On Oct 7, 7:48*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 16:25:22 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
To me the issue is like wheat or carbs or whatever. *Few are willing to
do an organized eliminate-and-challenge system to figure out what
actually causes their problems. *So they eliminate some class of foods,
get a benefit, and think the entire class was the problem. *or they
eliminate some class of foods, get a benefit, and thank everyone will
get the same benefit.

Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat.

Talk about strawmen, this is a classic. *Doug didn't
say people should refrain from eating foods they might
have sensitivity issues with. * He said they should do an
eliminate/challenge approach to find out what they have
issues with.

That's not a straw man (really, you should look up that term in your
Funk & Wagnall). It's just an add-on to Doug's add-on comments,
comments that I generally agreed with.

But the point of the article was to inform that nitrates, etc.,
shouldn't be avoided due to fears of cancer and heart attacks. I
didn't want to see that IMPORTANT point lost.

What an idiot you are.

It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example, a fear
of cancer, heart attack, etc. In fact, doing so may actually be
counterproductive to one's health.

And that was the point of the article.
And this coming from the guy who gave us a lecture
just a week ago about Carbquik. *Remember that
dogman?

I have no idea what those two things have to do with each other.


Of course you don't because, well you're the village idiot
who has become a shill for Dr. Wheatbelly.
Doug proposed that people can do a trial of some foods for
potential problems, see how they react, and eliminate those
that they have issues with. Very much in line with Atkins and
other diet authorities.

Your response:

"Doug, if people automatically refrained from eating all the foods
that
they MIGHT be sensitive to, they wouldn't have anything to eat. It
should be implied that no one should eat something that he or she is
actually sensitive or allergic to, but there's no reason beyond that
to avoid foods that contain nitrates and nitrites, for example..."


Yet it was you just a week or so ago that was lecturing
us on how we absolutely must check our blood glucose
response and lipid response to anything suspect that
we eat. The case in point was occasional use of
Carbquik, which many of us regulars use. You claimed
it was dangerous and irresponsible
to NOT do BG and lipid testing, even though we are not
diabetic. Which is hysterically foolish, because among
other things, every thinking person here knows that it's
nuts to expect a measurable difference in lipids from
eating a couple Carbquik pancakes once or twice a week,
which might represent .1% of an overall diet.

And now here you are, saying just the opposite.
Got it now?

And as a second point, Doug never said that people should
refrain from eating all foods they might be sensitive to.
So, yes indeed, you created a nice strawman.