Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 193

Thread: Help Shut my CICO Friend Up - THE GHEE CHALLENGE page 8

  1. #71
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Shop Now
    Whoa, it's Alan Aragon.

  2. #72
    Alan Aragon's Avatar
    Alan Aragon is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Is acute vs. chronic toxicity as it relates to sugar in general and/or fructose specifically a straw man?
    You are straying away from the line of discussion I created with Scott. He rebutted Jake's post on the premise that data can be dismissed based on funding source: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1240857

    I called this bias to his attention, and he thereafter responded with irrelevant points.

  3. #73
    Gorbag's Avatar
    Gorbag is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    3,877
    Whether a food or food-product is “toxic”, acute or chronic, is contextual and depend on doses and circumstances. Pure water can be "toxic" under the right or should I rather say wrong circumstances…

  4. #74
    Wildrose's Avatar
    Wildrose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Calgary Alberta
    Posts
    1,104
    Some extremely successful trolling going on on this thread.

  5. #75
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
    You are straying away from the line of discussion I created with Scott. He rebutted Jake's post on the premise that data can be dismissed based on funding source: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1240857
    Well, can't data be considered less powerful if only those studies that "prove" what certain funding sources intend to prove ever get published? Not saying this is the case here, but it certainly might be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
    I called this bias to his attention, and he thereafter responded with irrelevant points.
    Personally, I read him as saying that despite the fact that there's a lot of research to comb through, what hasn't been looked at sufficiently to draw conclusions is the long-term effects of sugar, generally and fructose, specifically. Which I agreed with and posted the Peter Attia link to support.

    Let's skip a debate on Scott F's rhetorical skills and return to the subject matter, shall we?

  6. #76
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
    You are straying away from the line of discussion I created with Scott. He rebutted Jake's post on the premise that data can be dismissed based on funding source: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1240857

    I called this bias to his attention, and he thereafter responded with irrelevant points.
    wrong. I hold bias-industry funded research to a higher standard. Let me give you a different example: I'm in the oil business. There is a big debate as to whether horizontal fracking is damaging fresh water wells. The oil industry has its research claiming that there is no evidence of fracking damaging water wells. Do you think their research should be held to a higher standard and be suspect?
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  7. #77
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Well, can't data be considered less powerful if only those studies that "prove" what certain funding sources intend to prove ever get published? Not saying this is the case here, but it certainly might be.



    Personally, I read him as saying that despite the fact that there's a lot of research to comb through, what hasn't been looked at sufficiently to draw conclusions is the long-term effects of sugar, generally and fructose, specifically. Which I agreed with and posted the Peter Attia link to support.

    Let's skip a debate on Scott F's rhetorical skills and return to the subject matter, shall we?
    Yeah, I'm the first to admit my writing skills aren't the best. I'm much better in person and am much better at math than English. I think JJ started this with me once before and posted that acute research paper funded by DANISCO in that former debate. What interesting is how this got to where is it. I posted a simply drive-by post and JJ jumps on it as if he a manager for Coke-a-Cola.
    Would I be putting a grain-feed cow on a fad diet if I took it out of the feedlot and put it on pasture eating the grass nature intended?

  8. #78
    Alan Aragon's Avatar
    Alan Aragon is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    wrong. I hold bias-industry funded research to a higher standard. Let me give you a different example: I'm in the oil business. There is a big debate as to whether horizontal fracking is damaging fresh water wells. The oil industry has its research claiming that there is no evidence of fracking damaging water wells. Do you think their research should be held to a higher standard and be suspect?
    There's not much to discuss here. I pointed out your bias, & you are basically ignoring that. You're willing to cherrypick your agreements or disagreements with data based on the sponsor. This is the lazy/biased/unscientific route, as opposed to judging research on the basis of its methodology. Should funding source be taken into consideration? Yes. But is it grounds for complete dismissal (as you've done here in this thread)? No. My advice to you is to do more listening and less preaching on this topic.
    Last edited by Alan Aragon; 07-02-2013 at 02:26 PM.

  9. #79
    Alan Aragon's Avatar
    Alan Aragon is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    Well, can't data be considered less powerful if only those studies that "prove" what certain funding sources intend to prove ever get published? Not saying this is the case here, but it certainly might be.



    Personally, I read him as saying that despite the fact that there's a lot of research to comb through, what hasn't been looked at sufficiently to draw conclusions is the long-term effects of sugar, generally and fructose, specifically. Which I agreed with and posted the Peter Attia link to support.

    Let's skip a debate on Scott F's rhetorical skills and return to the subject matter, shall we?
    If you want to open up a completely new discussion, then that's fine. We can start from scratch, just let me know what your questions or points of contention are, & we can pick it up from there.

  10. #80
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
    There's not much to discuss here to discuss here. I pointed out you're bias, & you are basically ignoring that. You're willing to cherrypick your agreements or disagreements with data based on the sponsor. This is the lazy/biased/unscientific route, as opposed to judging research on the basis of its methodology. Should funding source be taken into consideration? Yes. But is it grounds for complete dismissal (as you've done here in this thread)? No. My advice to you is to do more listening and less preaching on this topic.
    So funding should be taken into consideration but Scott F is biased because he takes it into consideration? And what happened to getting back on topic?

    edited: I don't have any questions or points of contention. I posted the Peter Attia link because I think that's the best summary of the state of our collective knowledge on the subject. If there's something I'm missing, please point me to it. But not with the snarky type of remarks you've directed at Scott F. Is that really what you registered here for today? Disappointing.
    Last edited by RichMahogany; 07-02-2013 at 02:01 PM.

Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... 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
  •