Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: It's Opposite Day (totally surreal) page

  1. #1
    mdlaw's Avatar
    mdlaw is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    171

    It's Opposite Day (totally surreal)

    Primal Fuel
    I came across this article recently. Spot the stupid:

    http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2009nl/feb/starch.htm

    Reading through it though, he makes exactly the same claims about carbs that people do about fat/protein. IE, we're evolved to eat it, it's what most historically healthy societies ate, it has a metabolic advantage, it leads to satiety, etc etc. I wonder if it's done on purpose. Of course, his arguments are suspiciously fact free. He fails to address B-12 when talking about how "complete" starches are, he claims things like corn aren't profitable (!), etc. Particularly amusing are his allegation that the gov't doesn't want people eating starch (you know, that's why the pyramid says 11 servings of it a day!), and his inclusion of "flour" as a bad food, and pasta, bread, etc, as good. I guess he doesn't cook much?

    Anyway, this may have been posted before here, but I had to share. On some level, I want to believe it's an elaborate joke, but I don't think it is.
    Last edited by mdlaw; 10-17-2010 at 11:59 AM.

  2. #2
    mdlaw's Avatar
    mdlaw is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    171
    Oh, and I just checked out the rest of his site. In about 20 seconds, I picked up this gem:
    Standing in the presence of T. Colin Campbell, PhD is almost a religious experience.
    . Again, this is either a well done joke, or the most amazing site in the history of the world.

  3. #3
    Jefferson's Avatar
    Jefferson is offline Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Texas Panhandle
    Posts
    42
    "Therefore, scientific documentation of what people have eaten over the past thirteen thousand years convincingly supports my claim."

    And is also entirely meaningless in light of the fact that a species' gut does not evolve significantly in that period of time.

  4. #4
    Hilary's Avatar
    Hilary is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,254
    Thank you for that trip to Bizarroville!

    I think I must be suffering from a starch deficiency. Ohnoes...

  5. #5
    bUMbLeB's Avatar
    bUMbLeB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    104
    Damn you Mark Sisson, you almost had me fooled! Now THIS is some science I can get behind:

    Sugar is fat-free, cholesterol-free, and sodium-free, and contains very low levels of chemical residues. It is inexpensive, costing about 40 cents a pound, which translates into 45 calories per penny. No animals are harmed in the production of sugar and its environmental impact is extremely small, especially when compared to livestock production. According to the Sugar Association, ďPure and simple, sugar is as perfect as it gets.
    ... I mean, if you can't trust the Sugar Association....

    Studies also show that the higher a personís sugar intake, the lower their calorie intake, and thus, there is less chance of being overweight. This observation makes a lot of sense.
    I'm actually boggling here.

    Fat is almost effortlessly stored, and fat provides little appetite satisfaction. Thus, replacing fat in the diet with sugar will usually halt weight gain and cause weight loss.
    I suppose that's literally true, if you replace all your fats with sugar, and thus are dead.

    Uncontrollable cravings are caused by the Western dietís deficiency of healthy sugars. People chew through platefuls of sugar (carbohydrate)-free beef, pork, chicken, shellfish, fish, and cheese without becoming satisfied.
    I think this might actually be the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet. FTW!!!

    That's all from one newsletter, the first thing I clicked on. Srsly, this is so messed up, I don't know how to react.

  6. #6
    chronyx's Avatar
    chronyx is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    802
    That's a special kind of stupid.

  7. #7
    highaerials36's Avatar
    highaerials36 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by bUMbLeB View Post
    Damn you Mark Sisson, you almost had me fooled! Now THIS is some science I can get behind:



    ... I mean, if you can't trust the Sugar Association....



    I'm actually boggling here.



    I suppose that's literally true, if you replace all your fats with sugar, and thus are dead.



    I think this might actually be the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet. FTW!!!

    That's all from one newsletter, the first thing I clicked on. Srsly, this is so messed up, I don't know how to react.
    Ya know, I can eat endlessly on all kinds of proteins, cheeses, and carbs. The body is probably looking for carbs on the SAD, so of course carb-eaters can plow through everything else. Once you go primal (as I am starting to do again), you can eat less and be satisfied on less.

    By the way, as I am still sort of new to all of this...do calories really measure how much weight you'll lose/gain, or is that a factor in it all (once you're primal, I mean)?

  8. #8
    Hilary's Avatar
    Hilary is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,254
    Fat is almost effortlessly stored, and fat provides little appetite satisfaction. Thus, replacing fat in the diet with sugar will usually halt weight gain and cause weight loss.
    I suppose that's literally true, if you replace all your fats with sugar, and thus are dead.
    Good point you have there. Also, there are the ensuing economic benefits from reduced postmortem healthcare costs.

  9. #9
    bUMbLeB's Avatar
    bUMbLeB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by highaerials36 View Post
    Ya know, I can eat endlessly on all kinds of proteins, cheeses, and carbs. The body is probably looking for carbs on the SAD, so of course carb-eaters can plow through everything else. Once you go primal (as I am starting to do again), you can eat less and be satisfied on less.

    By the way, as I am still sort of new to all of this...do calories really measure how much weight you'll lose/gain, or is that a factor in it all (once you're primal, I mean)?
    You make a good point I'd failed to consider - I guess if all you eat is sugar & starch, real food just doesn't scratch the same itch. The only thing I can imagine plowing through is carbs & sugars, and I did. Now I have to make sure I eat enough. And this guy is promoting refined sugar as a weight loss supplement!

    About the calories, I'm the wrong guy to ask - I've read both sides of the Great Debate here in the forums; my own miserable guess is that yes, they matter at a basic level because of physics, but they're not the only factor, or the biggest culprit. I can't say from my own experience, since for me ditching the sugar and grains made me eat less calories.

  10. #10
    dsberger's Avatar
    dsberger is offline Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    53
    PrimalCon New York
    Quote Originally Posted by bUMbLeB View Post
    I think this might actually be the most wrong anyone has ever been on the internet.
    True as this statement is, to let it keep you from sleeping would be quite un-Primal.


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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