tim12

Bobbi, I don't think you know what a controlled study is. I'm just trying to bring awareness to the fact. I understand you do not understand; that is fine.

tim, can you please stop being rude and disrespectful?

Funny you think that was rude, considering that's essentially the same way you've been refuting opposing points.

Bobbi, I don't think you know what a controlled study is. I'm just trying to bring awareness to the fact. I understand you do not understand; that is fine.

that study is good, good results, however the main crux of it is that carbs and fat arent meant to go together, well of course....we have known that for a long time now.  im not saying im right youre wrong, i am just summing it up, over simplifying things...yes.  a long term diet high in fat however would do poorly, you cant say that a 24 week study would last for a life time...that is repulsive.  instead you pit that evidence or lack there of, not even to the point...yes if you do a high carb diet make sure its low fat....if you do a high fat diet make sure its low carb.  on a cellular process this is easily understood in bio 101, maybe 201 at other unis.

fat is a cells surrogate energy source for carbs



a real life example

No, you made a broad sweeping claim that fats and carbs do not go together, which would include coconut oil. Since you weren't specific in which types of fats you were referring to, that was a reasonable conclusion.

Since you missed the point last time,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

At this point, it seems you're going to keep ignoring various points, while stroking your self righteous "qualifications," so it doesn't seem there's any substantive debate to be had.

n = 1 /=/ n = all.

Also, Kitavans eat high fat high carb. It's a population study that seems to contradict many of the points you've been mentioning previously. That's why I find it irresponsible to say any one diet is the only way to go for absolutely everyone. I think starting with real foods and making some individual considerations (how much/how hard you exercise, food intolerances, personal beliefs, etc) would suit everyone. And again, as you mentioned but seem to neglect yourself, there are other factors that are pretty important in the role of health in disease, such as sleep, stress, and exercise.

http://www.staffanli...itavaStudy.html

So because they say so, "cream of the crop," they're right?

http://en.wikipedia...._from_authority

Nice job not refuting other points and just boiling it down to "nope, you're wrong, I'm right."

Here's one example of a diet, similar to the simple basic fact that there are populations with high meat and fat intake with good health/longevity, which simply should not be if meat/fats were the main problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22673594

Yes, there are bad studies. You'd do well to pay this website a visit to understand why you can't jump to the conclusions you're jumping to.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/research-variables.html


And like Gothic said, some people really are better adapted to different foods. For example, European populations digest lactose better than others. If you're going to say X diet is better than Y, then you need to find a controlled, randomized trial, where particpants are engaged in all the same lifestyle factors, and the only difference would be meat or no meat. We're probably never going to see a study like that, for a number of reasons (you can't really get everyone to sleep the same amount, exercise the same amount, skewed self observation, etc). Anecdotal evidence and testimonials don't mean much in the realm of science. Clearly, there are populations who thrive on a variety of diets, and your own biomarkers of health are the best indicator for what works for you.

No, plant proteins are actually harder to digest. The conversion of ALA to EPA and DHA in humans is a rather inefficient. Also, we aren't pigs, so we can't assume their digestion/metabolism = ours.

We're all trying to "bring awareness," but you need to have the right kind of science backing your claims.

its way more simple than that...yes.   one of the top nations in the world and we are one of the most disease stricken...dr. furhman, dr. esselstyn, dr. campbell, dr. mcdougall, dr. doug graham, plus many more...vegetarian societies/vegan societies....many top TOP professionals of world renowned clinics and research ONE facilities...all i try to do is bring about awareness, yes some people look past sleeping habits and things of that nature, which i agree, the system is another problem...you have tweak your life just right to live healthy in the system...sleep is very important, good topic to discuss.  it isnt just rats, lol....wow....research starts in this realm, then goes hand in hand with real people Dr. Esselstyn go read about this mans practices and background.

No, it really isn't as simple as vegan = healthy, meat = sick. Not sure where you're going with the top nations thing, as I think we all agree that the SAD of refined carbs + excess sugar is bad. And that brings back my point from earlier, how are you going to say it's the meat causing the disease? I'm already familiar with the China Study and similar proponents, but think about all the other food they advise cutting out (hint; it's practically the same as many diets here such as paleo). In their human studies, they're exercising, meditating, cutting out industrial foods, sleeping better, etc. There isn't an isolation of meat as a factor to put the blame on it, in other words. Again, if it were the main factor, then there could not be populations with high fat/meat intake that have low rates of disease.

The whole teeth/claw/raw meat arguement really falls apart when you consider the fact that we have been cooking with fire and hunting with weapons for a long time. We don't have the same evolutionary pressures as other predatory animals like lions do because of fire/tools.

FWIW, I think different people can thrive on different diets, and other lifestyle factors are often neglected when it comes to their role in disease (sleep,exercise,stress,etc.)

I think the data says that people can be healthy on a variety of diets. The problem with epidemiological conclusions is that they are only observed correlations; they are not guaranteed causative factors. If the China study, along with various epidemiological conclusions were correct, then there wouldn't be populations with high fat/animal proteins making up a majority of their diets with low rates of heart disease, vibrant elders, and things associated with healthy aging.

Maybe if it was one or two populations you could rack it up to genetics and run controlled trials, but the fact is there are epidemiological, controlled, and mechanistic studies that indicate contrary findings to the often cited China Study, Forks Over Knives, 30 BAD, and things of that nature.

Let's also be aware of the fact that many vegan/vegetarian authorities also advocate meditation, exercise, healthy sleep, socialization, reducing sugar and some universally agreed bad fats, cutting out fast foods, and promote many of the other qualities in healthy populations - populations who have very different diets, but are all relatively healthy. Many of these population traits also happen to be strong factors in the variety of diseases the veg authorities mainly attribute to meat.

You see the problem with epidemiological studies? How can you say it was 1 factor, when there are a variety of factors different between the sick populations and the healthy ones, and there happens to be many healthy populations who eat meat? You can't; you need multiple well designed studies with controls demonstrating similar findings.


On topic,

I love making fruit smoothies with full fat coconut milk. Especially pineapples or wild blueberries!

???

Avocados are fruit. They are also delicious and great for you.

Cranberries are also extremely low in sugar, and have other health benefits.

That said, fruit are unnecessary as long as you are getting your essential nutrients from other sources.

avocados and fructose?

OP asked about sugar, and avocados are really high in various nutrients, have good fats, and a small amount of carbs. Carbs = sugar = relevant to OP's question!

Also OP, I wouldn't worry too much about fruit here and there unless you have some metabolic issues you're trying to correct by limiting sugar intake. The soluble fiber could be helpful for your gut flora as well. Sleeping good and exercising are other important factors in various metabolic processes, and especially insulin. Be mindful that although fruits do contain sugars, they come along a variety of nutrients. You could also have them with some fat to slow the absorption. For example, I like to have a smoothie of full fat coconut milk with blueberries and a banana.

Creepy alien video makes for shitty sleep

Bartek, You should change the title of your topic now I'm glad that things are still going well for you!

They eat more nutrient dense foods in place of the empty calories that make up the typical diet.
[...]
And any 'average' reader who isn't capable of critical thinking needs to learn how.

If the average reader is capable of critical thinking, then why according to you, is the "typical" diet lacking in nutrients? It's not like well balanced nutrition hasn't been proselytized in TV, newspapers, and magazines for decades now.

I argue that the average person either cannot, or refuses to understand why the body needs good nutrition, and so... keeping it simple is the best way to keep people interested in making a positive lifestyle change. If they are truly motivated to become ultra healthy, they will do all the research on their own as you have.

Yes it is pretty awful, but I still feel much happier with clear skin and no trumpet. I ended up learning guitar and sax =P I knew going into accutane that anything could happen. But my acne was hurting my life so much I was willing to risk everything to see it go away. It's all a matter of compromises and balancing risk vs reward. If you go into it with the right mindset, your decisions won't turn you into to a victim, and you can adapt to new situations as they come.

Per the logic you've displayed thus far, you are either contradicting yourself, or you have a genuine bias against people who are using the same exacty logic going into diet/lifestyle changes, namely believing that giving up whatever they need to is worth the clear skin.

The average person will come here and often leave in frustration. You, however, make it difficult for the people who want to stay and try and understand nutrition. As for veteran members here who have contributed to this board, good on them for doing that, they're making it easier for people who care about their health to go in the proper direction.

And yes, it makes the Glycemic Index largely irrelevant. But it's not totally useless.

Then why were you guys tearing apart the video just because he didn't cite sources? My original point was that sources (studies) are largely meaningless because they can be contradicted by other studies, which are then "proven" wrong by other studies and so on and so forth. It's just not helpful to the average consumer.

You've successfully averted the points of biased cultural normalcy and moderation (as well as the fact that there is a growing body of people who are not "healthy" even by "normal" standards), as well as the fact that studies are not meaningless if they are designed properly (with a control group, significant particpants, isolation of factors, no conflict of interest in funding, etc). I also said that I basically agree with the video, with some minor exceptions due to hyperbolic examples used as refutation of healthy dietary choices, and neglecting to acknowledge that there are a significant amount of people with metabolic problems, such as insulin resistance, where eating a bag of sugar could kill them.

1. No fighting: personal attacks and bickering are not allowed. Healthy disagreement is welcomed, but do not flame ideas or another person.

More than half of this post is a personal attack against me, thus I have reported it. Just ignore my opinions if you don't agree with them.

Not even half, the majority of the post was just on your logic. The last bit was to point out things that you have said in this thread that contradict your victimization, as well as highlighting the hypocritical double-standard that seems to be your modus operandi.

I'm sure a moderator will see the difference between critiquing you as a member in terms of adhering to the rules, and the way you've rudely conducted yourself towards members here in particular. This board isn't about ignoring each other, as you quoted, we can have healthy disagreements. As such, my post was critique of your logic, and pointing out that you've been trolling for quite some time. I thought at one point your posts were helpful for challenging the beliefs and data with counterpoints, so that sources were doubly checked to be founded in solid ground, but they've gotten worse and worse with the name calling, and overall repeatativeness of how much we're all "worried quasi-nutritionists," to slightly paraphrase.

Taking a moment to address the actual video and OP,

I think we're mostly in agreement. the GI is not as significant as the GL, or overall impact on blood sugar. Where I disagree with the video guy is his hyperbolic examples to refute a healthy choice between foods & meals, like a pop-tart and an apple vs a pop-tart and 5000 apples. It'd be better to say context is key, which I think we all agree on - and he largely ignores this factor. In a healthy individual, where there is no insulin resistance, there won't be as much of an issue for moderate consumption. In someone a metabolically deranged individual, that isn't such a good idea. His observation of the limited usefulness of the GI is pretty on point though.

In regards to epidiology, it's great for looking at potential relationships and raising more questions, but not really drawing conclusions. You've heard it before, "correlation does not equal causation."Unfortunately, that's what the majority of epidimiology is - observations. In addition to this, there is no isolation of factors. As you said, stress can impede health, as can lack of sleep, exercise, proper socialization, and a number of factors. So can we really take observational studies as causative evidence for one thing, in this case carbs, when there are other factors not isolated? What if the study group was also encouraged to exercise? What about the bias that the researchers have, which has a positive affect on the study group & between researchers, which then encourages participants to keep pursuing health through various methods beyond what is being studied? It's the same hoo-hah that got dietary fats of all kinds bad names.

Again, on the subjects of contradictions in studies, there are no paradoxes and contradictions when it comes to science, at all. There is only a misunderstanding of what is actually happening due to a human limiation. The differences in food can be explained by individual biology, namely allergies and intolerances. An entire macronutrient such as fat seemingly causing heart disease, according to some scientists (usually epidimiologists), when there are clearly populations thriving on high fat diets, as well as data supporting this, in addition to the fact that there are people following these low fat diets dying of heart attacks, and many other things obviously highlight the problem with the scientists, not what is going on at a metabolic level. Then there are more gray area things, like intolerances, but most things tend to be a bell curve when it comes to those sorts of things.



Onto the issue of moderation, variance, and perspective.

Exactly what I stated in my original post. Moderation is key.

Use common sense, and use moderation with regards to diet. Then, you can stop worrying about it and continue on with your life.

Moderation means don't eat too much of any one thing, eat moderate proportions, and if your body has a bad reaction to something, use your common sense and stop eating it. If you don't know what is causing the bad reaction, get tested. All other rules are irrelevant to the topic of acne. Certain diets and their impact on overall health can be debated back and forth with countless contradictory studies till the cows come home. It's not useful and can be incredibly misleading to the average reader.

If you notice one thing about the "I got clear through diet!" threads, it's that they all eat different things to achieve the same result. Give me a study that explains that phenomenon.

You're right, there are many different dietary approaches to clear skin, perhaps the one underlying thing is that they are a diet of real, nutrient dense foods. Ultimately, acne is an inflammatory response to p-acne bacteria that is present on everyone's skin, but only a small population actually have immune responses to it. We know that things like sleep, diet, lifestyle, and things of that nature can directly affect the immune system, and the body in general. That's the whole shebang of this section, and much of the new emerging science on things such as neutrogenomics, psychoneuroimmunology, neutraceuticals, biofeedback, stress reduction, dietary intervention, and things like that.

Oh, and once again, you're assuming that people who study nutrition are overly worried about their health. Definitely not the case for everyone. I'm certainly aware of my health, but by eating and living healthy from my perspective based on the science that I've looked at, I'm happy. I also eat foods that may not be the healthiest thing in the world now and then, and I enjoy it.

Words like "healthy" and "moderation" are thrown around as if they are objective, defined terms, but they aren't. Sure, there's data supporting one thing over another, and we have a good understanding of things like excess sugar and insulin resistance, but what about all the other stuff? There's constantly new studies and articles that show there is an increasing prevalance of disease. Lifestyle diseases. Clearly, the concept of moderation is poorly implemented by most individuals. And then there is the issue of "healthy." Doctors used to say that smoking was healthy, something that in retrospect is ridiculous, but consider that the same basic fallacy that made people buy into their doc's reccomendations, the appeal to authority fallacy, is the same one you're engaging in with your credentialist, constant ad-homenim, inflammatory, trolling posts.

I did nothing but state my opinion. You all came in here and attacked me.

Yet another reason why I laugh at people who cite study after study about nutrition as if it's gospel.

Let me break it down for those of you who can't understand.

I think you people are just unable to accept anything that dosen't come out of your own mouths.

"You people." Really?

So? It's my honest opinion. I find it laughable when quasi-nutriton "experts" come in here citing studies and expect the average person to blindly follow it, even though they most likely have no idea what the hell it all means.

You know all those accutane users sufferering from life-changing side effects?

If you don't like my message then just ignore it.

Yes, the accutane thread where you trolled and mocked them, calling people hypochondriacs.

I did nothing but state my opinion. You all came in here and attacked me.

Yeah, we all came in here and attacked you. Keep in mind that these quotes are just from this thread.

Your posts are just dripping with fallacious underpinnings to them. More than once, and in different parts of this forum, you've constantly brought up flawed thought experiments and hypothetical scenarios where you've told us to ignore the data, that way we have a skewed scenario where you're right, and science doesn't have any standing. The fact is, your posts are adding up to equal troll.

This victimization thing you have going on here has no basis at all. You've gone into numerous threads that had something to do with nutrition where you've engaged in the same inflamatory fashion, yet you call it an attack when someone like me calls you out on it? Do you realize how contradictory that is?

And no, I won't just ignore it, for multiple reasons. You're contributing to the overall degradation of the forum, as well as making it more difficult for people looking into nutrition and lifestyle changes. Secondly, you agreed to the terms of agreement when you signed up to this forum, so lose the inflammatory troll component to your posts, or don't post at all if you can't abide by the board rules.

1. No fighting: personal attacks and bickering are not allowed. Healthy disagreement is welcomed, but do not flame ideas or another person.

Yet another reason why I laugh at people who cite study after study about nutrition as if it's gospel. There is always a counter-study stating the complete opposite.

Eat what you want and eat it in moderation. Use the time you wasted on worrying about nutrition and live your f-ing life. Be happy.

To be fair, there's a difference between citing something based on mechanistic biology, nutrition, and science vs. religion - there's an expected level of integrity built in through the scientific method. You're absolutely right though; there are conflicting studies all the time. That's why you consider things like design models. When it comes to conflicting studies, keep in mind that when it comes to science, there are no paradoxes, only a breakdown of our understanding as to what is actually happening.

Also, there are happy and unhappy people who eat unhealthy, and those who don't. A lot of your posts seem to insinuate that people following a lifestyle that isn't "normal" are not happy. I'm sure no one here is interested in being part of the statistical & cultural normal - which so happens to be a growing population of lifestyle diseases.

I think it's great to debate the science in a healthy fashion so that it becomes better understood and more understood over time. It's extremely counter-productive, however, to engage in ad-homenim and character attacks, something that goes on a lot here from both sides. More often than not however, it's usually an attack on people who consider nutrition from "normal" people.

Most people don't read studies and freak out about what science says in regards to health. Who knows why, that's more of a cultural problem , and it shouldn't hold any relevancy when it comes to issues of diet and lifestyle (see growing amount of sick people despite our understanding of lifestyle diseases. They're certainly stressing, but when have you heard a sick person freaking out about a study on omega 3s?)

Frankly, I couldn't care less about any sort of normalcy when it comes to how I shape my life. It's n=1, and the contributing members of this forum want to best equip anyone who wants to implement these kinds of changes. If you disagree, that's fine, and we can debate the science, but there are members who go into thread after thread throwing essentially petty arguments paralleling an us vs them mentality, name calling, bickering, and many other things that does not help anyone.