Why does Danny Roddy recommend sugar to reduce stress/estrogen? page 51

[joe2.0]

Also, @neckhammer @paleobird,

For all intensive purposes we are in a debate.

You know what you don't do when you're debating someone? Hand them a stack of papers to read that proves YOUR point.

Being unable to verbalize what you're talking about and consistently resorting to quoting and linking to other people wouldn't be so bad if you guys weren't so hard edged on your claims.
PCCV,

I wouldn't make any suggestions to you if everything was great. I'm not interested in getting everyone to eat like me.

I don't know why people here are tolerating this jackass. Every view and word here that he has put out is based on someone else's words and work. Were he a scientist or actual researcher, those kind of slams against others might hold up, but he's not. He's just riding his latest health bandwagon following his latest guru.

Awesome story Paleobird--congratulations to you and also to your father for his success.

[dannyroddy]

I don't think I just think that you are mis-informed by someone who is taking some legitimate points to an unhealthy extreme.

Still waiting for you to explain how running on fat isn't stressful.

Remember when you told me you were familiar with the stress hormones I mentioned?

[Paleobird]

I am going to repost what I posted a few days ago. Hopefully one of you who is mostly anti sugar will acknowledge what I say.

There is evidence that shows that fructose is a developing embryos primary source of fuel. If that is true then how can fructose be bad for us?

Also Robert Lustig, the guy from "Sugar the bitter truth" is basing his evidence that sucrose is the problem off of research that is on people eating pop-tarts, ding-dongs, and other junk. How the hell can you base your research on that? that is horrible research. They should be looking at the unsaturated fats aka PUFAs oils that those foods are loaded with and not to mention the tons of other bad ingredients like gmos, colorings, dyes, and other junk.

Also, glucose is the fuel. Ketosis is a catabolic response to not having enough liver glycogen. Does that mean if you don't eat sugar you will die? Probably not, but someone has to be right about REAL PHYSIOLOGY. Everyone can not be right. There has to be one way that the human body works officially, then other adaptations are next.

What we live on as embryos is irrelevant. What we live on as infants (lots of milk) is also irrelevant. Those are heavy growth stages. You can keep eating like an embryo or an infant when you are an adult, and you will keep growing, sideways.

The human body is a wonderfully adaptable thing. It's like a hybrid engine capable of running on either sugar or fat. It does both, not one or the other exclusively.

We all agree that PUFAs and other fake ingredients are bad, bad, bad. Getting rid of them is one of the central messages of Primal.
But that doesn't mean sugar can act totally blameless like a kid saying, "the PUFA's did it, not me". Lustig did most of his research before stuff like ding dongs and pop tarts were invented. I don't think your argument holds up.

[cfrizzle88]

I don't know why people here are tolerating this jackass. Every view and word here that he has put out is based on someone else's words and work. Were he a scientist or actual researcher, those kind of slams against others might hold up, but he's not. He's just riding his latest health bandwagon following his latest guru.

Awesome story Paleobird--congratulations to you and also to your father for his success.

Every view from the other side of the argument has been "based on someone else's work"

Did everyone in the primal realm do their own independent research? All I have seen are opinions and links to "other people's work"

[joe2.0]

Every view from the other side of the argument has been "based on someone else's work"Did everyone in the primal realm do their own independent research? All I have seen are opinions and links to "other people's work"

Exactly-but they are not the one's calling out others for linking or quoting others either.

[cfrizzle88]

Exactly-but they are not the one's calling out others for linking or quoting others either.

Danny is explaining things in his own words using research he has done about this subject. He is not copying and pasting or posting links. The flip side of the argument has lacked to articulate anything (aside from opinion) and are posting links. Big difference.

[Paleobird]

What is the "extreme" part of Peat's research and ideas on human physiology and nutrition?
Please articulate how they are unhealthy as well.

He advocates pure table sugar and sodas. Do I really have to explain to you why that is extreme and unhealthy?

I don't know why people here are tolerating this jackass. Every view and word here that he has put out is based on someone else's words and work. Were he a scientist or actual researcher, those kind of slams against others might hold up, but he's not. He's just riding his latest health bandwagon following his latest guru.

Awesome story Paleobird--congratulations to you and also to your father for his success.

Thanks, Joe. Trying to be polite and open minded I guess, but it is getting a little old.

Still waiting for you to explain how running on fat isn't stressful.
Remember when you told me you were familiar with the stress hormones I mentioned?

Still haven't read that link Neckhammer posted I see. Until you can be bothered to check it out, this exchange is pretty pointless.

[cfrizzle88]

"Do I really have to explain to you why that is extreme and unhealthy?"

Yes, you do.


"Still haven't read that link Neckhammer posted I see. Until you can be bothered to check it out, this exchange is pretty pointless"

If it is so easy to understand and in plain sight, why don't you give us a breakdown of it in your own words.

[Hawkward]

"Do I really have to explain to you why that is extreme and unhealthy?"

Yes, you do.


"Still haven't read that link Neckhammer posted I see. Until you can be bothered to check it out, this exchange is pretty pointless"

If it is so easy to understand and in plain sight, why don't you give us a breakdown of it in your own words.

Why? It's easy enough to follow a link, so why should she bother rewording it and typing it all in? It wouldn't make it any more or less valid.

[cfrizzle88]

Why? It's easy enough to follow a link, so why should she bother rewording it and typing it all in? It wouldn't make it any more or less valid.

Here's why: "You know what you don't do when you're debating someone? Hand them a stack of papers to read that proves YOUR point."