If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Heart poison
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 10:25:41 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] 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. You said the public was demanding it. It wasn't. It was PUSHED on the public, totally because of political, not scientific, considerations. You can claim otherwise until the cows come home, but that's exactly what happened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFQc2kxm9c * 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. The scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with butter (saturated fat, etc.), and that the long-term affects of eating trans-fat were unknown (until around the '90s). 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. Yes it is. You make it sound like the people are creating this so-called "demand." They are not. It's the politicians. It's always the politicians (and their Big Food cronies). 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. Define: "excessive salt." If you have normal blood pressure, you can pretty much eat all the salt you want. Of course, morons like you don't like to test things like BP, cholesterol, BC, etc., so... Fact: ALL sugary drinks are bad for you. Why ban just super-sized ones? So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what is considered sound, mainstream science today. No he's not, because there is no consensus regarding salt! For the vast majority of us, salt is just fine, even desirable! Even necessary! Bloomberg is doing exactly what McGovern did: He's pushing an agenda that has nothing to do with science. Zero. Nada. Zilch. http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/04/salt-is-good-for-you 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. No, you see the above. [...] 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. That's exactly right. That's exactly my opinion. And I provided the reasons why I felt that way. You don't have to agree with them, I really don't care what you think about anything, anyway. But others might appreciate a different way of looking at the topic. They might want to improve their odds of success. 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. Thank you! 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. I don't. But Dr. Davis and others do. But since you don't care... ......................./´¯/) .....................,/¯../ ..................../..../ ............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ .........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........\.................'...../ ...........''...\.......... _.·´ .............\..............( ...............\.............\... For others, here's a hint: gliadin "Modern wheat cultivars might contain more gliadins. Gliadins are also implicated in promoting appetite" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliadin -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Heart poison
On Sep 8, 3:54*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 10:25:41 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] 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. You said the public was demanding it. It wasn't. It was PUSHED on the public, totally because of political, not scientific, considerations. One more time, this is what I said: "The market demand is for a product that does not use a specific component, be that gluten, transfat, fat, etc. That demand is driven by what people are choosing to buy based on the latest information from govt, health "experts", fads, etc. In the specific case, the alleged evils of wheat and gluten, there is demand emerging for products that are gluten free. So, maufacturer's are coming up with new formulations that leave the gluten out. That is what the market is demanding. So, they try to products similar to what is selling well now, except leave the gluten out. What they put in instead is up to them and will be driven by how it effects the product, what it tastes like, what it costs, etc. " The concept of market demand, consumer demand is an economic one. It just means that some consumers WANT TO BUY THAT PARTICULAR PRODUCT. Supermarkets have products with wheat in them. They have products that are wheat free. They have butter, they have margarine. Consumers are free to choose what they want. If there was no demand for a product, companies would not put it on the shelves. And that demand is creatied by people reacting to the latest science and medicine news, govt recommendations, and even books like Atkins and Wheat Belly. The concepts are simple, try to follow. No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you. The scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with butter (saturated fat, etc.), and that the long-term affects of eating trans-fat were unknown (until around the '90s). BS. Back 30 years ago, most scientists and doctors believed eating margarine was healthier than eating butter. Most still believe it today, except that now they say to eat only margarine that is not made from transfats. 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. Yes it is. You make it sound like the people are creating this so-called "demand." *They are not. *It's the politicians. It's always the politicians (and their Big Food cronies). Obviously you are as ignorant of economics as you are of science.. Consumer demand simple means that people want to buy that product. If they did not want to buy it, then it would not sell. Very simple. 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. Define: "excessive salt." If you have normal blood pressure, you can pretty much eat all the salt you want. Of course, morons like you don't like to test things like BP, cholesterol, BC, etc., so... I don't have to define anything. The simple facts are that most of the scientific and medical world says that almost all of us are eating too much salt. And it's not some vast conspiracy, where they know it's a lie. What exactly would be the point to getting people to eat less salt, if it's not because most medical authorities believe it's unhealthy? Just to have another conspiracy for you to rant about? Fact: ALL sugary drinks are bad for you. Why ban just super-sized ones? The theory is that whatever size one you have, you are likely going to consume the whole thing. So, if you have a small one instead of a huge one, you're likely to wind up taking in less sugar. Again, really simple concept. So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what is considered sound, mainstream science today. No he's not, because there is no consensus regarding salt! For the vast majority of us, salt is just fine, even desirable! Even necessary! Again, that is simply not true. The mainstream health authorities, the govt, etc have been telling people for years that the typical American is eating way too much salt. Just because there are some who disagree doesn't change that. You brought up Bloomberg and he's a good example of the silliness of your argument. Because if Bloomberg is not trying to reduce the amount of salt people consume and the amount of sugary drinks because of the science and medicine behind it, then why on earth would he be doing it? Just for the hell of it? Geez.... And when Bloomberg was proposing his bans on salt and large sodas, what went along with it in the media? Reporting on the obesity epidemic, how health authorities agree we drink too much sugar laden soda, eat too much salt, etc. Or in your universe did you see news coverage where they said, "Gee, no one can figure out why Bloomberg wants to do that because everyone agrees lots of sugar drinks, lots of salt are perfectly fine for you?" See any of that? No, all you saw was coverage that sodas and salt are indeed bad and the debate was whether Bloomberg's methods would make a difference, should the bans be put into place, are they the right approach to the problem, etc. 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. That's exactly right. That's exactly my opinion. And I provided the reasons why I felt that way. *You don't have to agree with them, I really don't care what you think about anything, anyway. Spoken like the extremist you are. But others might appreciate a different way of looking at the topic. They might want to improve their odds of success. The point was you were arguing that LC has to be all or nothing. And again, what odds of success? I gave you an example of someone who is not overweight, is not diabetic, is healthy, but chooses to reduce carbs by just eliminating some refined carbs like bread, pasta, etc. They are already successful, they aren't a diabetic trying to lose 100lbs. So, I say if they want to reduce carbs and it works for them, fine. You say, they have to either be doing your versions of LC or the highway. There isn't even agreement as to exactly what the definition of LC is. So, if someone chooses to just cut back some of their refined carbs and it works for them, it's fine by me. 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. As usual, crickets...... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Heart poison
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 14:01:56 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] 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. You said the public was demanding it. It wasn't. It was PUSHED on the public, totally because of political, not scientific, considerations. One more time, this is what I said: [...] You can repeat yourself until the cows come home, but you'll be just as wrong each and every time you do. No, that's in your jaundiced conspiracy world view, where the scientists decades ago knew that margarine was bad for you. The scientists knew that there was nothing wrong with butter (saturated fat, etc.), and that the long-term affects of eating trans-fat were unknown (until around the '90s). BS. Back 30 years ago, most scientists and doctors believed eating margarine was healthier than eating butter. Most still believe it today, except that now they say to eat only margarine that is not made from transfats. No, only the "scientists" who think the Scientific Method is a way to avoid getting your girlfriend pregnant. 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. Yes it is. You make it sound like the people are creating this so-called "demand." *They are not. *It's the politicians. It's always the politicians (and their Big Food cronies). Obviously you are as ignorant of economics as you are of science.. Consumer demand simple means that people want to buy that product. If they did not want to buy it, then it would not sell. Very simple. They buy it for the same reasons that people play Three Card Monte, think that Al Gore is a scientist and that we're all gonna die!, etc. 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. Define: "excessive salt." If you have normal blood pressure, you can pretty much eat all the salt you want. Of course, morons like you don't like to test things like BP, cholesterol, BC, etc., so... I don't have to define anything. No, you don't. Because you can't. In the absence of hypertension, there is essentially no scientific reason that you shouldn't enjoy as much salt as you like. Especially if you're eating REAL foods, getting enough potassium, etc. But since morons like you don't see any reason to test or measure for things like that, go ahead. Restrict your salt. Fly blind! The simple facts are that most of the scientific and medical world says that almost all of us are eating too much salt. What? Did you take a poll? But the FACT remains, there is no credible scientific evidence that salt is bad for our health. Quite the contrary, in fact. http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...he-war-on-salt http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/op...salt.html?_r=1 What exactly would be the point to getting people to eat less salt, if it's not because most medical authorities believe it's unhealthy? IGNORANCE, the same disease you suffer from. And the fascist tendency to try to control the behaviors of others. Also like you. It's no wonder that you and Nanny Bloomberg are birds of a feather. Fact: ALL sugary drinks are bad for you. Why ban just super-sized ones? The theory is that whatever size one you have, you are likely going to consume the whole thing. Oh, really? A person can't just buy *two* drinks instead? Perhaps Nanny Bloomberg could mandate that you can only order one donut? How about limiting the size of cakes to just one small slice? Really, you're about the dumbest person I've ever encountered anywhere. So, Bloomberg is REACTING to what is considered sound, mainstream science today. No he's not, because there is no consensus regarding salt! For the vast majority of us, salt is just fine, even desirable! Even necessary! Again, that is simply not true. It's 100% true, and just a little googling can prove it. You brought up Bloomberg and he's a good example of the silliness of your argument. Because if Bloomberg is not trying to reduce the amount of salt people consume and the amount of sugary drinks because of the science and medicine behind it, then why on earth would he be doing it? Just for the hell of it? Geez.... Because he's just as ignorant as you are, and because he probably thinks it will reduce health care costs. And becsuae he's a freakin' Nanny. And when Bloomberg was proposing his bans on salt and large sodas, what went along with it in the media? Reporting on the obesity epidemic, how health authorities agree we drink too much sugar laden soda, eat too much salt, etc. First, we don't eat too much salt. Period. Second, we don't need government telling us how much soda pop we can drink. Yes, we have an obesity epidemic. No, there's no one-size fits all solution to it. Third, health authorities have never agreed on anything, and that's a "good thing." 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. That's exactly right. That's exactly my opinion. And I provided the reasons why I felt that way. *You don't have to agree with them, I really don't care what you think about anything, anyway. Spoken like the extremist you are. Extremism in defense of ignorance is almost a moral obligation. But others might appreciate a different way of looking at the topic. They might want to improve their odds of success. The point was you were arguing that LC has to be all or nothing. Do you take straw men to bed with you at night? What I said was, there are things you can do, and shouldn't do, that will affect your odds of success. Yes, whether you define success as losing a few pounds, losing a lot of pounds, eliminating the need to take drugs (your favorite love potion!), avoiding metabolic syndrome and diabetes, becoming more fit, etc. And again, what odds of success? I gave you an example of someone who is not overweight, is not diabetic, is healthy, but chooses to reduce carbs by just eliminating some refined carbs like bread, pasta, etc. Look, this newsgroup isn't all the Little Trader Boy. The information that I provide may help others. See above. 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. As usual, crickets. I showed you (and others) where you can find the studies (since apparently you aren't capable of googling anything that doesn't have something to do with AIDS). And that's all I'm going to do. And if that's not enough? ......................./´¯/) .....................,/¯../ ..................../..../ ............../´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ .........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ .........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...') ..........\.................'...../ ...........''...\.......... _.·´ .............\..............( ...............\.............\... -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
LIPITOR: THE POISON THAT CAUSES CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE | [email protected] | General Discussion | 0 | March 4th, 2008 10:16 PM |
Poison In The Food: How the Hungry Lion Eats Us | donquijote1954 | General Discussion | 6 | December 13th, 2006 04:14 PM |
WW without guilt or poison notices | Kate Dicey | Weightwatchers | 14 | February 25th, 2006 11:38 PM |
Soda is poison! | Andrew | General Discussion | 0 | May 26th, 2005 08:35 PM |
Prednisone for my poison ivy | curt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 36 | November 25th, 2004 03:28 AM |