Page 14 of 19 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 187

Thread: Evidence that Taubes and Lustig are both wrong!!!

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
    Posts
    1,108
    Shop Now
    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."

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    Quote 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.

  3. #133
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    Quote 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.

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    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.

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    702
    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 at 01:32 PM.
    Starting Weight: 197.5
    Current Weight: 123
    Far healthier!

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northeast Kingdom, Vermont
    Posts
    1,108
    You do understand that even uttering the word "Leptin" at a biochem conference will yield loud sighs all across the room, correct?

    The reason Lustig reports this theory, rightly or wrongly, is because no one has strong evidence as to how the hell it really does work. Even if YOU think he is wrong, there are others who think he is right, and no one has been able to "prove" (you keep using this word, which doesn't exist in a scientific realm) much of anything.

    A quick NCBI of leptin, just over the past 2 years, yields about 200 articles, all of which make slightly different mechanistic claims. Yes, there are beginning to be more convincing arguments for one mechanism or another, but it is not a resolved issue. All it would take is one earth-shattering discovery to blow the reward theory, JSW's leptin and insulin theory, all into the trash can. It happens all the time.

    We are not sheep for being unsure of what the more learned are also unsure about.

    You ARE being argumentative and juvenile for purporting academic theories as resolved and absolute, especially in areas you have no direct knowledge in. Again, calm down. Stop calling people names for no good reason.

    In other news, I would like to start an argument that anti-matter is the most grave threat to humanity since the supervirus and Miley Cirus.....yes, there is a hotly debated discussion on whether anti-matter even exists, and no one is exactly sure how it works in an experimentally verifiable way.

    If you believe that anti-matter is NOT this most grave threat to humanity, you are an idiot and a sheep.

    No, I am not a physicist.

    "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,006
    Quote Originally Posted by MaceyUK View Post
    Like the great man Jimmi once said "No reason to get excited"
    'scuse me, while I eat some pie....

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    England
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by TheyCallMeLazarus View Post
    You do understand that even uttering the word "Leptin" at a biochem conference will yield loud sighs all across the room, correct?

    The reason Lustig reports this theory, rightly or wrongly, is because no one has strong evidence as to how the hell it really does work. Even if YOU think he is wrong, there are others who think he is right, and no one has been able to "prove" (you keep using this word, which doesn't exist in a scientific realm) much of anything.


    A quick NCBI of leptin, just over the past 2 years, yields about 200 articles, all of which make slightly different mechanistic claims. Yes, there are beginning to be more convincing arguments for one mechanism or another, but it is not a resolved issue. All it would take is one earth-shattering discovery to blow the reward theory, JSW's leptin and insulin theory, all into the trash can. It happens all the time.

    We are not sheep for being unsure of what the more learned are also unsure about.

    You ARE being argumentative and juvenile for purporting academic theories as resolved and absolute, especially in areas you have no direct knowledge in. Again, calm down. Stop calling people names for no good reason.

    In other news, I would like to start an argument that anti-matter is the most grave threat to humanity since the supervirus and Miley Cirus.....yes, there is a hotly debated discussion on whether anti-matter even exists, and no one is exactly sure how it works in an experimentally verifiable way.

    If you believe that anti-matter is NOT this most grave threat to humanity, you are an idiot and a sheep.

    No, I am not a physicist.

    Leptin is widely seen as the master hormone when it comes to bodyfat stores however this is not my point, I was just showing that bodyfat regulation is a lot more complicated than Taubes's theory. I didn't say it was the be all and end all.

    THERE IS EVIDENCE LUSTIG'S THEORY IS WRONG!!!!!!!! CHOLINE CURES FATTY LIVER BUT DOESN'T CAUSE WEIGHTLOSS THEREFORE ELEVATED INSULIN LEVELS CAUSED BY FATTY LIVER BLOCKING LEPTIN AT THE RECEPTOR IS WRONG!!!!!

    Some idiots on here.

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    1,006
    [QUOTE=MaceyUK;1344150]I stand corrected....but Jimmi said it better...even Bob admitted that [/QUOTE
    I'll second that. When Jimi does it I can see the 2 riders approaching, and hear the wind begin to howl, HEY!

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Manhattan, NY
    Posts
    4,115
    Learn More
    Quote Originally Posted by Misabi View Post
    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.
    That's exactly my point: Copying what healthy people eat doesn't guarantee the same health results. You must have missed the original post that I quoted which said to eat what healthy people eat. Well, the healthiest people I know are not Paleo/Primal and many of them eat things considered "unhealthy", so that's probably not the best way to approach things. And that goes for trying to copy the diet of prehistoric humans. It's not that simple.
    | My (food) Blog | Follow me on Facebook | Pinterest | Twitter |

    “It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” - Samuel Adams

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •