Posted on 04/05/2014 3:41:07 AM PDT by markomalley
Ditto on the salt pork and mashed potatoes.
About once a year, I take another look in detail at the issue. Nothing that I have seen so far has allayed my concerns. Am I correct? Or, more to the point, are the doctors and scientists who have raised the alarm well-founded in their concerns? My impression is that the evidence against BPA and other POPs is accumulating, much as the evidence did against cigarettes, lead in gasoline, and against other chemical pollutants.
For me at least, the balance has tipped in favor of caution even at the price of minor inconveniences. You may conclude otherwise, but take a look at the medical evidence. Simply reading the medical journal abstracts in the Pubmed database should be enough to persuade you that, at the very least, the issue is open to debate.
The same abstracts that cry alarm over alleged estrogen dependent effects want you to believe that many other POP's are also very dangerous in minuscule amounts. These analyses are promoted as scientific, but they are really designed to sell books, promote an agenda, or make grant money flow.
What was that quote again about keeping the public alarmed and clamoring to be led to safety?
So if I consume 3,000 calories a day entirely from fat, and only expend 1,500 calories a day via metabolic processes and physical activity, I won't gain weight? And, if I eat 1,500 calories a day from only sugar and starch, but burn off 3,000 calories a day, I won't lose weight because all calories consumed came from carbs? Is that what you're claiming?
That's what it sounds like. If so, you need to rethink what you've written.
It takes quite a while to process the fat into calories, some of it might pass right through.
The sugar is instantly converted to calories...or stored as fat.
Thanks.
Your suggestion that this evidence is the result of comprehensive, systematic fraud is not tenable. I recommend you go to a medical library for a few hours and read the treatises and journal articles. You need not agree with them, but at least you will have engaged the evidence.
People get fat from consuming more energy than they burn. It has nothing to do with any one particular macronutrient. It isn't as complicated as some try to make it. Calories in vs. calories out. That's it.
Anyone not realizing that research and the peer review process has been seriously corrupted, isn't paying attention.
Evidence commonly varies in quality, and there are few instances in which even expert publications are utterly devoid of self interest, bias, and error. Of course, these defects apply not just to evidence on the side one dislikes, but also to the side that one prefers. Even if, as Samuel Johnson famously pointed out, no one but a blockhead writes for any reason except money, in the end, there is no substitute for studying the evidence, good and bad, favorable and unfavorable.
Really!
Then why do the low-carb diets work?
Are you sure you know what Round up is used for. Cause it sure doesn't sound like it.
Once again, bloviating and hysteria triumph over facts. But hey, it's a free country. You go right ahead.
People lose weight because they burn more calories than they consume. It has always been this way. I suspect that the low carb diet is, for the most part, a low calorie diet.
Michael Phelps would devour 12,000 calories a day, mostly from carbs, when he was in training. According to you, he's an obese slob.
I make Corn Chowder much the same way except I use 3 cans of cream corn, I know how to cream corn but with two feet of snow in my front how am I going to get fresh corn, and then add 2 pounds of frozen corn.
I make it thinner than Clam Chowder but still served with oyster crackers and black pepper as God intended it to be.
Not exactly, the fat doesn't create an instant insulin reaction the second your tongue tastes it... but sugar/starch does. So do artificial sweeteners, because the body thinks it's sugar.
People lose weight because they burn more calories than they consume. It has always been this way. I suspect that the low carb diet is, for the most part, a low calorie diet.
No, it isn't.
But because most readily available food is loaded with flour or sugar, or both, and that's what most people eat. They get up, have some cereal or toast, coffee with cream and sugar, on the way to work, pick up another sugar loaded coffee and a donut or bagel, and that holds them till coffee break where they eat some cinnamon rolls with their next sugar laden coffee.
Then they have pizza and chips for lunch with a large Pepsi. Grab a couple of beers on the way home from work and then have a huge dinner of spaghetti and meatballs, and garlic bread.
Unless they are an athlete, they can't possibly burn all of it off.
On the cave-man, or God diet, you cut out all man made carbohydrate based "foods" and just stick to meat, seafood, butter and vegetables, shunning starchy vegetables and fruits. Nothing out of a box or bag.
You can have all the fat you want....Although I doubt you'd be likely to eat enough fat to equal all the calories I described above.
The "junk food" industry is based on products that are cheap to make, easy to consume, and quick to digest, which leave you hungry sooner, also when you add the sugar/carb crash to the equation, people are literally addicted to their eating habits.
Isocaloric != isometabolic. Your metabolism != laboratory calorimeter.
Technically, laboratory calorimeters can determine the caloric content of wood fiber. In your body that’s pretty close to zero. Unless you’re a flagellate in the intestine of a termite. Not so in a lab experiment, by the strict definition calorie.
No, it isn't.
When I tried Atkins, it was a low calorie diet.
I ate protein and fat, and didn't feel hungry. No snacking all day.
Well...didn’t the protein and fat contain calories?
Were you limited in how much fat to eat?
Why yes they did. 4 calories/gram of protein, 9 calories/gram of fat.
Were you limited in how much fat to eat?
No. But I never felt hungry, so I ate less.
Not exactly, the fat doesn't create an instant insulin reaction...
So what? What does this have to do with the first law of thermodynamics?
...but sugar/starch does
Well of course it does. Insulin facilitates the metabolization of carbohydrates. Again, so what?
So do artificial sweeteners, because the body thinks it's sugar.
If the artificial sweetener doesn't provide any calories, why would there be an insulin response? Your body knows when it's getting carbs and when it isn't. This is nonsense.
Do you really believe that insulin being released is responsible for people becoming fat? Good grief.
The rest of your post simply describes what I've been trying to tell you. People who eat more calories than they burn are going to gain weight. Overeating is a learned behavior, and there is a lot of it going on these days. Combine the over consumption of calories with a sedentary lifestyle, and you end up with an overweight population. Nothing earth shattering there.
There is no God diet. Cave men didn't live very long for a lot of reasons, and their diet played a role. If you consume more calories from fat than you burn, you will get fat(ter). If you consume more calories from protein than you burn, you will get fat(ter). If you consume more calories from carbohydrates than you burn, you will get fat(ter). Same as it ever was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.