Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 6:21 AM
316 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 315 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,063 Year: 28,669/21,208 Month: 735/1,847 Week: 110/475 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
26272829
30
31Next
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 436 of 451 (632815)
09-10-2011 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by crashfrog
09-10-2011 11:27 AM


Re: It's the psychology
CF,

You seem to have an almost compulsive need to just somehow feel you are winning an argument, even when you are arguing alone. But since you want an argument so bad-here are a few things you missed:

Artificial sweeteners have the same effect or worse on insulin production. I say it worse because they are tricking your body into believing it is taking in large amounts of sugar, and thus producing an insulin surge, even though there is no actual sugar. Plus diet sodas have been linked to higher risks of heart attacks and strokes. Diet soda is linked to episodes of metabolic syndrome (you can look that up I am sure).

Secondly, yes, Americans were always fat but they are getting fatter faster-I think that is exactly what I said and what those charts show. Look at the increases around 1999, its incredible.

Third, I told you that obesity is on the rise in China, not that it didn't exist at all. Again, where did anything you show contradict that.
Now about honey, here are a few facts you overlooked:

Honey may promote better blood sugar control. Proper fueling of the liver is central to optimal glucose metabolism during sleep and exercise. Honey is the ideal liver fuel because it contains a nearly 1:1 ratio of fructose to glucose. Fructose "unlocks" the enzyme from the liver cell's nucleus that is necessary for the incorporation of glucose into glycogen (the form in which sugar is stored in the liver and muscle cells). An adequate glycogen store in the liver is essential to supply the brain with fuel when we are sleeping and during prolonged exercise. When glycogen stores are insufficient, the brain triggers the release of stress hormones—adrenalin and cortisol—in order to convert muscle protein into glucose. Repeated metabolic stress from cortisol produced when less than optimal liver glycogen stores are available during sleep, leads over time, to impaired glucose metabolism, insulin resistance, diabetes, and increased risk for cardiovascular disease and obesity.

Experimental evidence indicates that consumption of honey may improve blood sugar control and insulin sensitivity compared to other sweeteners. The body's tolerance to honey is significantly better than to sucrose or glucose alone. Individuals with greater glucose intolerance (e.g., those with mild diabetes and Type 1 diabetes) showed significantly better tolerance to honey than sucrose. In addition, the antioxidants in honey, which have been shown to reduce oxidative stress, frequently by a larger factor than can be explained by their actual amount, may be beneficial for diabetics and help to improve endothelial function (the function of the cells that make up the lining of our blood vessels) and vascular health.

Oh, and this:

In a year-long animal study comparing the effects of sucrose, honey and a low glycemic index (GI) sugar-free diet, rats on the honey-based diet showed: reduced weight gain and percentage of body fat, decreased anxiety, better spatial recognition memory, improved HDL cholesterol (15-20% higher than rats fed sugar or sucrose diets), improved blood sugar levels (HA1c), and reduced oxidative damage. http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=96

Finally, you are talking about three things that I know much more about than you do, nutrition, health, and China. I won't argue these issues with you, for the same reason that I wouldn't punch a crying toddler in the face-it just seems unfair.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 11:27 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:07 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 437 of 451 (632817)
09-10-2011 12:37 PM


Its not about calories
For those who might be thinking that its calories that mean the most, here is another interesting bit of information about weight gain and diet sodas:

""What didn't surprise us was that total soft drink use was linked to overweight and obesity," Fowler tells WebMD. "What was surprising was when we looked at people only drinking diet soft drinks, their risk of obesity was even higher."

In fact, when the researchers took a closer look at their data, they found that nearly all the obesity risk from soft drinks came from diet sodas.

"There was a 41% increase in risk of being overweight for every can or bottle of diet soft drink a person consumes each day," Fowler says."

and

"For regular soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:

26% for up to 1/2 can each day
30.4% for 1/2 to one can each day
32.8% for 1 to 2 cans each day
47.2% for more than 2 cans each day.

For diet soft-drink drinkers, the risk of becoming overweight or obese was:

36.5% for up to 1/2 can each day
37.5% for 1/2 to one can each day
54.5% for 1 to 2 cans each day
57.1% for more than 2 cans each day.

For each can of diet soft drink consumed each day, a person's risk of obesity went up 41%."

http://www.webmd.com/...rink-more-diet-soda-gain-more-weight


Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Percy, posted 09-10-2011 1:40 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded
 Message 441 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:09 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 16298
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 438 of 451 (632818)
09-10-2011 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Its not about calories
Hi Bolder-dash,

I think there may be a cause/effect versus correlation question that's still open in this case. That's probably true of much diet research. Certainly it's true of the correlation between increasing carbohydrate intake and increasing obesity. We really need more research.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 12:37 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Omnivorous, posted 09-10-2011 2:40 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 580 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 439 of 451 (632821)
09-10-2011 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 438 by Percy
09-10-2011 1:40 PM


The McDonald's Compromise
"Gimme two Big Macs with extra cheese, fries and an apple pie.

And let me have a large Diet Coke with that."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Percy, posted 09-10-2011 1:40 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 440 of 451 (632827)
09-10-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 12:28 PM


Re: It's the psychology
You seem to have an almost compulsive need to just somehow feel you are winning an argument, even when you are arguing alone.

I'm sorry, Dash, if you got the impression that EvC Forum was a mutual admiration society where every contribution, no matter how insignificant or poorly sourced, was welcomed and celebrated.

It's not. It's a place where we hone ideas in a crucible of people disagreeing with them and trying to present the best evidence they can marshal. (You've produced no evidence, in case you were keeping track.)

Artificial sweeteners have the same effect or worse on insulin production.

As a matter of fact, that's exactly wrong. Artificial sweeteners like sucralose have no effect on insulin secretion because they're undigestible and therefore don't trigger any of the body's chemical sensors for saccarides. Or, as nearly every scientific study has put it:

quote:
We conclude that sucralose, delivered by intragastric infusion, does not stimulate insulin, GLP-1, or GIP release or slow gastric emptying in healthy humans.

http://ajpgi.physiology.org/content/296/4/G735.short

In case you don't recognize the web address, that's the American Physiological Society's Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology.

I say it worse because they are tricking your body into believing it is taking in large amounts of sugar, and thus producing an insulin surge, even though there is no actual sugar.

And what do you think that does, exactly? Walk me through the relevant pathways. You keep writing biochemical checks that you don't have the knowledge to cash.

Third, I told you that obesity is on the rise in China, not that it didn't exist at all.

Well, what you said was this:

quote:
First, the obesity that we are seeing is in the youth populations, not the adult population.

That's right from your Message 432. So in point of fact you did make a claim that obesity was not on the rise in China among adults; there you are, right there, saying it. So what I posted was further evidence that you're wrong - obesity is on the rise among Chinese adults, it's particularly associated with high-value diets (like I said) and a decline in physical activity, both associated with rising affluence (like I said.)

See, the difference between you and me is that I usually go and do some research before I arrive at a conclusion.

Honey is the ideal liver fuel because it contains a nearly 1:1 ratio of fructose to glucose.

High-fructose corn syrup also has a "nearly 1:1 ratio" of fructose to glucose, as I just told you. Being a natural product, the precise composition of honey varies from hive to hive, collection to collection, etc. Obviously honey and HFCS are not the same thing. But you can't lay responsibility at the feet of HFCS's sugar composition unless you lay it at the feet of those sweeteners that share that sugar composition.

Oh, and this:

Right. Rats, rats, rats. Here's the problem - humans aren't rats, and the specifics of liver function, fat synthesis, and sugar metabolism between humans and rats are very different. Rat studies no more prove that human obesity is caused by HFCS than dog studies prove that chocolate is poisonous.

Finally, you are talking about three things that I know much more about than you do, nutrition, health, and China.

Well, no. You're talking about biochemisty and I, in fact, know a great deal more about that than you do. The fact that you've memorized the label on a bottle of Slim-Fast, and swallowed whole the unscientific claims of the multi-billion-dollar "neutraceutical" industry, is immaterial to that. You're just not the kind of person who is able to think critically about anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 12:28 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 7:40 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 441 of 451 (632828)
09-10-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 12:37 PM


Re: Its not about calories
Correlation is not causality. Don't you think that fat people probably switch to diet soda?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 12:37 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 442 of 451 (632830)
09-10-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by RAZD
09-09-2011 2:31 PM


Re: Some thoughts on Glucagon, and Insllin
Has anyone studied the effect of glucagon to control blood sugar instead of insulin?

My dad has been a Type 1 diabetic my whole life, so I've had a front-row seat to blood-sugar control in the life of the average T1 diabetic. I feel pretty confident that glucagon is almost useless from a blood-sugar control standpoint because it's seldom the case that a diabetic has a need to raise his blood sugar (which is what glucagon would do). His blood-sugar is almost always too high, since he eats regular meals, snacks, etc. you know, regular stuff. At such times as his blood sugar really does get too low, it's much faster and safer to administer simple sugars orally than to administer glucagon and wait for the liver to increase blood sugar in response.

That's Type 1, though.

Would it be possible to develop a drug that chemically reacts with blood sugar to remove it from the system?

Is there a need to? The kidneys filter it out, hence diabetes mellitus, from the Latin "passing sweetly", as in, passing copious sweet urine. I don't think a drug could get it out of the blood any faster; you'd still have to express the sugar-drug complex through the urine, too. Conservation of matter. You can't just have the sugar disappear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by RAZD, posted 09-09-2011 2:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 443 of 451 (632867)
09-10-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by crashfrog
09-10-2011 4:07 PM


Re: It's the psychology
Human aren't rats...., Correlation is not causality...., there are some adults in China that are obese therefore there is no increasing obesity problem for children in China, Americans have always been fat so any increases in how fast they get fat mean nothing...and on and on you go.

You are going to deflect all results that disagree with you, cherry pick the studies which say what you want, while ignoring all those that don't , create your own new meaning for sentences, and proclaim victory by volumes of keystrokes, and put your fingers in your ear (Did you even read the studies that found artificial sweeteners CAN raise insulin...oh of course you did).

Hmm, where have I seen this before? Oh, I think I remember now, from every post you write!

Hey, can I steal your lines "Correlation is not causality", and "humans aren't rats" to throw out every silly evolution argument you make as well?

Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:07 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 7:58 PM Bolder-dash has responded
 Message 445 by Panda, posted 09-10-2011 8:55 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 444 of 451 (632868)
09-10-2011 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 7:40 PM


Re: It's the psychology
Don't you ever get tired of being stupidly wrong?

cause isn't correlation

No, exactly wrong. Causality is correlation. It's just that correlation isn't causality - that's the fallacy of "ad hoc, ergo propter hoc." Here's the kiddy-school example for you: eating ice cream quickly is correlated with getting an ice cream headache because eating ice cream quickly causes an ice cream headache. But eating ice cream is also correlated with car theft. But it doesn't cause car theft, it's just that both of those activities - eating ice cream and car theft - increase at roughly the same time each year: the summer.

there are some adults in China that are obese therefore there is no increasing obesity problem for children in China

I never said that there was not an increasing obesity problem for children in China. I simply showed you that, exactly contrary to what you stated, there's also an increasing obesity problem for adults in China. Remember when you claimed that there was not? Here it is, again:

quote:
First, the obesity that we are seeing is in the youth populations, not the adult population.

Did you, or didn't you write those words?

while ignoring all those that don't

Which studies did I ignore? Wouldn't you have to have presented a study for me to ignore it?

Did you even read the studies that found artificial sweeteners CAN raise insulin

Which studies are those, Dash? Would you like to produce one?

Hey, can I steal your lines "cause isn't correlation"

Where did I use that line? Please be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 7:40 PM Bolder-dash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 11:31 PM crashfrog has responded

Panda
Member (Idle past 1325 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 445 of 451 (632873)
09-10-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 7:40 PM


Re: It's the psychology
Bolder-dash writes:

Hey, can I steal your lines "Correlation is not causality"


It is astounding that you did not know that.

But you can learn if you want to:
Correlation is not causality


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 7:40 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 1242 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 446 of 451 (632887)
09-10-2011 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 444 by crashfrog
09-10-2011 7:58 PM


Re: It's the psychology
AN ENTIRE LIFE'S LESSON, BROUGHT TO YOU BY CRASHFROG AND WIKIPEDIA:

You want so so badly to be right, that it seems there are no lengths you wouldn't go to to try hard to prove how correct you are. You even, inexplicably, tried to look up online what the average daily income is for rural people in China, for YOU to try to prove to ME what they consider expensive and not expensive! Perhaps you feel that everything you ever wanted to know about the world can be learned by just typing in a search on Google, and voila, you are an international expert.

Never mind that you don't have the ******* -->******* faintest clue about what the average Chinese person does, and nevermind that I work, I play, I shop, I breathe with the average Chinese person, and I understand what they feel, what they do, what the economy is like, and what their habits are...you read some stats online so there you have it. What is the average currency amount that would be appropriate in a lai si pack to a male cousins new born child in Anhui province? Can you please tell me that Crash..because I need your help to understand better.

Did you read this while you were scrambling online to understand the world:

"These numbers are higher than in European countries, while the gross domestic product in China is much lower," said Ding Zongyi, who led the study.

"Only the United States have higher rates," he added.

The Chinese experts looked at 80,000 children from 11 major cities, and found an increase of 156 percent in the numbers of obese children between 1996 and 2006.

Meanwhile, the number of overweight children grew 52 percent.

Is that what is happening to Chinese adults? Same numbers? Please tell me some more observations about life that you read on Wikipedia. Maybe you can tell me how to become a world class athlete by searching on Yahoo.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 7:58 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by crashfrog, posted 09-11-2011 10:46 AM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 447 of 451 (632932)
09-11-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Bolder-dash
09-10-2011 11:31 PM


Re: It's the psychology
You want so so badly to be right, that it seems there are no lengths you wouldn't go to to try hard to prove how correct you are.

If I am right, Dash, then precisely at what point should I stop arguing that I am? Please be specific.

You even, inexplicably, tried to look up online what the average daily income is for rural people in China

What's "inexplicable" about it? I wanted to know the average daily income for a rural Chinese. Why wouldn't I go online to find it? I mean, it's obvious you don't ever know what the fuck you're talking about, so why would I ask you?

The other day you said something in a language thread that was halfway sensible and could have been written by a seventh-grader. It was such an enormous improvement on your usual work that I almost nominated it for POTM. No lie.

Never mind that you don't have the ******* -->******* faintest clue about what the average Chinese person does, and nevermind that I work, I play, I shop, I breathe with the average Chinese person, and I understand what they feel, what they do, what the economy is like, and what their habits are..

Blah blah blah. China has over 1.3 billion citizens. Your personal experiences with, perhaps, a few thousand of them simply aren't data. They're anecdotes. They may be illustrative but they're not comprehensive, and if a reasonable person wants to characterize some aspect of the broader Chinese experience your little stories just aren't going to cut it. I'm not claiming to be an expert - I'm simply presenting the conclusions of experts, of people who know a hell of a lot more about China and more importantly about data than you ever could.

What is the average currency amount that would be appropriate in a lai si pack to a male cousins new born child in Anhui province?

Who the fuck cares?

quote:
"These numbers are higher than in European countries, while the gross domestic product in China is much lower," said Ding Zongyi, who led the study.
"Only the United States have higher rates," he added.

The Chinese experts looked at 80,000 children from 11 major cities, and found an increase of 156 percent in the numbers of obese children between 1996 and 2006.

Meanwhile, the number of overweight children grew 52 percent.


Since you mentioned Wikipedia, maybe you'll understand this: [Citation needed]

Is that what is happening to Chinese adults?

I cited my sources, Dash, something you always forget to do. Why don't you go back to them and find out for yourself? Or would that place you in too great a danger of learning something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Bolder-dash, posted 09-10-2011 11:31 PM Bolder-dash has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 448 of 451 (632939)
09-11-2011 11:25 AM


Final Critique
The 300 post limitation is being reinstated. This thread has surpassed that limitation and it is time to close. Participants will have 48 hours to submit a final critique of the book.

Do not respond to previous posts and do not respond to critiques.

Thank you
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : Removed closure statement


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 449 of 451 (633065)
09-12-2011 9:43 AM


Ready For Final Critiques
Remember, discussion is closed.
Do not reply to previous posts or final critiques.

Thanks
AdminPD


Percy
Member
Posts: 16298
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 450 of 451 (633074)
09-12-2011 10:11 AM


Summation
Increased intake of refined carbohydrates, not fat, is responsible for the diseases of western civilization (heart disease, obesity, diabetes).

There's a follow on thread: Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes

--Percy


  
RewPrev1
...
26272829
30
31Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017