Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 193

Thread: Help Shut my CICO Friend Up - THE GHEE CHALLENGE page 9

  1. #81
    Alan Aragon's Avatar
    Alan Aragon is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    22
    Primal Fuel
    Quote Originally Posted by RichMahogany View Post
    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?
    There's a huge difference between taking funding source into consideration versus dismissing research based on funding source. Language: it means things.
    Last edited by Alan Aragon; 07-02-2013 at 02:13 PM.

  2. #82
    jakejoh10's Avatar
    jakejoh10 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott F View Post
    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.
    I'm not going to let that sensationalist nonsense be posted without pointing out the fact that the claims in the video are overextended and have been debunked. For the record, I'm a manager for Pepsi, not Coke-a-Cola.
    My nutrition/fitness/critical thinking blog:

  3. #83
    RichMahogany's Avatar
    RichMahogany is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan Aragon View Post
    There's a huge difference between taking funding source into consideration versus dismissing research based on funding source. Language: it means things.
    Point is they're suspect to him based on who funded them. Maybe if he spent an entire weekend devouring the entire papers behind them, he'd have found the methodology convincing. Maybe not. But most people aren't honestly going to put that time in, so we rely on trusted sources to separate the wheat from the chaff. His point was that the companies that stand to profit from the results of the research were not on his list of trusted sources. Is that so hard to understand?

  4. #84
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,762
    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?
    lol... I'm glad you asked. I was about to ask the same thing. I mean I thought I understand what a strawman was in terms of logical fallacy, but have now idea how expanding the subject topic to include chronic toxicity would be one.

    Perhaps its not the exact vein of knowledge being pursued (if anyone actually knows what that is for certain), but that probably makes it some other cool word nobody heard of until a few years ago unless you were on your high school debate team.

    Anyhow.... please proceed.

    I still think she should kick him in the balls and drink the ghee

  5. #85
    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
    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.
    Do yourself a favor & review Scott's tone & language in this thread. Snarky would actually be a euphemistic way to put it. He's downright hostile (particularly to Jake). In contrast, my tone is matter-of-fact to him & 100% civil - and borderline gentle - with you. I'm not really sure why you're taking things the way you are. But, if you have no questions or contentions to raise, then our discussion is done.

  6. #86
    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
    Point is they're suspect to him based on who funded them. Maybe if he spent an entire weekend devouring the entire papers behind them, he'd have found the methodology convincing. Maybe not. But most people aren't honestly going to put that time in, so we rely on trusted sources to separate the wheat from the chaff. His point was that the companies that stand to profit from the results of the research were not on his list of trusted sources. Is that so hard to understand?
    The potential for commercial bias is still not sufficient grounds to completely dismiss research. Is that so hard to understand?

  7. #87
    PHaselow's Avatar
    PHaselow is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    725
    Oh, God. I would get the runs beyond belief.

    I'm curious to see what happens with your bowels. Nobody is that fat adapted in bolus amounts (my prediction).

    Go for it. And report back.

    Age 48
    Start date: 7-5-12
    5'3"
    121lbs
    GOAL: to live to be a healthy and active 100


    "In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties."
    Henri Frederic Amiel

  8. #88
    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
    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.
    wrong. I'm not the one cherrypicking. JJ is. He asked me to put up papers refuting his two listed papers. I posted a blanket Google Scholar for "fructose obesity" and "fructose metabolic syndrome". Could it be that is two papers has it right and all the rest are wrong? Sure. But I don't think anyone believes fructose is toxic in the acute, hence my posting the link Dr Richard Johnson's interview. MY belief (is that word good enough for you?) is that Johnson is closer to the truth, that our ancestors only ate fructose during a short window each year and that it appears fructose triggers a metabolic "switch" (Johnson's word) causing animals (not just humans) to put on fat for the coming winter lean months. Orangutans put on weight during times when fruit is abundant (http://cherylknott.files.wordpress.c...999-thesis.pdf), and bears fatten up on berries in anticipation of winter. Johnson believes its the same for humans and that the switch is intracellular uric acid affecting ATP energy production....fructose makes you want to sit on your ass (couch potato?), move less, and eat more. Is he wrong? He might be but I'm not a researcher and his argument make sense, to me (is that qualification enough for you?), from an evolutionary POV.

    So from Dr Johnson's fructose argument what's changed? Now fructose is available 24/7 and the consumption is no longer seasonally acute but is consumed daily by most people; do our bodies think, all the time, it's that seasonal time of year to put on fat? Is year round chronic consumption of fructose producing the triglycerides and VLDL...and insulin resistance causing Metabolic Syndrome due to the chronic consumption of fructose? IOW causing all those symptoms that Lustig talks about? You're the nutritionist, what do you think?
    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?

  9. #89
    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
    There's a huge difference between taking funding source into consideration versus dismissing research based on funding source. Language: it means things.
    I dismissed because I had this argument from JJ before (I'm pretty sure it was him) and he used the same paper which studied the acute affects (as per Lalonde) when what everyone (I think everyone) is interested in is the chronic use of fructose.
    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?

  10. #90
    Scott F's Avatar
    Scott F is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    930
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by jakejoh10 View Post
    I'm not going to let that sensationalist nonsense be posted without pointing out the fact that the claims in the video are overextended and have been debunked. For the record, I'm a manager for Pepsi, not Coke-a-Cola.
    Why am I not surprised? But you don't have a bias....just like I may not have a bias about horizontally fracking oil/gas wells?
    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?

Page 9 of 20 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •