Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 121 of 451 (468265)
05-28-2008 5:36 PM


My reaction to Molbiogirl's latest Message 120 is that there's really no point in responding to her until she starts saying things that are actually true. For instance here she accuses Taubes of claiming a cure for heart disease, diabetes and obesity:
molbiogirl writes:
Taubes has offered the scientific community the golden key to curing -- not alleviating, but curing -- 3 of the deadliest diseases in the U.S. today ... heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.
I don't understand why she's gone so way over the top, but it's just not possible to have a rational dialogue with this type of stuff.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by molbiogirl, posted 05-28-2008 6:49 PM Percy has replied
 Message 126 by randman, posted 05-30-2008 8:59 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 122 of 451 (468270)
05-28-2008 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
05-28-2008 5:36 PM


Those darn scientists! It's a vast conspiracy!
Percy, don't even front.
You've been talking "to" me in the third person for a week now.
When you're ready to discuss the science, let me know.
And, yes, this means the nitty gritty biochemical details.
Taubes made up, out of whole cloth, biochemical pathways.
It's up to you, or some other forum member, to provide evidence to the contrary.
It speaks volumes that no one on this board has leapt to your defense.
I'm not too awful worried, tho.
I've reviewed the literature and I know Taubes is wrong.
Here's another question for you, Percy.
Name a scientific theory as earth-shattering as "Carbs and carbs alone cause heart disease, diabetes, obesity" that has no support in the scientific community.
Go on. Name one.
Even string theory has a whole host of scientific reseachers willing to stand up for it.
Where're the carb guys?
Why is it that folks like Dr. Atkins (who NEVER published in the peer reviewed literature), Gary Taubes, and Arthur Agaston are out there on their own?
Oh, lest I forget, alt med gurus Dr. Oz and Dr. Weil, too.
Why is it that no one, absolutely no one, who has published in the peer reviewed literature has published anything in support of this ... "theory"?
Even conspiracy theorists have their supporters!
Look at polywater.
In 1966 the Soviet scientist Boris Valdimirovich Derjaguin lectured in England on a new form of water that he claimed had been discovered by another Soviet scientist, N. N. Fedyakin. Formed by heating water and letting it condense in quartz capillaries, this "anomalous water," as it was originally called, had a density higher than normal water, a viscosity 15 times that of normal water, a boiling point higher than 100 degrees Centigrade, and a freezing point lower than zero degrees.
Over the next several years, hundreds of papers appeared in the scientific literature describing the properties of what soon came to be known as polywater. Theorists developed models, supported by some experimental measurements, in which strong hydrogen bonds were causing water to polymerize. Some even warned that if polywater escaped from the laboratory, it could autocatalytically polymerize all of the world's water.
Then the case for polywater began to crumble. Because polywater could only be formed in minuscule capillaries, very little was available for analysis. When small samples were analyzed, polywater proved to be contaminated with a variety of other substances, from silicon to phospholipids. Electron microscopy revealed that polywater actually consisted of finely divided particulate matter suspended in ordinary water.
Gradually, the scientists who had described the properties of polywater admitted that it did not exist. They had been misled by poorly controlled experiments and problems with experimental procedures. As the problems were resolved and experiments gained better controls, evidence for the existence of polywater disappeared.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html
Even bogus shit like polywater can garner scientific support.
Wherefore art thou carb-causes-heart-disease-diabetes-obesity supporters?
FYI.
In his own words.
Carbohydrates cause obesity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyme62niYM
10:51
Carboyhydrates cause heart disease, type II diabetes, cancer, Alzheimers.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/StopSugarShock/2007/...
5:33
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp
Edited by molbiogirl, : cites
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Shorten display form of long URL, to restore page width to normal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 05-28-2008 5:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 05-29-2008 8:10 AM molbiogirl has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 123 of 451 (468391)
05-29-2008 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by molbiogirl
05-28-2008 6:49 PM


Re: Those darn scientists! It's a vast conspiracy!
I tried hard for several weeks to have a rational discussion with you, and I found that it just wasn't possible. I made a number of requests for you to rein in your more caustic and hyperbolic side, to make sure you were making claims that were actually true, and to make an effort to reduce the number of errors by making sure the research you cite actually aligns with your claims. I said on a number of occasions that I couldn't continue discussion with you if you continued this pattern. You ignored this, and so I've ceased discussion with you.
You know, the "alienate and browbeat" approach just doesn't have a great record of success, and when combined with excessive error and hyperbole it's just a disaster. If Taubes is wrong then a dispassionate discussion of the evidence will show he's wrong, and it won't have anything to do with how good a mudslinger you are.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by molbiogirl, posted 05-28-2008 6:49 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by molbiogirl, posted 06-02-2008 1:13 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 124 of 451 (468639)
05-30-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
04-17-2008 11:22 AM


He argues that dietary fat has been falsely implicated as the primary cause of the western life-style diseases of heart disease, diabetes and obesity, and that the actual cause is refined carbohydrates such as bread, pasta, and worst of all, refined sugar.
This has been argued for some time and I don't have the energy to dredge up the research, but imo, the facts support this. In fact, this is one of those areas that leads me to be highly suspicious of mainstream opinion in a lot of areas. Carbs are really the problem, not fat. Eat more meat and veggies and less carbs, and that's good for you.
However, there is also the fact that not everyone's body is the same. People have different blood types. Moreover, there are diets with carbs with low heart disease, but they often contain things like lots of cold-pressed olive oil and wine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 04-17-2008 11:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 125 of 451 (468640)
05-30-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by molbiogirl
05-01-2008 10:39 AM


Re: Balanced Diets are Bunk
This dramatic increase in obesity cannot be attributed to "an increase in carbs".
Actually it can. It's due to an increase in processed food. Keep in mind it's not all carbs such as vegetables, but an increase in certain kinds of carbs that have aspects that are processed very fast within the body.
Bread is a carb to not overdue, but certain breads are better than others and the more refined, the less healthy because the process of digestion is faster and less gradual within the body.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 05-01-2008 10:39 AM molbiogirl has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 126 of 451 (468641)
05-30-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Percy
05-28-2008 5:36 PM


Randman message "hidden" - Adminnemooseus
{Stop it Randman - Adminnemooseus}
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic drivel "hidden"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 05-28-2008 5:36 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 127 of 451 (468693)
05-31-2008 12:23 PM


What are we really talking about?
I'm going to restate this thread's premise so as to keep the fundamental issues clear.
Taubes makes note of a significant contradiction:
  • The dietary fat hypothesis has held sway in nutritional circles over the past 30 years. The dietary fat hypothesis holds that diets too high in fat are the cause of the diseases of western civilization: heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and obesity.
  • Over the same past 30 years these same diseases of western civilization have significantly worsened. More accurately, all but one have significantly worsened while heart disease rates remain undiminished.
This is no coincidence, Taubes claims, and his book explains why the scientific research does not support the dietary fat hypothesis, which became accepted in the days when the data was mostly about serum cholesterol levels and before there was much detailed knowledge about HDLs, LDLs, VHDLs, a host of other related factors, the healthy levels of them, and so forth.
His book also explains why the carbohydrate hypothesis makes much more sense, based not only upon the increases in carbohydrate intake that have occurred over the same period, but also upon the scientific studies that have been performed thus far. Taubes does emphasize that much more research remains to be done because the carbohydrate hypothesis has been insufficiently explored, the lion's share of research attention going toward the dietary fat hypothesis.
Another reason why a low carbohydrate diet makes sense is that throughout much of human evolutionary history, carbohydrates were not a significant proportion of our diet. Carbohydrates have gradually increased in proportion in modern diets over the past few hundred years, but in western civilizations in modern times it has exploded because of the ready availability of highly refined carbohydrates in the form of sugar (sucrose), bread and pasta. We need fat to survive, we need protein to survive, but we do not need carbohydrates. The FDA sets a minimum daily requirement for carbohydrates of 300 grams, but a more reasonable level would be 50 grams, with 200 grams set as an absolute maximum.
It is this last point that is made in another book that I've just started reading, Living the Low Carb Life by Jonny Bowden. I wasn't looking for another book about the carbohydrate hypothesis, but I'm hard to buy presents for, so looking for ideas for my birthday my wife looked through the health section of Barnes and Noble for diet/health books with extensive bibliographies and/or footnotes at the end, and she found this one.
I'm only about 20% through the book so far. Bowden makes many of the same points as Taubes, but he does it with a greater emphasis on diet, where Taubes emphasis was focused on a broader spectrum of health issues. Bowden does address all the same health issues as Taubes, but much more briefly, but because Bowden's primary focus is diet, his bibliography includes more references to dietary studies than did Taubes'. If I find any that seem like they would be helpful to this thread I'll provide them.
Interestingly, while poking around for some of the papers cited by Bowden in the early part of his book where he's recounting the history of dietary research (I found them through PubMed, but none had even an abstract, they were all from the 1950s) I found this paper: Thermodynamics and Metabolic Advantage of Weight Loss Diets. The abstract states:
Published reports show that low carbohydrate weight loss diets provide a metabolic advantage, a greater weight loss per calorie consumed compared to isocaloric high carbohydrate diets. These reports have not been refuted but rather largely ignored, presumably because of the apparent violation of the laws of thermodynamics ("a calorie is a calorie"). In this review, we show that there is no such violation of thermodynamic laws.
In other words, they're attempting a well grounded scientific refutation of the claim that only calories matter ("a calorie is a calorie"). When one looks into the history of research regarding calories one quickly becomes uncomfortable with the fact that it has become the centerpiece of much conventional wisdom about diets. For example, on page 11 Bowden recounts:
Bowden writes:
Sometime between 1890 and 1900, an agricultural chemist named Wilbur Atwater got the bright idea that if you stuck some food in a mini-oven called a calorimeter and burned the food to ash, you could measure the amount of heat it produced. He called the unit of measurement a calorie...The idea that the human body behaves exactly like the chamber used in Atwater's experiments—that we all "burn" calories exactly the same way and our bodies behave like calorimeters—has been the dominating hypothesis in weight loss to this day.
And certainly no one could dispute how dominate the calorie hypothesis has become. Calories are listed first on all nutritional labels, and reduction of calorie intake is the advice of all diets based upon the dietary fat hypothesis. But as any experienced dieter will tell you, the calorie hypothesis doesn't add up.
Concerning my own diet, I've just broken through my last plateau of 10-1/2 pounds in the last few days and am now down 12 pounds. Some might have noticed that earlier in the thread when I mentioned plateaus it was targeted as a criticism of low carbohydrate diets. But as anyone who has dieted (and that's any diet, low-fat, low-carb or anything else) will tell you, all diets contain plateaus. The common shared experience among dieters is that we seem to be following the exact same diet with the same degree of dedication as before, but for a while weight loss just stops. But if we continue the diet, at some point the weight loss resumes, and we have no explanation for why weight loss stopped or why it started again. Plateaus are in the index to Bowden's book with four subtopics listed, that's how common they are. Anyone who criticizes a diet because those who follow it encounter plateaus is just too lacking in familiarity with dieting to be qualified to comment.
The wonderful thing about the low carbohydrate diet is that you're not constantly battling hunger, a battle you'll never win.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 3:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 128 of 451 (468783)
06-01-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Percy
05-31-2008 12:23 PM


Re: What are we really talking about?
Nutritional ideas such as low carb diet, etc,....are a good reason to be highly skeptical of mainstream scientific opinion because it's so often been incredibly wrong. It's nice someone is doing some science to tell us things we can test out and know for ourselves, but at the same time, waiting for science and "empirical data" can often be a death-knell for people.
I found an experimental product for a friend dying of breast cancer, which had spread in a bad way. She was suppossed to live at most 2-3 months. It's been about 18 now, actually more like 25 months (edit to correct) and her last test was negative so she is staying free. Within hours of taking the product, she noticed a marked decrease in pain (very large decrease I should add.....she said it "left") which by itself wouldn't mean she was being cured but it appears from all the medical tests that this product genuinely destroyed the cancer.
Do I think mainstream medical science will eventually produce a drug from this natural product?
Sure.....in about 20-30 years.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 05-31-2008 12:23 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 129 of 451 (468830)
06-01-2008 8:08 PM


Ancel Keys
"Who the heck is Ancel keys?" most people will ask.
And as Gary Taubes, Michael Pollan and Jonny Bowden will tell you, he is the single individual most responsible for today's dire situation concerning CVD (CardioVascular Disease), obesity and diabetes. Wikipedia neatly summarizes what happened in their article on Ancel Keys:
Wikipedia on Ancel Keys writes:
Keys postulated a correlation between cholesterol levels and CVD and initiated a study of Minnesota businessmen (the first prospective study of CVD), culminating in what came to be known as the Seven Countries Study. These studies found strong associations between the CVD rate of a population and average serum cholesterol and per capita intake of saturated fatty acids. Then, as now, critics have rightfully pointed out that this "strong association" vanishes when data from other countries are added to the mix and there have been allegations that Keys "cherry picked" the data to support his hypothesis.
If it had just been a case of a set of studies being added to the mix of other studies the result would not have been too damaging, but Keys was influential, and he was well known in government circles. He was, for example, responsible for the development of K-rations. Wikipedia goes on to describe what happened next:
Wikipedia on Ancel Keys writes:
From the early 1950s, Keys actively promoted his findings to an increasingly health-conscious public...While Keys was able to convince the US government to promote his idea that reducing the intake of fat would reduce the incidence of CVD, what happened in the intervening years when Americans took this advice indicates that Keys' basic premise was wrong. While consumption of dietary fat decreased from the 1960s to the 1990s, the rate of CVD did not change substantially and the incidence of obesity and Type II diabetes soared.
The "government" that Ancel Keys was able to convince took the form of hearings before Senator McGovern's Senate Nutrition Committee whose culmination in 1977 was the issuance by the United States government of the report Dietary Goals for the United States. It said that the avoidance of heart disease could be accomplished through the reduction of dietary fat because that would reduce levels of serum cholesterol, and that Americans should immediately begin reducing their intake of fat.
As I've been saying throughout this thread, just walk into any supermarket and you can see the legacy of Ancel Keys: aisle upon aisle of low fat foods. We have Ancel Keys to thank for low fat and skim milk, low fat cheese, low fat potato chips, and low fat bacon and hot dogs.
It is difficult to understand how this misapplication of science has survived for so long. For some it actually compromises their faith in science itself, and I confess that I'm a bit shaken myself, because apparently for the past 30 years the United States government has been pushing dietary recommendations that are killing us. Here, for example, is the food pyramid:
What's the foundation of the food pyramid? Bread, cereal and other food made from grains, in other words, foods high in carbohydrates, often highly refined carbohydrates, the worst type (refined carbohydrates are very, very low in fiber and are absorbed into the bloodstream extremely quickly causing blood sugar spikes). Combined with the reluctance of the mainstream nutritional establishment to condemn sugar, which appears at the top of the pyramid, this is a recipe for disaster. And a health disaster is just what has happened.
The food pyramid could easily be adjusted like this (not a bad job, if I do say so myself):
Meat is the foundation of this revised food pyramid, and just above are healthy amounts of fruits and vegetables and dairy products - and not low fat dairy products, either! And if you need to lose weight then just lop off the top two levels of the pyramid until you achieve your desired goal.
I'm no nutritionist, of course, but a food pyramid modified somewhat along these lines would finally bring an end to Ancel Keys legacy, restore sanity to modern diets, and end the obesity and diabetes epidemics. And it would hopefully change our supermarkets to have row upon row of low-carbohydrate high-fiber foods and make the low fat hysteria a distant memory.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:12 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 130 of 451 (468832)
06-01-2008 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Percy
06-01-2008 8:08 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
If it had just been a case of a set of studies being added to the mix of other studies the result would not have been too damaging, but Keys was influential, and he was well known in government circles. He was, for example, responsible for the development of K-rations.
So why were his findings so universally accepted by the medical and scientific community?
Were they are part of some vast conspiracy or something?..... Are you questioning the integrity of the scientific establishment or what?...
I mean clearly there was universal and wide acceptance of this empirical study....probably still is.
Hmmm...
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 06-01-2008 8:08 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 06-01-2008 8:32 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 131 of 451 (468837)
06-01-2008 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by randman
06-01-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
randman writes:
So why were his findings so universally accepted by the medical and scientific community?
They weren't. The Senate hearings included the views of many dissenters, but probably the opinion that was the most widespread received the least expression and attention: more research is required.
What happened is that Key's opinions received the imprimatur of the United States government by way of McGovern's committee, and the United States government through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies is the single largest source of funds for health research.
I mean clearly there was universal and wide acceptance of this empirical study....probably still is.
I'm not sure why you say this since the Wikipedia excerpts I provided make clear that "universal and wide acceptance" wasn't the case, here it is again: "Then, as now, critics have rightfully pointed out that this 'strong association' vanishes when data from other countries are added to the mix and there have been allegations that Keys 'cherry picked' the data to support his hypothesis."
What happened was that the views of Keys' and people who agreed with him carried the day before the McGovern committee. This is more an argument that the government should not be making decisions that are better left to scientists, but we can't forget the temper of the time. At the time America was a hotbed of heart disease compared to the rest of the world, and the government was under pressure to "do something," and it did. Maybe we should blame McGovern, not Keys.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:12 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:38 PM Percy has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 132 of 451 (468839)
06-01-2008 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Percy
06-01-2008 8:32 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
What happened is that Key's opinions received the imprimatur of the United States government by way of McGovern's committee, and the United States government through the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies is the single largest source of funds for health research.
So are you saying government funding can dictate scientific consensus? Could that be true for other areas like ToE or global warming or.....?
This is more an argument that the government should not be making decisions that are better left to scientists, but we can't forget the temper of the time.
You mean like deciding whether a local jurisdiction can teach Intelligent Design? or whether man-made global warming is a real threat? Additionally, scientists by the 70s had reached a consensus going along with it. heck, doctors never said, hey, eat more fat and meat and less carbs because it's good for you....not sure, but I think they still don't today.
So in reality, leaving things to mainstream scientists is a highly risky proposition. Could cost one his or her life in fact.
It's interesting on this issue, you seem perfectly willing to take a stance that borders on labelling the scientific community as easily manipulated by government opinion or perhaps even fraudulent.
I tend to agree that mainstream scientific and medical opinion was grossly in error pushing simple carbohydrates so much, but I am also interested in the implications of such a seemingly massive, widespread error.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Percy, posted 06-01-2008 8:32 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 06-01-2008 8:44 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 133 of 451 (468841)
06-01-2008 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by randman
06-01-2008 8:38 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
It's been apparent for while now that you actually had another topic in mind. I suggest you take these comments to a thread where they would be on topic.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by randman, posted 06-01-2008 8:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 134 of 451 (468842)
06-01-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Percy
06-01-2008 8:44 PM


Re: Ancel Keys
I am just agreeing with you but it's hard not to discuss the implications, assuming the low carb approach is correct. I certainly think it is, but at the same time it has been the opposite of what mainstream medicine and science has been saying for decades.
Who is correct?
In other words, can we really say the science is yet on the low carb side and not on the side of the "just calories" crowd? I don't know, but since I am not going to rely just on science anyway....
I think it's important to discuss the implications here for THIS TOPIC because I think a simplistic approach, which has often been popular which in this case is the "just calories" approach is the underlying reason this fallacy arose in the first place. It's a real problem that once some simple idea is accepted as scientific consensus, that it's very difficult to break that, even if people's health and lives are at stake, and as you can see in the responses to you this thread, it will be maintained all the science is with the simple idea even when clearly that's not the case. It will be as if people are talking from 2 different realities.
But here is where the rubber meets the road with this concept: this is something people themselves can do and see how it works with their own bodies, and that's what has been happening. Believe me, I think a food's glycemic content and the whole bit is important, and I wish we knew MORE as this way of approaching food needs more study.
I am convinced as well that one size doesn't fit all with food either, and that different people need specific differences in their diet. It'd be nice if science one day gets there and does the work needed to establish some of these ideas, but it might take longer than some have to live....
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Percy, posted 06-01-2008 8:44 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 135 of 451 (468871)
06-02-2008 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Percy
05-29-2008 8:10 AM


Carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimers
Taubes claims that carbs are the sole cause of cancer and Alzheimer's, along with heart disease, obesity and type II diabetes.
As I've said before, Percy, when you are ready to discuss the science, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Percy, posted 05-29-2008 8:10 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 06-02-2008 1:38 AM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 140 by AdminNosy, posted 06-02-2008 10:18 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 176 by Buzsaw, posted 06-06-2008 11:07 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024