Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 100 of 100

Thread: A Must See - Bitter Truth On Sugar page 10

  1. #91
    John R's Avatar
    John R Guest

    1

    Shop Now


    ps: Have you ever seen Taubes? The guy is in his 50s and he looks pretty good. Like Mark, whatever he's doing seems to be working.


  2. #92
    MMH's Avatar
    MMH
    MMH is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    @ lbd - you're entitled to your opinion, but ad hominem attacks don't encourage balanced or engaging discussion. I don't work for Alan Aragon and do not (and have not) ever been paid by him. I promote his publication because I happen to think it's the most unbiased and well-researched periodical I've seen. Alan's stuff is cutting-edge, entertaining and user-friendly. I see you feel strongly about Lustig's presentation and I have somehow deeply offended you by disagreeing with many of his contentions.


    Now I don't want to speak for Mark here, but he seems like a guy that would encourage discussion and welcome dissenting opinion.


  3. #93
    MMH's Avatar
    MMH
    MMH is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    @ John R


    "That's not "appeal to authority fallacy", that's "show me some reason to believe you over him." If you're going to debate, at least get the dismissive comebacks right."

    -----------------------------------------------------

    You mentioned his degree and his specialty to advance your argument. That is an appeal to authority. It's not about believing me over Lustig so much as it is about taking an objective look at the evidence and contrasting it with Lustig's contentions.


    -----------------------------------------------------


    I look at Aragon and his commenters and see guys who are not MDs, not scientists, not people doing and publishing original research like Lustig, or even top-tier journalists with lengthy track records and extensive subject matter expertise like Taubes -- but who are, instead people with degrees in nutrition or phys ed or whatever, personal trainers or "consultants", selling stuff to bodybuilders.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    1. How do you profess to know that people responding don't have backgrounds in research, science, nutrition, etc?


    2. The very fact that those who don't have scientific backgrounds, medical liscenses are able to break down Lustig's arguments should speak volumes. Or do you believe Lustig's reserch citations are better because he's a doctor?


    3. Your argument about qualifications is nullified by including Taubes as an authority. Why does being a journalist account for more credibility than someone who's been in the health and fitness field a long time and dedicates a lot of hours to research and learning?

    -----------------------------------------------------


    My journalist-brain thinks that that might be a group of people with a rather heavy investment in the status quo ante -- "nutrition is complicated, you'll never figure it out without experts, buy my $50 self-published diet "secrets" book if you really want to know how to get in shape". There's an awfully big incentive for them to trash the emerging reality as loudly as possible to keep their little gravy trains going.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    It's a nice little theory, but I tend to believe those that would look at "emerging reality" with a scientific and skeptical scrutiny rather than those who blindly jump on nutritional and exercise bandwagons. Everybody has a marketing angle of some sort, but I would hope that people would at least explore the other side of the debate and find what works best for them.


    The fact is nutritional science IS complicated. You can't put something as complicated as food into something as complex as the human body and make easy predictions about the outcome. So while the science is complicated, I'm thankful for people like Aragon, Hale, Peele, Berkhan and others to break complex researh into easy-to-understand and useable advice.

    -----------------------------------------------------


    I mean, Taubes' book is a slog, but if he's right, this whole thing gets really simple -- and aside from his writing, he's not selling anything except an effort to get his hypothesis properly tested.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Taubes' hypothesis has already been tested. It should be tested more, but there has been research on what he is proposing and thus far, the literature doesn't favour Taubes in anything but the lipid hypothesis. I would be nice if carbs=insulin=big ass theory were that simple but alas it is not. I'm not against low carb but I don't think it should be considered a be-all-end-all approach.

    -----------------------------------------------------


    What's Aragon selling (a newsletter and the aforementioned $50 ebook)? What's Lyle McDonald selling? (eBooks full of diet and drug "secrets"). What are you selling? (I think we've figured that out.)

    -----------------------------------------------------

    We're all selling something, I suppose. But again, I trust more in those who can look at research objectively and make recommendations and commentary that reflect the weight of evidence.


  4. #94
    MMH's Avatar
    MMH
    MMH is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    ps: Have you ever seen Taubes? The guy is in his 50s and he looks pretty good. Like Mark, whatever he's doing seems to be working.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    I guess that's a matter of opinion. I think he looks frail and like a "skinny-fat-guy". In any case it's irrelevant to the discussion.


    Incidentally, Mark does look great!


  5. #95
    MMH's Avatar
    MMH
    MMH is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    I must re-emphazise - I'm not asking anyone to believe me over Dr. Lustig. If you look at the thread, however you'll note that Aragon shot down all of Lustig's counter-arguments with superior evidence and reasoning. Lustig ended up taking his ball and going home.


    Now, it begs the question - if Lustig's position is right, than why is it that when pressed for evidence he folds like a lawn chair?


    As a last grasp at straws, Lustig points out his youtube hits as credibility.


  6. #96
    Pikaia's Avatar
    Pikaia is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2

    1



    *shrug* I didn't find Aragon's evidence and reasoning to be superior.


  7. #97
    John R's Avatar
    John R Guest

    1



    MMH: But you are asking us to believe you -- or at least to believe your employer, or whatever he is -- over Lustig.


    Look, I don't have a horse in this fight. I'm looking to do what's best for my own body. So far, PB etc is working better than other things I've tried. But if Alan Aragon has a better special sauce, I'm all over it.


    But so far it's hard for me to believe that that's likely. Here's the gist of that thread at Aragon's as I see it:


    Aragon: I found some things to nitpick in Lustig's presentation. Also, he used old data. Here's a list of references that may or may not be relevant to my case.


    Lyle McDonald: I have a lot of childish and vulgar names I use to describe points of view that challenge mine.


    Lustig: Your objections to my video miss these key points which seem to render them moot. *lists*


    Fred Hahn: Alan, there's a good reason for using the old data, not the more recent stuff that you think overturns his case (but doesn't). Here it is, in detail.


    Aragon: I see what you're saying, Fred, but I like my data better.


    Aragon to Lustig: There's insufficient data to show that fructose all by itself causes weight gain, never mind that that's not actually what you argued. I admit that my long argument about dosage was a red herring upon further reflection. But you're an alarmist, so tone it down.


    [long debate over whether it's Fred Hahn and Gary Taubes or Lyle McDonald and Aragon who "don't get it"]


    Lustig: Look, here's a long quote from a study that kind of blows up your Japan-related objection.


    Aragon: Look, here's a study that blames type 2 diabetes on animal fat consumption.


    Lustig: You want studies, here's a whole bunch that support my case and undermine yours. I'm tired of talking past you; wait and read my forthcoming paper on this stuff and then we'll see what's what. Bye.


    Aragon: Ha! You surrender! That means I win!


    So here are my questions to you, MMH:


    1. You have a lot of playground names for Gary Taubes, but you haven't yet given us any substantive reasons to disbelieve a single word in GCBC. Can you?


    2. How exactly does the discussion at Aragon's discredit Lustig's explanation of the interaction of fructose with the liver and the problems that result?


  8. #98
    lbd's Avatar
    lbd
    lbd is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    29

    1



    MMH said: @ lbd - you're entitled to your opinion, but ad hominem attacks don't encourage balanced or engaging discussion. I don't work for Alan Aragon and do not (and have not) ever been paid by him.


    Hmm, that's funny because I clicked on your profile link to a website you had listed and I see that you are a trainer on that site and that Alan Aragon is on your advisory board...

    http://www.coreconceptswellness.com/advisoryboard.htm


    So, while you are not necessarily being paid by him, I would say that you do have a vested interest in promoting his opinions.


    I guess my question to those of you who continually come here to promote Aragon and McDonald by constantly questioning the Primal Blueprint and research that backs up the PB from Taubes, Lustig, Eades, Harris, the doctors at NephroPal, Davis, etc. is: Why are you here? I really don't think it is to have a rational, engaging discussion. I think you are here to promote your business that you linked on your profile.


    Thankfully, I have the educational background necessary to understand the biochemistry the above-mentioned researchers and doctors present in their works. I approach everything with a very skeptical mind. Everything I have read backs up what those researchers are saying. Everything.


    I am aware that personal observation doesn't mean much scientifically, but when I LOOK at the people who follow the PB, I see many lean, healthy, vibrant people. When I look at typical bodybuilder sites like McDonald's, I see people that are overmuscled and bloated. Their muscles appear puffy and almost inflamed to me. That is worthless scientifically, but visually it is a striking difference.


    My best advice would be that if you don't think the principles of the PB are correct, then don't follow them. It's a free country, at least for the time being.


  9. #99
    MMH's Avatar
    MMH
    MMH is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    MMH: But you are asking us to believe you -- or at least to believe your employer, or whatever he is -- over Lustig.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    John - I'm not going to waste anymore time on this point. I've clarified my intentions and you've chosen to ignore them. If a different perspective to you means me or Alan trying to be correct, than so be it.


    -----------------------------------------------------

    Look, I don't have a horse in this fight. I'm looking to do what's best for my own body. So far, PB etc is working better than other things I've tried. But if Alan Aragon has a better special sauce, I'm all over it.

    -----------------------------------------------------

    I think that's great! Again, I'm not promoting one method over another. The discussion is about fructose. You've decided to bring in other elements.


    __________________________________________________ _

    But so far it's hard for me to believe that that's likely. Here's the gist of that thread at Aragon's as I see it:

    ----------------------------------------------------


    Your perspective of this thread demonstrates a very blinding confirmation bias. You've chosen to stick your fingers in your ears a go "la, la, la, la"... you are not interested in a scientific angle that does't mesh neatly with your dogmatic views of nutrition. Did you bother to compare the studies or find out why Lustig's citations and hence the entire foundation of his argument is shaky? No, you did not, because you've made up your mind and dang-it, nobody's going to tell you any differently.


    I suggest that if you want to continue to engage in this discussion, let's keep it relevant. Comment on exactly why you agree with Lustig and provide evidence that he was unable to. I'll be waiting with bated breath.


    -----------------------------------------------------

    So here are my questions to you, MMH:


    1. You have a lot of playground names for Gary Taubes, but you haven't yet given us any substantive reasons to disbelieve a single word in GCBC. Can you?

    -----------------------------------------------------

    Considering your confirmation bias (as evidenced by your ignoring the reams of counter-evidence in the Lustig affair) I'm certain that you would just ignore any contrary evidence against Taubes as it wouldn't fit into your sacred cows.

    __________________________________________________ ___


    2. How exactly does the discussion at Aragon's discredit Lustig's explanation of the interaction of fructose with the liver and the problems that result?

    __________________________________________________ ___

    Because there is context. These "problems" have only been shown to arise in unrealistically high amounts of frucotse in a caloric surplus. It should be common sense not to consume 6-8 cans of pop per day. That is the entire point of Alan's rebuttal. So if you want to brush this aside as "nit-picking" well, whatever blows your skirt up - but the fact is, caloric context is the crux of this issue and it is one where Lustig dropped the ball.


    So again, John - bring some evidence of the contrary of anything that was refuted by Alan and we have a discussion. So far all you've brought are red herrings and confirmation bias.


  10. #100
    MMH's Avatar
    MMH
    MMH is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1

    1



    @lbd


    So, while you are not necessarily being paid by him, I would say that you do have a vested interest in promoting his opinions.

    __________________________________________________ ___

    Wow - you're really hung up on this issue aren't you, lbd? I guess if you keep barking up this tree long enough, it will make your argument sound better?

    -----------------------------------------------------


    I guess my question to those of you who continually come here to promote Aragon and McDonald by constantly questioning the Primal Blueprint and research that backs up the PB from Taubes, Lustig, Eades, Harris, the doctors at NephroPal, Davis, etc. is: Why are you here? I really don't think it is to have a rational, engaging discussion. I think you are here to promote your business that you linked on your profile.

    -----------------------------------------------------


    You seem overly reactive to anyone who has an opinion even remotely contrary to those you follow. I have no interest in convincing you of my intentions (which I clearly stated and you've chosen to ignore in favour of your own instinct). I've also explained why I like the work of Aragon, McDonald, Berkhan, Peele, Hale and others - because they have a balanced perspective. The only people that get their panties in a bunch over their thoughts are the zealots.


    I'm still confident that engaging discussions can arise out of these controversies. Alan Aragon himself said it was a good learning experience for him and even thanked Dr. Lustig for participating in the discussion.


    Insofar as me providing a link to my site - it's because I chose to be transparent. If I didn't, more people would have labelled me a troll as you did. I guess it's a no-win situation.


    So, lbd - tell you what. I'll remove the link to my site, and then you can tell me why you think Lustig's views are 100% correct. Heck, why don't you tell us who you are while you're at it? You seem to have no problem anonymously slagging me.


Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Posting Permissions

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