem is that people TALK AS IF there is scientific consensus on these kinds of mechanisms, which there clearly is not. They simply read ONE person's take on their mechanisms, whether in a book or otherwise, and then talk about it as if it were incontrovertible truth.....a truth that in some cases, you are apparently a low-IQ prole if you don't agree with.

                      These discussions are also garbage because no one discussing these topics, to my knowledge, is a biochemist well-versed in this particular area....what that means is that EVERYONE is simply parroting what "smart person A" over here said, with limited knowledge of it themselves. This would be a non-starter in a more urgent discussion....if you were starving in the woods, you wouldn't listen to a guy that read about how to start a fire without matches in a book once; you would be much more comfortable with someone that has actually done it.

                      This is all a basic rule of the scientific community; don't parrot someone else's work and be arrogant on your ability to see its unique brilliance. That is being a charlatan....do your OWN work, and even then be humble, because we will probably disprove you.

                      If someone thinks they KNOW what is going on here, they are either a fool or a liar. In either case, absolute pronouncements in areas of severe scientific debate are pointless and meant to be sounding boards for the insecure to bounce their latest read off of everyone's forehead. I don't care to participate in that, hence why these discussions are retarded

                      Next time, I will tell you how I really feel
                      Thank you for this! I had a very similar conversation with my new GI doctor. Another thing that he mentioned is that a lot of the studies done are done on men so they may or may not be relevant to women. He said that the more they learn, the more they realize how little they actually know.

                      Comment


                      • Again, you are assuming they have been "proven" wrong....that is not a scientific term. Very few things are ever proven anything.

                        Also, it is being assumed that these two are mutually exclusive, or that the research done on the reward systems was not BASED on some of the work of the guys you apparently hate so much....for example, Lustig's biggest appearance in his career on 60 minutes included doing brain scans as people were drinking soda, as he explained the reward system you are railing about.

                        You are creating a false dichotomy, in which there are only 2 theories:
                        1) Carbs cause weight-gain, I.E. Taubes
                        2) High palatability food, rich in calories and sugar, cause weight-gain.

                        Neither of these is mutually exclusive. What if one were to get highly palatable, high calorie of any macro, would it still have the same effects as highly palatable sugar? Who knows?

                        In the case of Lustig, a good portion of his book is exactly ABOUT the reward systems of processed sugar....so perhaps you should be quoting him rather than claiming they have been proven wrong. Perhaps his biochem is not agreed upon, but that is not new, no one's work is. There is no consensus on this stuff at all.

                        If one is able to lower calories most effectively by being low carb, then it is effective for them. No one with a brain is claiming that if one eats VLC but still takes in 5000kCal in fat calories, they would lose weight.

                        That said, YOU are not studying the food reward theory, and (as I would) would get blown away in an academic discussion of it....for this reason, your lack of humility is parroting the work of other people is juvenile, as is calling people sheep for not also agreeing with your parroted work. Calm down.
                        "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by otzi View Post
                          OK, I read the first few pages and this was a great discussion, now it looks like it took a nasty turn. I'd like to make a point, if I could.

                          One thing most people miss on the 'carbs' vs 'processed carbs' difference is their effect on gut microbes. When you eat processed carbs, like white bread, Cheetos, or table sugar, these carbs are utilized very fast by the body without much nutrition and most of them supply nothing to the large intestine where gut microbes reside.

                          When you eat a potato, rice, or fruit, there are many components of these foods that are not digested fast and end up in the large intestine where they become food for our gut microbes.

                          In a society that eats mainly processed carbs, nearly everyone on this diet will have poor intestinal health and obesity is rampant. In societies where little processed carbs are eaten, most will have healthy intestines and obesity is rare.

                          This whole gut health thing transcends CICO. When a person has healthy intestines and a flourishing, diverse gut filled with beneficial microbes, magical things can happen--blood sugar, cholesterol and triglycerides regulate themselves. Important neurotransmitters are produced in the quantities we need for great sleep and appetite regulation, vitamins such as K2, are produced in the gut and don't need to be eaten. Mineral uptake from food is heightened. Toxins and heavy metals are chelated and purged. Anti-nutrients are eliminated and not leaked into the blood where they can cross the brain-blood barrier and do more harm.

                          Primal Blueprint is a pretty good recipe for healthier gut microbes. But try Primal Blueprint with all of the carbs from fruit and veggies coming from refined sugar, or HFCS, on a calorie for calorie basis and you will see worsened gut flora, and worsened health. Beneficial gut flora relies on undigested carbs for food, not meat or fat. It needs fermentable fiber found in fruit, tubers, legumes, etc...without it, it dies and pathogenic gut flora takes over--the kind that cause leaky gut, rosacea, AI diseases, cancer, mental disturbances, etc...

                          Food for thought!
                          Great point gut health is crucial to good health but as far as excessive weight gain goes it's my opinion that it's not a major contributor. I do think it causes a host of health problems though. The thing here is the sugar and wheat that is so detrimental to gut health are the 2 things that are the major contributors to food palatability so you can't seperate them. It's seem pretty clear to me that sugar especially but also wheat and omega 6 cause all the modern illnesses independent of eachother. For example they cause poor gut health and obesity...but it seems very clear to me that they don't cause poor gut health which then causes obesity. Excess calories is the main mechanism but also lack of nutrients and things like gluten contribute. Like excess calories and sugar together caused fatty liver which can be resolved with choline even if you still consume excess calories and sugar...you no longer have fatty liver but you will still be obese. The problems are independent of eachother.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
                            Again, you are assuming they have been "proven" wrong....that is not a scientific term. Very few things are ever proven anything.

                            Also, it is being assumed that these two are mutually exclusive, or that the research done on the reward systems was not BASED on some of the work of the guys you apparently hate so much....for example, Lustig's biggest appearance in his career on 60 minutes included doing brain scans as people were drinking soda, as he explained the reward system you are railing about.

                            You are creating a false dichotomy, in which there are only 2 theories:
                            1) Carbs cause weight-gain, I.E. Taubes
                            2) High palatability food, rich in calories and sugar, cause weight-gain.

                            Neither of these is mutually exclusive. What if one were to get highly palatable, high calorie of any macro, would it still have the same effects as highly palatable sugar? Who knows?

                            In the case of Lustig, a good portion of his book is exactly ABOUT the reward systems of processed sugar....so perhaps you should be quoting him rather than claiming they have been proven wrong. Perhaps his biochem is not agreed upon, but that is not new, no one's work is. There is no consensus on this stuff at all.

                            If one is able to lower calories most effectively by being low carb, then it is effective for them. No one with a brain is claiming that if one eats VLC but still takes in 5000kCal in fat calories, they would lose weight.

                            That said, YOU are not studying the food reward theory, and (as I would) would get blown away in an academic discussion of it....for this reason, your lack of humility is parroting the work of other people is juvenile, as is calling people sheep for not also agreeing with your parroted work. Calm down.
                            Lustig is quite clear on blaming elevated insulin through blocking leptin as causing obesity. Wether he says sugar is addictive or not he does not say it's the excess calories he says its the metabolic effects of fructose in the liver. Jesus can people get their ducks in a row before they start shooting their mouths off.

                            Comment


                            • I said from my original post that Lustig is right to blame sugar but he has the wrong mechanism. What is wrong with you people.

                              Comment


                              • Gee Charlii- you call people w/far more credibility than youself wrong and assert they are arrogant. Actually you are pretty damn arrogant yourself to do that and to rant and rave and "froth at the mouth" here w/over 100 posts in two days to pound your opinion into everyone.

                                Then you call others retards, stupid, etc. because they have a point of view that doesn't agree with yours. Really, grow up.
                                Last edited by janie; 10-22-2013, 12:32 PM.
                                Starting Weight: 197.5
                                Current Weight: 123
                                Far healthier!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X