It's Opposite Day (totally surreal) page

[mdlaw]

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.

[mdlaw]

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.

[Jefferson]

"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.

[Hilary]

Thank you for that trip to Bizarroville!

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

[bUMbLeB]

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, “Pure 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 person’s 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 diet’s 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.

[chronyx]

That's a special kind of stupid.

[highaerials36]

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)?

[Hilary]

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.

[bUMbLeB]

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.

[dsberger]

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.