On Sep 6, 12:54*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

I disagree. Butter was tied to the saturated fat scare. But many
scientists knew that there was no credible data to support it. It was
purely a political decision (we can thank Eisenhower and McGovern for
that one), plain and simple.

But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product.

No, you have it backwards. It was PUSHED on the public for purely
political reasons.


You just can't read. I specifically said:

"But as Doug and I pointed out, the companies are just
responding to what the mainstream opinion was which
created demand for a product. It matters
not a wit if it was based on totally sound science, or a govt
recommendation. The public was told and accepted that
margarine was a safe substitute for butter, which was bad.
Companies in turn made margarine products in response
to that demand and people bought it. You can't rewrite
history, we were there and say it. "


See, it doesn't matter if it was a govt, ie "political" decision.
The recommendation was that butter was bad. The public
heard the message and believed it. Companies
responded and produced products, ie margarine, that were
similar but without the saturated fat.


* The public was told and accepted that
margarine was a safe substitute for butter, which was bad.

But the scientists KNEW it was bad! They protested vigorously (there
are videos of it all over the net), but the politicians still won the
day. Government is the enemy. Big Food are their cronies.

No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the
scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you.
I believe the scientists and doctors that recommended substituting
margarine for butter really believed margarine was better for
you. That was the majority scientific opinion of the period.





Do you think New Yorkers are clamoring for restrictions on salt, drink
and meal size, etc? Or do you think that Nanny Bloomberg is just an
ignorant fascist douchebag, like I do?

What Bloomberg is doing isn't the issue. The issue is that
the mainstream scientific and medical belief at this point in
time is that excessive salt and super-sized sugary drinks
are bad for people. So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what
is considered sound, mainstream science today. You can
disagree with his methods, but it's the science of the day
that's the DRIVING factor.

To draw the correct margarine analogy, It's like claiming that
the soft drink manufacturer's today that are producing diet
soda are FORCING it on the public. In reality, they are
simply reacting to mainstream science and medicine and
consumer demand. Now if 20 years from now it turns out that
sucralose is harmful, is it fair to claim that it's some evil pushed
on the public by the soda manufacturers? Sorry, but I don't
believe that's the case.



Companies in turn made margarine products in response
to that demand and people bought it. *You can't rewrite
history, we were there and say it.

Pointing out that it was PUSHED on a mostly gullible population is not
rewriting history. It's simply telling the truth.

See the above.





Being a little bit low-carb, in my mind, is to look for loopholes
(have your cake and eat it too). Eventually those loopholes add up,
and you're not really eating low-carb anymore.

Not all people respond the same way. *Not all people
need a very low carb diet to benefit. *Not all people
are overweight to begin with. * I think it's perfectly
fine if people want to do what I would call a reduced
carb diet, where they avoid a significant amount of
refined carbs. *If it works for them, fine. *Your position is extreme.

This is not a matter of whether people should be forced to do what
they have no interest in doing (I'm against that!). *It's all about
doing things scientifically, and pointing out ways to do it and get
the best possible results.

There you go again. Forced? Who said anything about
forcing anyone to do anything? You were speaking out against
being a little bit low carb. All I'm saying is if that works for some
people and they just reduce carbs somewhat, that's fine with me.
Say someone isn't overweight or is only sligtly overweight. If
they choose to cut out some refined carbs, like some of their
bread, pasta, sugar, etc. and it works for them, I see nothing
wrong with it.






If you're happy being a chubby little man, who has no idea what his
actual health is (because you apparently don't want to know), by all
means, keep doing what you're doing.

I want you to. *And Darwin would want you to.

Nice.





Wheat (even small
amounts) stimulates appetite, and who wants that?
If you have some studies that show that wheat as
opposed to other similar foods has that effect, I'm
sure we'd all like to see them.

Read the book.


In other words, as usual, you have no studies to support
the assertions.