Skeptic Project

Your #1 COINTELPRO cognitive infiltration source.

Page By Category

Forum - Eating right? What the hell is that? [ Conspiracy theory, Ed said so! ] - Page 4

Tags: who added all these stupid tags?, to do, Snob Goblin is a muncher of sorts, Ed is a huge floppy pussy, fast food nyom nyom, I FUCKIN LOVE CORN DOGS, food, health woo, chemical fallacy, fathead, protein, diets, proper eating, Ed has a problem with this post - surprise!, bring the ridiculous tags!, Anything that disagrees with Ed is a CT, Fuck not again, WE ARE OMNIVEROUS, low-carb, Gary Taubes, Every thread Ed touches turns to shit, hypothesis, OMG CHEEZBURGERS ARE AWESOME, STARCH IS FOR IRONING CLOTHES NOT FOOD :), STARCH IS ALSO A GLUE FOR PAPER PRODUCTS NOT FOOD :), Ed is an intellectual midget [ Add Tags ]

[ Return to Sites of interest | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 13:45
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

Ed let the aspies loose on the board.

#91 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 16:03
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

I told Rox I wouldn't muck up her thread anymore, so you can bring it to the rox has man boobs thread if you want, Eric.

#92 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 17:46
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

I love how opponents of the lipid hypothesis are being called conspiracy theorists and promoters of pseudoscience.

Since when the fuck is a hypothesis considered a fact? The lipid hypothesis is called the lipid hypothesis because it can't pass the fucking scientific method.

Come back when it becomes the lipid theory, until then stop promoting pseudoscience.

#93 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 18:20
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

Some more links to conspiracy websites:

Diets that are high in saturated fat do not necessarily lead to high blood cholesterol levels:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/120/11_Suppl/1433.full.pdf+html

Diets that are high in fat decrease the incidence of strokes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14525873</p>

Low fat diets do not decrease the risk of coronary heart disease:
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/1/18.full.pdf+html

Diets that are high in cholesterol actually reduce the risk of atherosclerosis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336</p>

High cholesterol helps you live longer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296318</p>

And low cholesterol means you die earlier:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8537587</p>

Low cholesterol is associated with heart failure:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12397569</p>

Scientists working in this area have a number of criticisms of the approach taken by the proponents of the lipid hypothesis:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8117583</p>

Scientists working in this area are starting to get angry that their research is being ignored:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12507667

#94 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
JimJesusPosted: Jun 23, 2011 - 19:38
(0)
 

Bacon Pancakes! Making Bacon Pancakes, take some Bacon and I'll put it in a Pancake! Bacon Pancakes that's what it's gonna make...Bacon Pancaaaaaake!! ♪

Level: 3

TL;DR

#95 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
The Real RoxettePosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 00:36
(0)
 

There ARE more sluts in public schools. Shut up and let me explain.

Level: 8
CS Original

Ed and domokato are going to poo themselves when they see you don't fully agree with them, Kepp. Great posts by the way.

#96 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
freeflyerPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 13:20
(0)
 

Level: 0

The Real Roxette I just sent the 2 page book review at conspiracysciene@gmail.com

#97 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 13:29
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original
#98 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 16:59
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

Being serious for a second. First thing I did was I tried to watch Fat Head, but the first few seconds annoyed me so much I had to turn it off, sorry.

Next thing I did was I looked at wikipedia. Here's what it says about saturated fat:

Although there is a scientific consensus in the mainstream heart-health, government and medical communities that saturated fat is a risk factor for CVD, individual studies produce conflicting results and notable authors have given opposing viewpoints.

And here's what it said about the lipid hypothesis:

An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis as scientific fact by the medical community;[2] however, a small but vocal minority contend that it has not yet been properly validated, and that vascular inflammatory mechanisms prevail independent of blood cholesterol levels.

It sounds like you are choosing to listen to the minority over the majority just because you have been exposed to more of the minority's viewpoints. You are not dietitians; so in lieu of expertise, I argue that it is more rational to trust the majority opinion here.

Link to two of skeptic magazines reviews of Gary Taubes book:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-01-05/#feature<br /> http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-05-04/#feature</p>

Anyone else notice that Freedhof's problem isn't the theory or argument, but the way Taubes makes his case?

There seems to be a similar tone in the above links.

The first one suspends belief either way (while accepting some things Taubes claims, seemingly at face value), while the second one is entirely critical, not just of his argumentation style, but of his conclusions as well.

EDIT:
20-Year Study Finds No Association Between Low-Carb Diets And Risk Of Coronary Heart Disease
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061109095850.htm</p>

Note these passages:

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor a typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to risk of CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat and protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," said Tom Halton, a former doctoral student in the Department of Nutrition at HSPH.
...
"This study doesn't mean that you should load your plate with steak and bacon," said Hu. "One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of CHD with low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products might be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of fat and carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet should embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates."

...which is a nice segue into whole grains vs processed carbs. The reason processed carbs are bad for you is because they are easier to digest. This has a three-fold impact on weight:

1. Quicker digestion means more energy + an insulin spike. Since your body cannot expend all the energy at once (unless you're being active), it will store it as fat.
2. Quicker digestion means you get hungry again faster.
3. Easier digestion means less energy used to digest it.

#3, apparently, is a big factor. A scientist was on NPR the other month explaining his experiment where he fed one group of mice regular feed, and he fed another group the same amount of feed but it had been puffed with air. The group that ate the puffed (i.e. processed) food became overweight. I can't remember if it was just a hypothesis or if it was also verified, but he thinks that the difference is because the puffed food was significantly easier to digest, thus less energy was used to digest it, thus more of that energy was stored/kept as fat. This is calories in/out at work, but notice that calories out in this case is not obvious. Your body expends calories in ways other than just exercise.

Whole grains are better for you because they take longer to digest, they use more energy to digest, and thus they give you a more even output of energy over time, meaning less chance of that energy being converted into fat.

I think the amount of carbs you should eat depends on how physically active you are, and that whole grains are probably a better choice. If you're not very active, don't eat as much. But since you should be exercising anyway (for reasons other than weight), you should probably be eating some.

I also wanted to respond to the argument I see on some blogs about how much evolutionary time we've spent eating whichever foods. Yes, we haven't been eating grains as long as we have been eating meats/fruits/veggies, but agriculture allowed for much higher population growth. More population means more variation, which means more potential for evolutionary change per generation. Plus, we don't know how long it takes to adapt to new food sources. It might be very quick in the first place! So this argument by itself is not convincing to me. It needs empirical support.

Also, have you noticed a lot of these low-carb blogs make appeals to "common sense"? That is not exactly the most rigorous way to form beliefs...

#99 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 17:17
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

tl;dr

#100 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 17:21
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

@Matt, np

#101 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 17:58
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

Being serious for a second. First thing I did was I tried to watch Fat Head, but the first few seconds annoyed me so much I had to turn it off, sorry.

That's where I stopped reading, but I did glance at your next paragraph.

Next thing I did was I looked at wikipedia. Here's what it says about saturated fat:

Although there is a scientific consensus in the mainstream heart-health, government and medical communities that saturated fat is a risk factor for CVD, individual studies produce conflicting results and notable authors have given opposing viewpoints.

Umm we know that, it's the whole point of this thread.

#102 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 18:14
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

@Kepp, so what is the criteria you use that makes you believe the dissenters over the consensus? And why in your opinion has the consensus not moved towards what you see as the truth?

I think there is far too much data out there for us non-experts to sift through. We can't just cite a few studies and make a decision. The scientific consensus is the only thing we can really go on. Leave the paradigm-shifting to the experts

#103 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 18:46
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

@Kepp, so what is the criteria you use that makes you believe the dissenters over the consensus?

I'll answer that by contrasting the lipid hypothesis to the theory of evolution.

I can't point to any peer review studies that contradict evolution, but I can and have posted peer review studies that contradict the lipid hypothesis. Evolution is supported by tremendous amounts of evidence. I have found the evidence for the lipid hypothesis extremely lacking unless of course you would like to share it with us?

And why in your opinion has the consensus not moved towards what you see as the truth?

Loaded question, you're just trying to be another Ed and label any opponent of the lipid hypothesis as a ct'er. So I'll take Matt's advice and tell you to go eat big dicks.

I think there is far too much data out there for us non-experts to sift through. We can't just cite a few studies and make a decision. The scientific consensus is the only thing we can really go on. Leave the paradigm-shifting to the experts

No one is trying for a paradigm-shift, it was a discussion about Fathead and the lipid hypothesis. It was for personal inquiry into diet. That is until people started getting annoying.

#104 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 18:53
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

@domokato
I'm not sure if anyone has made a decision, all it seems to me is that people here are willing to question the lipid hypothesis' validity, and to entertain the notion that another possibility may supercede it.

Also meaning that some of us including myself are quite content to eat whatever my body and mind desire in its own needed ammounts, as opposed to obeying a dietry dictate given from others.

#105 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:04
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

I can't point to any peer review studies that contradict evolution, but I can and have posted peer review studies that contradict the lipid hypothesis. Evolution is supported by tremendous amounts of evidence.

Evolution has some studies(/discoveries) that contradict it (IDers cite them all the time). It even has actual scientists dedicated to fighting it. So do other scientific theories (AGW, anyone?). What matters is that the vast majority of evidence supports those theories, which is why they are accepted.

I have found the evidence for the lipid hypothesis extremely lacking unless of course you would like to share it with us?

Wikipedia cites this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16585781</p>

And why in your opinion has the consensus not moved towards what you see as the truth?

Loaded question, you're just trying to be another Ed and label any opponent of the lipid hypothesis as a ct'er. So I'll take Matt's advice and tell you to go eat big dicks.

That's not what loaded question means. And no, I'm not trying to peg you as a CTer. I believe you stated earlier that you think "people make mistakes" or whatever, but that still doesn't explain why the consensus hasn't shifted. Scientists go where the evidence takes them. If they were proven wrong, the consensus would move.

And why is there so much animosity surrounding this issue, anyway? You guys seem too emotionally invested in all this.

Edit: and I will add, if the consensus moves, then I will be happy to change my opinion. But I am mostly concerned that you guys think you're more informed than the majority of scientists working in the field. If the consensus moves you can say you were right, but I'd still think you weren't informed enough at the time to justify what you believed.

#106 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:05
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

@anticultist, uh what?:

Did you know the lipid hypothesis, the idea that high cholesterol is caused by saturated fats and it causes heart disease is bullshit? That's correct, it is! The belief that eating right means eating whole grains and low amounts of eggs, meat, etc is completely wrong, in fact the opposite is true!

#107 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Agent MattPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:07
(0)
 

Genuine American Monster

Level: 70
CS Original

And why is there so much animosity surrounding this issue, anyway? You guys seem too emotionally invested in all this.

BECAUSE IM SICK OF U FUCKERS BADMOUTHING CHEESEBURGERS WHAT DID THEY EVER DO TO U

#108 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:14
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

@domokato exactly they are questioning the lipid hypothesis, and then calling it bullshit. And afterwards providing evidence why those claims are made.

If you dont want to check them out or watch fathead then why are you even talking ?

#109 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:22
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

Evolution has some studies(/discoveries) that contradict it (IDers cite them all the time). It even has actual scientists dedicated to fighting it.

I would be interested in those. Do they actually contradict evolution or do ID'er claim they do? Also ID'ers like Michael Behe don't deny common descent, instead they are trying to install a supernatural component to evolution.

That's not what loaded question means.

I know the meaning of loaded question, and I took it as one. If that wasn't your intention then I retract my accusation.

Wikipedia cites this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16585781</p>

That was a study on the drug Thematic. I don't have an opinion on cholesterol reducing drugs. If you can I would appreciate some evidence supporting the lipid hypothesis. I personally did search, but no luck. Maybe you can help me out?

And why is there so much animosity surrounding this issue, anyway? You guys seem too emotionally invested in all this.

It has nothing to do with the topic and everything to do with being accused of conspiracy shit.

#110 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:27
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

Where did everyone's critical thinking skills run off to??

@domokato exactly they are questioning the lipid hypothesis, and then calling it bullshit. And afterwards providing evidence why those claims are made.

Earlier you wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone has made a decision, all it seems to me is that people here are willing to question the lipid hypothesis' validity, and to entertain the notion that another possibility may supercede it.

Saying the lipid hypothesis is "bullshit" is not the same as merely "questioning" it. It is an assertion of fact. That, and saying that "the opposite is true" in regards to "eating right means eating whole grains and low amounts of eggs, meat, etc" - I would regard these as making a decision to believe something. You're saying that these straightforward statements of belief are not statements of belief?

If you dont want to check them out or watch fathead then why are you even talking ?

Are you kidding me? That's the same thing Peter said when I told him I didn't watch his stupid lectures. I don't have to watch a movie to know it's garbage just like you don't have to watch CTer's youtube videos to know they're garbage. I've at least been careful not to address any specific arguments he made in his movie (but that I read about in reviews) since I didn't actually watch it myself. This has moved beyond the movie anyway. We're talking about the science now.

#111 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:30
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

No its not domokato its the same as you choosing to ignore the oppositional information and stick with your own belief system.

I havent once said what I believe to be the truest information, reason being is I am no expert in the topic, you on the other hand seem to think you are some kind of knowledgable expert on a topic using your wikipedia links just like a zeitard would.

congrats

#112 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:32
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

That was a study on the drug Thematic. I don't have an opinion on cholesterol reducing drugs. If you can I would appreciate some evidence supporting the lipid hypothesis. I personally did search, but no luck. Maybe you can help me out?

Okay, lol, now I know you're trolling. Really? "The drug Thematic"? That's not a drug. That's the word "thematic", in "thematic review series", as in, a series of articles with a common theme. Did you even read the abstract?

#113 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
KeppPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:35
(0)
 

Level: 5
CS Original

I meant statin, I'm doing a hundred other things.

#114 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:38
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

I havent once said what I believe to be the truest information, reason being is I am no expert in the topic,

I didn't say you did. I was quoting Roxette, if you didn't notice. The reason I was quoting Roxette is because you said that you weren't sure if anyone had made a decision. Well, Roxette did! And many others agreed with her.

you on the other hand seem to think you are some kind of knowledgable expert on a topic using your wikipedia links just like a zeitard would.

lol...man, if you guys are trolling you're doing a really good job. If anything, I've been saying to TRUST the experts, i.e. the consensus. I barely made any claims of my own other than sharing what I know about carbs, and I can't even back that up with citations so take it for what it's worth.

#115 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:42
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original

ok no problems man, I am alright either way this turns out, I will eat what I like eating irrespective of the dietry consultants. That is unless I am given some kind of solid evidence that a particular food I am ingesting is killing me.

Which I think is less likely a cause than lets say me being a lazy fuck who is sitting here typing on an internet forum instead of being out running.

#116 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 19:46
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

I meant statin, I'm doing a hundred other things.

Okay, fine. Sorry for busting your balls. I can't access the full article so I can't give you a full response, but the article seems to also go over studies that are unrelated to statins that support the lipid hypothesis. Judging by the title, there are 4 other companion articles that go over more studies in support of the lipid hypothesis. ... Yes, you can find links to them in the "Comment on" section.

#117 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
Kaiser FalknerPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 20:14
(0)
 

HAIL HYDRA

Level: 6
CS Original

So in this thread, only Domokato has actually used actual sources to counter the OP whereas Ed used a book review. Ed, take note, domokato is actually doing things right. But just to be totally clear, just because something is the "mainstream" doesn't mean it is completely more more than likely right. Let us not forget that popular understandings of science are often overly simplistic and dont do the debate justice. Anyway, did anyone hear the NPR broadcast I linked? Anyone have thoughts? I just laughed when it came on because of this thread.

#118 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
anticultistPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 20:21
(0)
 

Brainwashing you for money

Level: 15
CS Original
#119 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]
domokatoPosted: Jun 24, 2011 - 20:25
(0)
 

Level: 4
CS Original

I would be interested in those. Do they actually contradict evolution or do ID'er claim they do? Also ID'ers like Michael Behe don't deny common descent, instead they are trying to install a supernatural component to evolution.

http://www.gotquestions.org/geologic-timescale.html see the last few paragraphs about the coelacanth. Scientists can only posit a hypothesis - that the disappearance of the coelacanth's fossils represents a migratory event, rather than an extinction. Evolution is full of this kind of stuff and IDers/creationists dig them up all the time.

#120 [ Top | Reply to Topic ]