Topic: Nutrition and Diet

[Adela]

biro's approach is the best. If it tastes good, eat it.

   Yeah!  But then there's Jack LaLanne who said "If it tastes good, spit it out..."

Michelle Obama recently caught some flack for saying we needed to retrain our taste buds and get to like Arugula.  I think she is right on this.  Once I got back to more "natural" food, the processed stuff tastes so fake and terrible. 

[Marc1152]

I am only reacting to the latest advertising fraud that poses white sugar as being natural. I think the soda Sierra Mist tries to palm off sugar as more natural and better for you than HFCS. It's nothing of the kind.

I don't say that sugar is good for you, but studies have shown that HFCS is worse than cane sugar. For example:
"A Princeton University study showed rats gained significant more weight when consuming HFCS in comparison to table sugar, even when the caloric intake was the same. .... The rats who consumed HFCS gained 48% more weight than their sucrose peers and had significant deposits of abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides. In humans, these are characteristics of obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer."
See: High fructose corn syrup and cane sugar - Your body knows the difference
http://www.naturalnews.com/032281_HFCS_sugar.html

That could well be true. The sinister part of HFCS is that it is so cheap to make that they have added it to everything. Both should be avoided, except on your birthday.

[Shiny]

Unless you are following diets for well-defined reasons (diabetes, high risk of heart disease etc), I don't see much evidence for value in fad diet phenomenology. But it's a little like being a fan of Jethro Tull. Hey, more power to you if you get into that stuff, just don't make me do it. There's a book called Just Tell Me What to Eat by Tim Harlan that provides sane information about how to eat well, and it's pretty good.

[Shiny]

Oh and the paleo diet works great with side 2 of Thick As A Brick

[Shiny]

Sorry for the triple post but something caught my attention recently.

Can we talk about food addiction for the moment? Does it really take only 30 days to kill off an addiction, say soda for example?

[Asteriktos]

Fwiw, I've been a heavy soda drinker off and on through most of my life, until a few years ago when, facing uncontrolled diabetes, I was finally able to at least switch to diet. Don't know if I was addicted per se, but I did drink between a 12 pack and a case of the stuff a day (usually Mt. Dew, at least through my mid-20s). The main issue with stopping was the caffeine. After about 24 hours without some caffeine I'd get nauseous, and develop a headache that couldn't really be treated except by waiting it out. Usually I felt better after 2-3 days. After that I didn't feel any major cravings for it, not strong ones anyway. (one problem was that many of the alternatives were not really that much better, which is one reason I ended up going back a number of times).

Oh, and Aqualung by Jethro Tull is one of the best albums ever made.  

[Shiny]

Dude.

12 pack and a case...per day? Well maybe then I don't have a soda problem.

[Marc1152]

Unless you are following diets for well-defined reasons (diabetes, high risk of heart disease etc), I don't see much evidence for value in fad diet phenomenology. But it's a little like being a fan of Jethro Tull. Hey, more power to you if you get into that stuff, just don't make me do it. There's a book called Just Tell Me What to Eat by Tim Harlan that provides sane information about how to eat well, and it's pretty good.

So are you saying your health is not effected by what you eat? Caution to the wind unless you are already sick, from what you have been eating.
Sounds like a loop to me

How would you deal with information like this about Obesity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h0zD1gj0pXk#!

[Shiny]

So are you saying your health is not effected by what you eat?

Nope, I didn't say that at all. What I did want to convey is that there is a normative logical diet that is healthy (and that would take a book to discuss, which is why I referenced Just Tell Me What to Eat, an A+ foodie book IMHO), but that I see little value in diets tailored to specific risk factors (cholesterol or hypertension) for the large majority who don't have problems with these issues. But of course, if you have blood pressure issues, then it's AlsoSalt for you.

I also would give a big shout out to exercise. And I would also give a personal dietary indiscretion based largely on the fact that I'm a nocturnovore.

[Marc1152]

So are you saying your health is not effected by what you eat?

Nope, I didn't say that at all. What I did want to convey is that there is a normative logical diet that is healthy (and that would take a book to discuss, which is why I referenced Just Tell Me What to Eat, an A+ foodie book IMHO), but that I see little value in diets tailored to specific risk factors (cholesterol or hypertension) for the large majority who don't have problems with these issues. But of course, if you have blood pressure issues, then it's AlsoSalt for you.

I also would give a big shout out to exercise. And I would also give a personal dietary indiscretion based largely on the fact that I'm a nocturnovore.

I see now. Watching what you eat gets more important as we age. The rub is deciding what is healthy to eat and what is not.

But if you are diabetic as you mentioned, don't you need to exclude some things specifically? You really cant eat lots of carbs. Breads and Pasta and of course sugary things are out. It turns out that may be good advice for everyone not just diabetics.

nocturnovore.

Personally, I'm heterosexual but I accept you as you are as a child of God. 

[thetraditionalfrog]

My diet is, (or was till I ended up moving in with relatives about a year ago), along these lines:

Breakfast: Ham slices and a hard boiled egg or scrambled egg with ham pieces, or hard boiled egg and croissant. Usually served with tea or juice.

Lunch: Half a bagel or mini bagel toasted with a smear of butter (not that margarine rubbish) or Greek youghurt.

Dinner: Grilled hamburger, chicken stir fry, spaghetti, ham & bean or vegetable soup. Sides varied, but usually a vegetable (steamed or lightly heated).

During fasts I usually had a bagel with jam, or fruit for breakfast, skip lunch, and have vegetarian soup for dinner. Some days during the fast I would just omit lunch and breakfast completely. Tried to avoid snacks, but if needed a small handful of nuts, or a piece of fruit.

All in all, I tried to keep under 100 carbs a day, and keep a watch on fat and sugar content. Doing this and upping my exercise I lost a good amount of weight. Sadly, since moving in with relatives, I have much less control over my diet and thus have gained significant weight again. For fasting, I have switched to the AWRV (Western Orthodox) fasting rules as it is easier for my relatives who are Catholic to accommodate. I am hopefully going to be getting a new place to live in the next few months, then it's back to my diet.

[Sauron]

Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy.

(I am 36 and every time I go over there, I am called "sage elder")

[Marc1152]

Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy.

(I am 36 and every time I go over there, I am called "sage elder")

What is their rate of Fish consumption?

How much suger is in their diets?

Isnt most of the carbs from Rice?

What is their culural level  of community / group identification?

[stanley123]

Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy. ...

Perhaps you are joking? Because Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

[orthonorm]

Carohydrates are a deadly poison. The heavy amount of rice and noodles in the Japanese diet has given them the world's shortest life expectancy. ...

Perhaps you are joking? Because Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Irony, my fellow board member!

[Marc1152]

I have known many Japanese. I was in a Japanese organization and had them as house guests literally dozens of times.

The thing that most stood out about what they ate was the absence of sugar. If you fed them American chocolate for example it was waaaay too sweet for them. If they brought chocolate it was not sweet at all. It was rather good after you got used to it.

Rather they go down the salty road. They snack on little dried fish thingies and seaweed wrapped around a lite cracker.

Their fish consumption which equates to omega 3 comsumption is extremely high.

And if you have to pick a grain to eat, rice is probably the least noxious.

They also have a culture that strongly ( insanely) emphasize group identification. This cultural trait greatly adds to life expectancy. People who are isolated and have few community or group connections have life expediencies similar to heavy smokers.  

[Marc1152]

Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec

[Sauron]

Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec

[vamrat]

Diet and exercise, yo.  If you are active and burn more calories that you take in you'll be healthier than if you eat a perfect diet, but take in too much and don't use any of it.

I have been cutting down soda and alcohol consumption.  These are some of the easier calories to cut out if you were using them for hydration.  Water is much healthier and does a better job.  If you are drinking soda for the caffeine, then black coffee will have the same effect.  It doesn't taste as good and some people don't like hot drinks, but it's an acquired taste.  Alcohol is the hard one, if you need the alcohol in it.  I know plenty of people who just can't go on without a bit in their system.  Luckily, this hasn't been a problem for me in years.  (Even then, I wasn't an alcoholic so much as a binge drinker.  I'd go days without any, but when I did feel the need I drank to oblivion.)

Otherwise, my friend is on a diet and it's pretty strict as to what sorts of foods he can eat.  He has to take a battery of supplements to make this healthy.  I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

[Marc1152]

Diet and exercise, yo.  If you are active and burn more calories that you take in you'll be healthier than if you eat a perfect diet, but take in too much and don't use any of it.

I have been cutting down soda and alcohol consumption.  These are some of the easier calories to cut out if you were using them for hydration.  Water is much healthier and does a better job.  If you are drinking soda for the caffeine, then black coffee will have the same effect.  It doesn't taste as good and some people don't like hot drinks, but it's an acquired taste.  Alcohol is the hard one, if you need the alcohol in it.  I know plenty of people who just can't go on without a bit in their system.  Luckily, this hasn't been a problem for me in years.  (Even then, I wasn't an alcoholic so much as a binge drinker.  I'd go days without any, but when I did feel the need I drank to oblivion.)

Otherwise, my friend is on a diet and it's pretty strict as to what sorts of foods he can eat.  He has to take a battery of supplements to make this healthy.  I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

You should watch the video I just posted if you have not already. That is exactly the theory he takes apart.

[Asteriktos]

I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

But are you actually taking it off, or just loosening it? 

[vamrat]

I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

But are you actually taking it off, or just loosening it? 

Well, see...you have to loosen it before it will come off properly...

Stupid English spelling conventions...

[vamrat]

Diet and exercise, yo.  If you are active and burn more calories that you take in you'll be healthier than if you eat a perfect diet, but take in too much and don't use any of it.

I have been cutting down soda and alcohol consumption.  These are some of the easier calories to cut out if you were using them for hydration.  Water is much healthier and does a better job.  If you are drinking soda for the caffeine, then black coffee will have the same effect.  It doesn't taste as good and some people don't like hot drinks, but it's an acquired taste.  Alcohol is the hard one, if you need the alcohol in it.  I know plenty of people who just can't go on without a bit in their system.  Luckily, this hasn't been a problem for me in years.  (Even then, I wasn't an alcoholic so much as a binge drinker.  I'd go days without any, but when I did feel the need I drank to oblivion.)

Otherwise, my friend is on a diet and it's pretty strict as to what sorts of foods he can eat.  He has to take a battery of supplements to make this healthy.  I just watch my intake and try to exercise every day and it looks like we are loosing weight at about the same clip.

You should watch the video I just posted if you have not already. That is exactly the theory he takes apart.

Not yet.  I will try this evening, and would be interested to see how he does it.

[Νεκτάριος]

Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec

Or you could get the same information in about five minutes here. 

To me it seems like the fundamental problem remains in this fad diet - you can still overindulge, you just have to find the right thing to overindulge on. 

Sure, a high-fat diet that completely avoids carbs might be better than a diet that is filled with sugar, soda and the like.  On the other hand there seems to be little comparison with a diet that avoids overindulgence in anything but is rich in brown rice, rye (rather than white wheat flour) and vegetables.  The other inconvenient information glossed over is that in order to eat healthfully one must make their own food.  That's the only way to not load sugar into your food, goofy amounts of salt etc. 

[JamesR]

Not sure about what it is like for you fellows in eastern Europe, but in America I think that our biggest epidemic in terms of diet and nutrition is the fastfood industry. Go to any small to mid-sized town in the United States and I can guarantee that there will be at least one McDonalds, Burger King or Taco Bell fastfood restaurant; in fact, on many occasions there are multiple fastfood chains in a single town. It only grows worse the larger the city gets. Now visit a major city in the United States like LA, San Francisco or New York City and you will literally see a McDonalds on every two blocks bursting with hungry customers. Fastfood in moderation probably will not hurt anyone, and at many times can be a great treat,  but I think the issue is that Americans, including myself at times, eat it excessively to save time and make our day easier. If there is one thing that distinguishes Americans from the rest of the world it is the fact that we are always looking for some technological innovation or 'trick' to save us personal effort and get something done in the easiest way possible--and fastfood is no exception to this. We eat it almost everyday because we would rather risk our health and waste away our money on something conveniently prepared for us with our busy schedule rather than exert more effort and take the extra time to prepare something healthier and home-cooked for ourselves.

[Νεκτάριος]

McDonald's is midrange here so it is a bit too expensive for everyday food.   It is handy when I'm on the road since there is always one by train stations.  They all have free and fast wifi.   A few Big Macs per year isn't going to kill a person.  I don't understand the point unless I'm traveling since I could make a gourmet hamburger for less than the price of a Big Mac. 

[Marc1152]

I don't think the main topic of his lecture is about the value of a low carb diet. That came at the end and is indeed the conclusion he reaches. But I think he was trying to address the idea of fat being primarily caused by "Over indulgence" based on a theory many now consider to be false. That is 1. a calorie is a calorie is a calorie  and 2.False applicationof the 1st law of thermodynamics, you must expend more energy (calories) than you take in or else it is stored (as fat).  

Let me try to give his ideas about number 2 first.

Mr. Taubes has a degree in Physics from Harvard and before he turned to the science of nutrition he wrote about bad science in Physics. His most famous paper was about "Cold Fusion"

Someone said to him that if he is bothered by bad science in Physics, he ought to take a look at Public Health/Nutrition where bad science abounds. He did and now he is a leading journalist writing about Nutrition and Public health ( obesity epidemic etc.). His books include "Why we get fat" and "Good Calories, Bad Calories"

In a funny aside he recalls an encounter with Jillian Michaels one of the trainers from "Biggest Loser" when they were both guests on Larry King. Apparently she lectured him on the first law of thermodynamics ( energy in should balance by energy out or else it gets stored..etc.) not realizing that he is a trained Physicist.

It's better to watch the youtube I provided but here is a summary of how I understood his point:

There are laws of physics that are always True. But applying them to nutrition, while still being "True" tells us absolutely nothing about why people get fat. It tells us nothing about the source or cause of the problem.

He then gives an example using the audience he is addressing.

We can say that this room is crowed. We can then say it is crowded because more people came into the room then left the room. That is an absolutely True statement. However, it tells us nothing at all about why people came into the room.

Maybe there was a fire in another room so people came into this one. Maybe there was a bad smell so people came in here or maybe there was a compelling lecture being given. Why people came into the room is really what we need to know, not the physics.

He then talks about the false idea that all calories are the same. He cites multiple examples of people who live in scarcity becoming obese. Impoverished women who become obese while their children are emaciated for example.

Some of that is genetic predisposition and some is how and where fat is deposited on the body. But his conclusion ( after citing multiple examples) is that insulin drives fat storage and absence of insulin allows it's release. High Carb diets where long thought to be fattening. He speaks about the work of German Scientists before the War who had far different theories about how the body uses calories in relation to exercise and how it is stored. Their work was lost due to the War. The USA loved the German Physicists who could make A-bombs for us but the rest of the German scientific community lost standing.

The bottom line is that high carb intake including sugar is what drives fat, not lack of will power to balance your activity level with your caloric intake ( eat less, exercise more) as the best strategy to lose weight.  Adkins was right.

  

[Sauron]

There are laws of physics that are always True. But applying them to nutrition, while still being "True" tells us absolutely nothing about why people get fat. It tells us nothing about the source or cause of the problem.

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".

We can say that this room is crowed. We can then say it is crowded because more people came into the room then left the room. That is an absolutely True statement. However, it tells us nothing at all about why people came into the room.

Maybe there was a fire in another room so people came into this one. Maybe there was a bad smell so people came in here or maybe there was a compelling lecture being given. Why people came into the room is really what we need to know, not the physics.

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.

The bottom line is that high carb intake including sugar is what drives fat, not lack of will power to balance your activity level with your caloric intake ( eat less, exercise more) as the best strategy to lose weight.  Adkins was right.

People in concentration camps ate nothing but pure carbohydrate gruel. That must be why they were so fat when liberated. (very clever, those Nazis, making prisoners too fat to make effective escape attempts)

Here is a paltry physics question for you: I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?

[Marc1152]

There are laws of physics that are always True. But applying them to nutrition, while still being "True" tells us absolutely nothing about why people get fat. It tells us nothing about the source or cause of the problem.

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".

We can say that this room is crowed. We can then say it is crowded because more people came into the room then left the room. That is an absolutely True statement. However, it tells us nothing at all about why people came into the room.

Maybe there was a fire in another room so people came into this one. Maybe there was a bad smell so people came in here or maybe there was a compelling lecture being given. Why people came into the room is really what we need to know, not the physics.

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.

The bottom line is that high carb intake including sugar is what drives fat, not lack of will power to balance your activity level with your caloric intake ( eat less, exercise more) as the best strategy to lose weight.  Adkins was right.

People in concentration camps ate nothing but pure carbohydrate gruel. That must be why they were so fat when liberated. (very clever, those Nazis, making prisoners too fat to make effective escape attempts)

Here is a paltry physics question for you: I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

People in concentration camps ate nothing but pure carbohydrate gruel. That must be why they were so fat when liberated. (very clever, those Nazis, making prisoners too fat to make effective escape attempts)


Starvation or near starvation will cause you to lose weight. The point is that it is not an effective strategy in daily life.
Carbs are not poison. They are quickly converted to sugar and used for quick energy. They are an emergency food. A diet high in carbs in normal circumstances will make you fat. In a starvation setting, like in a concentration camp, a bit more fat on your body is a good thing I would think

[Sauron]

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

I agree to nothing of the kind. And, until you can solve the platry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics. I will repeat it now:

I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?

Starvation or near starvation will cause you to lose weight. The point is that it is not an effective strategy in daily life.
Carbs are not poison. They are quickly converted to sugar and used for quick energy. They are an emergency food. A diet high in carbs in normal circumstances will make you fat. In a starvation setting, like in a concentration camp, a bit more fat on your body is a good thing I would think

Why does starvation cause weight loss if "energy in, energy out" is wrong?

[PeterTheAleut]

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

I agree to nothing of the kind.

Actually, you did agree with Marc.

And, until you can solve the platry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.

There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

[Sauron]

ctually, you did agree with Marc.

Actually, I didn't. It is impolite to take part in a discussion if you can't keep up.

And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.

There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one. I could be wrong, but I can't recall an instance in the Bible, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, or yiayia theology where anyone was ever praised for stating an opinion on matters where he lacked even the most basic knowledge. In this case, Marc is talking about the laws of thermodynamics. That's fine, but first he has to establish that he is qualified to do so. To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.

Like I said, I think this is pretty simply and obvious, but let me know if you still don't get it.

[Marc1152]

They all are always true. That is why they get called "laws".


Yup..That's what he said. They are True but give us no useful information about weight gain.. Glad you agree

Incorrect. The laws of thermodynamics do not consider the reason for why energy entered a system, only that the energy is there.


Exactly his point. It gives us no useful information about why. Glad you agree again

I agree to nothing of the kind. And, until you can solve the platry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics. I will repeat it now:

I pick a book with a mass of 500 g off the floor and put it on a shelf 150 cm above the floor. How much energy have I imparted to the book?

Starvation or near starvation will cause you to lose weight. The point is that it is not an effective strategy in daily life.
Carbs are not poison. They are quickly converted to sugar and used for quick energy. They are an emergency food. A diet high in carbs in normal circumstances will make you fat. In a starvation setting, like in a concentration camp, a bit more fat on your body is a good thing I would think

Why does starvation cause weight loss if "energy in, energy out" is wrong?

And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..


Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.

[Sauron]

And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

I'm on a mission from God.

FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..

Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.

Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

[Aindriú]

Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Chill out, Sauron.

[Asteriktos]

If I hadn't switched majors I'd be working as a dietetic technician by now. Then I'd probably have to hear these arguments every day*. For once I made a good choice. 



*I still hear arguments every day on youtube, but those are usually pretty funny, something like:
Person 1: You don't listen to what the scientific literature says! You're following broscience!
Person 2: You're fat! I have years of experience! I don't need science!
Person 1: I'm bulking! Stop reading Flex magazine and look at the journal articles!
Person 2: 35% bodyfat ain't bulking broseph! Besides, both the studies you mention were done on rats. Fail!

[Sauron]

Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

Chill out, Sauron.

Chilling out has nothing to do with the fact that one should not speak upon subjects where one lacks familiarity with even the fundamentals.

To use an analogy that might help, imagine being told by someone that orthodox theology is all wrong. The person saying this, however, is unfamiliar with terms such as "incarnation" and "apostolic succession".

[Sauron]

If I hadn't switched majors I'd be working as a dietetic technician by now. Then I'd probably have to hear these arguments every day*. For once I made a good choice. 



*I still hear arguments every day on youtube, but those are usually pretty funny, something like:
Person 1: You don't listen to what the scientific literature says! You're following broscience!
Person 2: You're fat! I have years of experience! I don't need science!
Person 1: I'm bulking! Stop reading Flex magazine and look at the journal articles!
Person 2: 35% bodyfat ain't bulking broseph! Besides, both the studies you mention were done on rats. Fail!

I barely have time to post on the interest because I am too busy with eight meals a day or my muscles will fall off. That 3:30 am feeding is key, brah.

[akimori makoto]

If I hadn't switched majors I'd be working as a dietetic technician by now. Then I'd probably have to hear these arguments every day*. For once I made a good choice. 



*I still hear arguments every day on youtube, but those are usually pretty funny, something like:
Person 1: You don't listen to what the scientific literature says! You're following broscience!
Person 2: You're fat! I have years of experience! I don't need science!
Person 1: I'm bulking! Stop reading Flex magazine and look at the journal articles!
Person 2: 35% bodyfat ain't bulking broseph! Besides, both the studies you mention were done on rats. Fail!

That was awesome.

[stanley123]

Here is a great lecture by Gary Taubes based on his book"Why We Get Fat". It's around an hour long but well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTUspjZG-wc&feature=g-vrec

BTW, doesn't Gary Taubes say that grain fed meat is not a problem and that we don't have to go to grass fed meat? I thought that eating  grain-fed  meat could  give you heart disease and cancer.

[PeterTheAleut]

ctually, you did agree with Marc.

Actually, I didn't. It is impolite to take part in a discussion if you can't keep up.

Actually, I am keeping up.

And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.

There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.

But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.

No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

I could be wrong, but I can't recall an instance in the Bible, the sayings of the Desert Fathers, or yiayia theology where anyone was ever praised for stating an opinion on matters where he lacked even the most basic knowledge. In this case, Marc is talking about the laws of thermodynamics. That's fine, but first he has to establish that he is qualified to do so.

No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.

You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Like I said, I think this is pretty simply and obvious, but let me know if you still don't get it.

Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.

[PeterTheAleut]

And who elected you again? I must have missed the vote.

I'm on a mission from God.

Yup. We can tell you think so.

FYI..I get to say any dumb thing i want as long as it is within the rules of this forum..

Are you having a reading comprehension problem?

Let's try again.. No one has said that energy in energy out is "wrong"..

The application of that principle to Diet and Nutrition has led to some bad practices that are of no value.

Yeah, you still don't get it. Since you lack even the most basic knowledge of what energy is and how it works, you don't get to talk about thermodynamics. The reason is that you don't know what you are talking about.

I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about on the subject of diet and nutrition. So why are you still here?

[Sauron]

And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.

There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.

But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

It is not "bullying" to demand that someone establish qualifications before speaking on a subject. If you cannot wrap your brain around this rather simple concept, I do not know what can be done for you.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.

No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

Yes, he does. No one has any right to an uninformed opinion. However, I do appreciate your admission that when it comes to discussing thermodynamics, your internet client is an unarmed man.

No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

Yes, he does, and the thermodynamics talk is rather essential to his argument.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.

You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Actually, I am the only one making a big deal of the fact that when it comes to thermodynamics and energy balance, Marc is an "unarmed man". I am glad you admit that. Case closed!

Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.

And I am giving a very good reason why Marc's opinion on this subject should not be taken seriously.

You admit that your client is an intellectually unarmed man in this topic. Care to explain why such a man's opinion matters?

[Sauron]

I've already shown that you don't know what you're talking about on the subject of diet and nutrition. So why are you still here?

You have shown nothing of the kind. Keep megadosing that vitamin C!

[PeterTheAleut]

And, until you can solve the paltry physics dilemma I presented you, you do not get to talk about thermodynamics.

There you go again with your bully tactics. Marc can talk about thermodynamics if he wants.

You don't know what "bully" means, then.

But in fact I do. You have a nasty habit of trying to shut down all conversation with which you disagree on the grounds that someone who can't answer your questions isn't qualified to talk. That's bullying.

It is not "bullying" to demand that someone establish qualifications before speaking on a subject. If you cannot wrap your brain around this rather simple concept, I do not know what can be done for you.

Please don't forgive me for refusing to embrace your definitions of words.

This concept is quite simple, and I hope I can help you to understand. If your internet client wants to hold an opinion, he needs to make sure it is an informed one.

No, he doesn't. This isn't a court of law. If you don't want to argue with an unarmed man, then don't join the discussion.

Yes, he does. No one has any right to an uninformed opinion.

Actually, yes he does have the right to an uninformed opinion. If he's wrong, then correct him; your audience can actually stand to benefit from receiving the correct information on the subject. If you spend all your time, though, trying to shut down your opponent because you think him ignorant and unqualified to speak, then who benefits? You're not sharing any facts that can improve our understanding.

However, I do appreciate your admission that when it comes to discussing thermodynamics, your internet client is an unarmed man.

I said no such thing specifically about Marc.

No, he doesn't, especially considering that his talk about the laws of thermodynamics is peripheral to his arguments.

Yes, he does, and the thermodynamics talk is rather essential to his argument.

Actually not. If you want to read his arguments in a way that disagrees with my reading, that's fine. You have the right to do that, but you also have the right to be wrong.

To this end, I posed a question that can be answered by anyone who has taken about one month of his first high school physics class. If he can't figure that out, he lacks even the most fundamental understanding of what energy is and how it works, making him incompetent to discuss thermodynamics in any sense.

You're the only one making a big deal of thermodynamics on this thread.

Actually, I am the only one making a big deal of the fact that when it comes to thermodynamics and energy balance, Marc is an "unarmed man". I am glad you admit that. Case closed!

But you have no case, so how can you close it?

Honestly, I don't want to think like you do. This forum is about the free exchange of ideas. Let Marc express his ideas and let us decide if they're worth taking seriously.

And I am giving a very good reason why Marc's opinion on this subject should not be taken seriously.

Okay. That's a legitimate pursuit if you wish to do that (not to pass any judgment yea or nay on Marc's opinion, since I really don't care). Just don't tell him to shut up, because I will defend his right to say anything he wants, as long as he stays within the rules of this forum.

You admit that your client is an intellectually unarmed man in this topic. Care to explain why such a man's opinion matters?

Well, for one thing, I never called Marc an unarmed man, and if you think I said that, then you have misunderstood my "unarmed man" comment and failed to recognize that I offered it only as general advice. So let me expand my comment. If you see a man you think is intellectually unarmed, you don't have to engage him in an argument. You can just walk away and allow him the freedom to say whatever stupid thing he wants to say.