Skeptic Project

So not anymore? Never again, Ed?

I think I'd much rather know why talking about something not mainstream is a conspiracy theory

Take a look at your first post, especially how you phrased things. Doesn't that sound familiar to you? As I said, if this stuff is indeed such "bullshit" and people like Taubes and films like FatHead have somehow blown the lid off this myth, why is it the worlds scientists still don't get it?

Oh sure you'll find a few here and there, but that's the same for truthers and the same for raw foodists. The point is that the mainstream view and the foremost scientific institutions are either incompetent or they are in on some kind of conspiracy to suppress something that can easily be understood by non-experts on a internet forum or by watching a film like FatHead. Now, read that back and imagine I'm talking instead about truthers, raw foodists, chem trails, anti-vaxx etc. What is the real difference between what you're saying and what they say? They say its not a conspiracy theory to question the mainstream view. Not necessarily, that is true. Its just invariably 95% of the time when someone tells you that it comes down to this. Either the worlds scientists are incompetent, stupid or there's a conspiracy. You can't really have it any other way. What is the reason they don't agree with people like Taubes? What is the reason they aren't taken seriously?

I'm glad though you now agree you were completely wrong in the anti-legalization thread and the pro-fast food thread.

Oh no, I was right in the pro-fast food thread. You should read a little closer.

Im sorry Matt I didn't know Rox just wanted everyone to suck his cock.

So Ed? Not anymore? Never smoking it again?

From the perspective of someone who's never have had a sip of alcohol, I'd say you're all alcoholics to me.

That wasn't proverbial, you said Rox was a male. Rox is Edward's daughter.

Why is it every time you post here all you do is irritate people.

Do the world a favor and go eat some sprouts with organic e-coli Ed.

This is what's so damn irritating about Ed. He was wrong about your gender, but he doesn't just say "oh, I was wrong." No, Ed is a legend in his own autistic mind and can never admit to being wrong. Instead he writes a long ass post trying to explain why its irrelevant that he's wrong. Its the same story in every damn thread he posts in for the most part.

Can't stand that self important douche bag and that's pretty much why. I wish he'd just stay over at JREF and leave this forum the fuck alone.

You don't get it Ed, I don't give a shit about what you have to say.

You have this fantastic way of just being an annoying know it all who just goes on and on about the same stupid shit. You literally shit stain every thread you get involved in.

It's not being disliking Ed, it's about him being that annoying kid in class who always tries to correct the teacher and remind her there was weekend homework on Friday afternoon.

^This. thank you anticultist.

HEY GUYS I GOTTA GO TO WORK AND IM NOT POSTING ANY MORE

Anyone else notice that Freedhof's problem isn't the theory or argument, but the way Taubes makes his case? Lets be honest, Taubes is writing a pop-science book and Freedhof doesn't like it. He isn't saying the underlying argument isn't promising or interesting; in fact he says it is in the first few paragraphs. Furthermore, he ends his review as such:

The question that bothered me most throughout the book wasn't about carbs or thermodynamics, but rather why has Taubes chosen to argue his points like he's a Grade 9 student writing a high school science project rather than a well respected, scientific journalist?

further bringing home the point that the fundamental argument is not the problem, but the arguments Taube makes to get at this point. Ed used this review as if it were some wonderful disassembly of the central claim; its not. The review is a review of the book andTaube's writing, not of the scientific argument that the conventional way in which we conceive of dietary health may be off-base. It was pretty stupid to use that review as if it somehow did away with the main claim when it is explicitly not such an endeavor. There is not a single, convincing scientific argument being made because Freedhof is not writing his review to do that. He's writing it to critique a book. Ed, get real, make your argument by actually using some real scientific data (its not that hard, go on Google scholar and poke around) rather than harvesting a blogspot book review.

Kaiser hit the nail on the head, really. The book reviewer even agrees with the basic premise of Taubes' book:

"I'm quite low-carb friendly and that I readily agree that science has proven that saturated fat has been wrongly demonized by the medical establishment"

"Furthermore, I also agree that carbohydrates, more specifically the refined highly processed ones, contribute dramatically to both obesity and chronic disease and their reduction may well have a role to play in most folks' weight management efforts, and that a myopic view of dietary fat as causal to chronic disease and obesity has likely in and of itself, by means of a consequent dietary shift to carbohydrates, contributed dramatically to the rise in the societal prevalence of chronic disease and obesity."

Whoa, sure sounds like he agrees with the low carb/high fat concept. So what is his beef with Taubes? Here's one complaint:

Sadly Taubes takes a strange road to walk in following up on those whys. Taubes rages against the calories-in/calorie-out hypothesis stating that one would be, "hard-pressed to find (a concept) more damaging". He states the calorie concept has done, "incalculable harm", that it has fueled the obesity as a function of sloth and lack of willpower that lays blame squarely on each obese person's ample shoulders.

I wholly disagree with him. It's not the concept that's done so much harm, it's the misuse of the concept, its oversimplification and its grossly unfair, individualized, blame-based application. The danger and the harm lies solely with the failure of society and medicine to ask why are people consuming so many more calories - a failure Taubes so rightly pointed out just a few pages prior.

He doesn't like that Taubes doesn't think there's a genetic component to weight gain or that peoples' bodies can be different. That one of his arguments. If you're going to post a rebuttal to Rox, at least find something that actually disagrees with her basic premise. Not to mention that this is just a fucking book review.

And btw, low carb/high fat diet isn't just EAT BACON. You eat other things, such as leafy greens. Cooked in butter. And it's great.

To get this back on track:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/my-raw-food-low-fat-vegan?xg_source=activity /> This is a link to the guy in the OP's before/after pic. He has since replaced his after photo to one where he's posing in terrible lighting and hiding his gut. You can still see his manboobies and acne though. He even admits his athletic performance is bad now, but justifies it in the name of "pure health."

I was thinking about the food pyramid, not the new one, but the one we're all used to seeing:

And I thought, hey let's fix it:

Much better! Yes, milk and cheese is on there twice!