Author Topic: Episode #683  (Read 2719 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2018, 03:26:25 PM »
I'd love to see CarbShark's debate, but I think they would have to swap in someone else for Sean Carroll because nutrition would be pretty far outside his area of expertise.  David Gorsky might be a better choice.  I don't think they would do it thought because a discussion about which type of good diet is the best diet has a lot lower of an impact than other topics that would be more exciting and impactful to more people.  Still, I would like to see Steve or Dr Gorsky do a deep dive on the more controversial claims of LCHF proponents that CarbShark mentioned.  But for the love of god, let's keep this thread's discussion limited to the discussion of the debate (as we have so far) and avoid discussing LCHF topics themselves.

I don’t think that there would be any merit in a debate since there is no ‘best’ diet, unlike debates on evolution versus young Earth creationism, or on the existence of god(s) versus their absence.  In the latter two topics, if one option is true, then the other must be false.

From memory, Steve Novella seems to be an agnostic on low carbohydrate diets.  CarbShark’s rants seemed to have been set off by Steve referring to a metaanalysis of studies comparing low fat/high carbohydrate diets versus high fat/low carbohydrate diets for weight loss months ago, which showed little difference.  Steve Novella successfully lost unwanted weight by doing little more than reducing portion size.

CarbShark has conflated the question by extending it into claimining that his high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet is the best one for long term longevity and health.  He seems to regard his diet as being ‘magic’, and thinks that my comment that people have to accept responsibility for their own diets and weight as shifting blame onto the obese, preferring his conspiracy theories concerning medical authorities and food manufacturers.

It would be an interesting topic though, comparing the sustainability of animal-based diets versus plant-based diets.   With the global population increasing towards 9 billion in 2050 with almost all the arable land already in use.  CarbShark’s diet might turn out to be a luxury the Earth can’t afford.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10658
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2018, 07:55:47 PM »
I'd love to see CarbShark's debate, but I think they would have to swap in someone else for Sean Carroll because nutrition would be pretty far outside his area of expertise.  David Gorsky might be a better choice.  I don't think they would do it thought because a discussion about which type of good diet is the best diet has a lot lower of an impact than other topics that would be more exciting and impactful to more people.  Still, I would like to see Steve or Dr Gorsky do a deep dive on the more controversial claims of LCHF proponents that CarbShark mentioned.  But for the love of god, let's keep this thread's discussion limited to the discussion of the debate (as we have so far) and avoid discussing LCHF topics themselves.

I don’t think that there would be any merit in a debate since there is no ‘best’ diet, unlike debates on evolution versus young Earth creationism, or on the existence of god(s) versus their absence.  In the latter two topics, if one option is true, then the other must be false.

Again, the topic would not be:what's the best weight loss diet?; nor would it be what's the healthiest diet?

Debates have a topic, usually as a resolution with one side advocating a specific action (the affirmative) and the other side advocating for the status quo (the negative). (The "does god exist" or is "Evolution for Real" topics, are two general to form the basis for a meaningful debate).

Since the proponents of the alternate theory are the ones proposing a change from the status quo the topic would be more like this:

Resolved: The dietary guidelines provided to Americans by the government should be revised to reflect the best available science and discourage consumption of carbohydrates, especially sugars, flours and other highly refined carbohydrates, and encourage consumption of healthy fats.

It's specific. It's focused. There's plenty of evidence to discuss.

Quote
From memory, Steve Novella seems to be an agnostic on low carbohydrate diets.  CarbShark’s rants seemed to have been set off by Steve referring to a metaanalysis of studies comparing low fat/high carbohydrate diets versus high fat/low carbohydrate diets for weight loss months ago, which showed little difference.  Steve Novella successfully lost unwanted weight by doing little more than reducing portion size.

Your memory is faulty. And not I have be not "set off" by any one. My rants discussions have pretty much had the same tone (and often the same content) for years. Ask anyone.

Quote
CarbShark has conflated the question by extending it into claimining that his high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet is the best one for long term longevity and health.  He seems to regard his diet as being ‘magic’, and thinks that my comment that people have to accept responsibility for their own diets and weight as shifting blame onto the obese, preferring his conspiracy theories concerning medical authorities and food manufacturers.

You are talking nonsense.


 
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2018, 09:08:13 PM »
CarbShark,

It would certainly provide plenty of opportunity to do another one of your notorious block dump of links.  ‘Best science’ is anything that you seem to think supports your diet, regardless of whether it’s small short term trials, animal studies or trials without controls or comparison groups.

There’s nothing wrong with bread as part of a healthy diet.  You’ve assumed that flour is unhealthy is proven without evidence.  Bread historically has been an important part of healthy diets.  Not for nothing has it been called the ‘staff of life.’  It’s nutritious, keeps well and is cheap.  Much of the present health problems seem to have arisen since bread has been demonised.  People around 1900 used to include bread as a major part of their diets.

If there’s any ‘enemies’ regarding diet, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or dementia, they’re excessive sugars in the diet (including table sugar and even unsweetened fruit juices).  And there’s no debate about them, except from manufacturers of them.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #18 on: August 15, 2018, 08:05:22 AM »
So did the study that concluded that immigrants use less in healthcare than they contribute include illegal immigrants? I'd be surprised if it did.

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 82
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #19 on: August 15, 2018, 08:28:24 AM »
So did the study that concluded that immigrants use less in healthcare than they contribute include illegal immigrants? I'd be surprised if it did.

From the article:
"Among immigrants in the country illegally, the study finds the group makes up 1.4 percent of U.S. health-care spending but is 5 percent of the population."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/400920-study-immigrants-have-lower-health-care-costs-than-people-born-in-us
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 08:49:11 AM by PabloHoney »

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10658
Episode #683
« Reply #20 on: August 15, 2018, 10:19:28 AM »
CarbShark,

It would certainly provide plenty of opportunity to do another one of your notorious block dump of links.  ‘Best science’ is anything that you seem to think supports your diet, regardless of whether it’s small short term trials, animal studies or trials without controls or comparison groups.

There’s nothing wrong with bread as part of a healthy diet.  You’ve assumed that flour is unhealthy is proven without evidence.  Bread historically has been an important part of healthy diets.  Not for nothing has it been called the ‘staff of life.’  It’s nutritious, keeps well and is cheap.  Much of the present health problems seem to have arisen since bread has been demonised.  People around 1900 used to include bread as a major part of their diets.

If there’s any ‘enemies’ regarding diet, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or dementia, they’re excessive sugars in the diet (including table sugar and even unsweetened fruit juices).  And there’s no debate about them, except from manufacturers of them.
I am suggesting a debate and topic for Steve, etc. I’m not debating the topic here. If you want to discuss the issue I’d be happy to respond at the topic we have for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Ron Obvious

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 195
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2018, 02:13:28 PM »
So did the study that concluded that immigrants use less in healthcare than they contribute include illegal immigrants? I'd be surprised if it did.

From the article:
"Among immigrants in the country illegally, the study finds the group makes up 1.4 percent of U.S. health-care spending but is 5 percent of the population."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/400920-study-immigrants-have-lower-health-care-costs-than-people-born-in-us

Thanks, but that's an apples and oranges comparison. The item in SoF referred to financial contributions into the medical system versus costs. Your point refers to population percentages and says nothing about financial contributions into the system, and neither does the article.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2018, 03:06:58 PM »
CarbShark,

It would certainly provide plenty of opportunity to do another one of your notorious block dump of links.  ‘Best science’ is anything that you seem to think supports your diet, regardless of whether it’s small short term trials, animal studies or trials without controls or comparison groups.

There’s nothing wrong with bread as part of a healthy diet.  You’ve assumed that flour is unhealthy is proven without evidence.  Bread historically has been an important part of healthy diets.  Not for nothing has it been called the ‘staff of life.’  It’s nutritious, keeps well and is cheap.  Much of the present health problems seem to have arisen since bread has been demonised.  People around 1900 used to include bread as a major part of their diets.

If there’s any ‘enemies’ regarding diet, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or dementia, they’re excessive sugars in the diet (including table sugar and even unsweetened fruit juices).  And there’s no debate about them, except from manufacturers of them.
I am suggesting a debate and topic for Steve, etc. I’m not debating the topic here. If you want to discuss the issue I’d be happy to respond at the topic we have for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ve made the assumption with your suggested topic for a debate that bread-making flour is unhealthy and that there are dietary fats that are healthy, and which can be consumed liberally, without restriction, in the diet.  If there’s any controversy, then these points should be debated first.

I find arguments about what health authorities are recommending to be completely uninteresting.  Hardly anyone has their opinions changed by their recommendations.  People doing what the recommendations suggest, feel better in doing what they do.  People doing the opposite of the recommendations, just ignore them.

If health recommendations had any effect, then cigarette smoking would have disappeared decades ago, with people being warned repeatedly about the very dire health consequences of any tobacco consumption.  But cigarette smoking was very resistant to all the recommendations, with smokers pointing to relatives who smoked living to advanced ages, arguing that smoking isn’t going to harm them.  And non-smokers were reinforced in their decision not to smoke.

Incredibly, there are still people who smoke.  And there are still people who deny that smoking is unhealthy.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10658
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2018, 03:54:24 PM »
CarbShark,

It would certainly provide plenty of opportunity to do another one of your notorious block dump of links.  ‘Best science’ is anything that you seem to think supports your diet, regardless of whether it’s small short term trials, animal studies or trials without controls or comparison groups.

There’s nothing wrong with bread as part of a healthy diet.  You’ve assumed that flour is unhealthy is proven without evidence.  Bread historically has been an important part of healthy diets.  Not for nothing has it been called the ‘staff of life.’  It’s nutritious, keeps well and is cheap.  Much of the present health problems seem to have arisen since bread has been demonised.  People around 1900 used to include bread as a major part of their diets.

If there’s any ‘enemies’ regarding diet, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or dementia, they’re excessive sugars in the diet (including table sugar and even unsweetened fruit juices).  And there’s no debate about them, except from manufacturers of them.
I am suggesting a debate and topic for Steve, etc. I’m not debating the topic here. If you want to discuss the issue I’d be happy to respond at the topic we have for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ve made the assumption with your suggested topic for a debate that bread-making flour is unhealthy and that there are dietary fats that are healthy, and which can be consumed liberally, without restriction, in the diet.  If there’s any controversy, then these points should be debated first.

I find arguments about what health authorities are recommending to be completely uninteresting.  Hardly anyone has their opinions changed by their recommendations.  People doing what the recommendations suggest, feel better in doing what they do.  People doing the opposite of the recommendations, just ignore them.

If health recommendations had any effect, then cigarette smoking would have disappeared decades ago, with people being warned repeatedly about the very dire health consequences of any tobacco consumption.  But cigarette smoking was very resistant to all the recommendations, with smokers pointing to relatives who smoked living to advanced ages, arguing that smoking isn’t going to harm them.  And non-smokers were reinforced in their decision not to smoke.

Incredibly, there are still people who smoke.  And there are still people who deny that smoking is unhealthy.

You yourself criticized me for hijacking this topic to discuss diet and nutrition. (I didn't, my comments are on topic). If you want to discuss those issues, I'd be glad to engage you in that discussion in any of the threads we have for those discussion, but not here.

Here I will discuss any issues that are directly related to what was discussed in that episode. That does not include diet and nutrition but does include a potential future debate.

and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #24 on: August 15, 2018, 04:36:16 PM »
CarbShark,

It would certainly provide plenty of opportunity to do another one of your notorious block dump of links.  ‘Best science’ is anything that you seem to think supports your diet, regardless of whether it’s small short term trials, animal studies or trials without controls or comparison groups.

There’s nothing wrong with bread as part of a healthy diet.  You’ve assumed that flour is unhealthy is proven without evidence.  Bread historically has been an important part of healthy diets.  Not for nothing has it been called the ‘staff of life.’  It’s nutritious, keeps well and is cheap.  Much of the present health problems seem to have arisen since bread has been demonised.  People around 1900 used to include bread as a major part of their diets.

If there’s any ‘enemies’ regarding diet, obesity, type 2 diabetes, or dementia, they’re excessive sugars in the diet (including table sugar and even unsweetened fruit juices).  And there’s no debate about them, except from manufacturers of them.
I am suggesting a debate and topic for Steve, etc. I’m not debating the topic here. If you want to discuss the issue I’d be happy to respond at the topic we have for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You’ve made the assumption with your suggested topic for a debate that bread-making flour is unhealthy and that there are dietary fats that are healthy, and which can be consumed liberally, without restriction, in the diet.  If there’s any controversy, then these points should be debated first.

I find arguments about what health authorities are recommending to be completely uninteresting.  Hardly anyone has their opinions changed by their recommendations.  People doing what the recommendations suggest, feel better in doing what they do.  People doing the opposite of the recommendations, just ignore them.

If health recommendations had any effect, then cigarette smoking would have disappeared decades ago, with people being warned repeatedly about the very dire health consequences of any tobacco consumption.  But cigarette smoking was very resistant to all the recommendations, with smokers pointing to relatives who smoked living to advanced ages, arguing that smoking isn’t going to harm them.  And non-smokers were reinforced in their decision not to smoke.

Incredibly, there are still people who smoke.  And there are still people who deny that smoking is unhealthy.

You yourself criticized me for hijacking this topic to discuss diet and nutrition. (I didn't, my comments are on topic). If you want to discuss those issues, I'd be glad to engage you in that discussion in any of the threads we have for those discussion, but not here.

Here I will discuss any issues that are directly related to what was discussed in that episode. That does not include diet and nutrition but does include a potential future debate.

I was criticising your suggested topic for a debate (which, by the way, isn’t going to happen, so it’s a moot point anyway).  Your suggested topic is just far too restricted, and makes the assumptions that bread-making flour is unhealthy and that some dietary fats are healthy - and their consumption can be encouraged, meaning that some people will consume too much.

The toxicity of a poison is in its dose, and the same applies to nutrients.  You can get too much of a good thing.

For the record, I’ve never disagreed that a high fat/low carbohydrate ketogenic diet isn’t a reasonable diet.  Humans are natural omnivores.  There are a wide range of perfectly acceptable diets.  I don’t believe that there’s any diet that should definitely be discouraged - besides ones containing excessive simple sugars and alcohol (there could be argument about what’s excessive).
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 15486
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #25 on: August 15, 2018, 06:18:22 PM »
Rule lawyering excuse for bringing up carbs noted.


Maybe you folks could kindly continue the discussion in the carb threads we use to stop peoples eyes from bleeding?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10658
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #26 on: August 15, 2018, 06:25:19 PM »
Rule lawyering excuse for bringing up carbs noted.


Maybe you folks could kindly continue the discussion in the carb threads we use to stop peoples eyes from bleeding?

I'm out.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7037
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2018, 07:24:34 PM »
Rule lawyering excuse for bringing up carbs noted.

Maybe you folks could kindly continue the discussion in the carb threads we use to stop peoples eyes from bleeding?

Thanks.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2018, 07:42:34 PM »
Rule lawyering excuse for bringing up carbs noted.


Maybe you folks could kindly continue the discussion in the carb threads we use to stop peoples eyes from bleeding?

I’m happy to stop.  CarbShark started it with his ill-informed suggestion that Steve Novella and Sean Carroll should debate Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz on the topic ‘The dietary guidelines provided to Americans by the government should be revised to reflect the best available science and discourage consumption of carbohydrates, especially sugars, flours and other highly refined carbohydrates, and encourage consumption of healthy fats.’

I’m agnostic on diet, really.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7037
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #683
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2018, 11:52:53 PM »
Interview with Sean Carroll; What’s the Word: Orthogonal; News Items: Remembering is Seeing, Hothouse Tipping Point, Novel Amino Acids, Weird, Rogue Planet, Corporal Punishment; Who’s that Noisy; Questions and E-mails: Monkeys and Apes; Science or Fiction

I often use 'orthogonal' in the sense of 'totally independent'. "Intersect" and variants were used several times in the episode. I don't think that word makes sense that way with respect to orthogonal. My IIRC thoughts follow.

The x and y axis of a graph are orthogonal. I thought this is because a line parallel to the x axis has a constant y, and a line parallel to the y axis has a constant x. The fact that in our normal universe they are at 90° is not the key factor. In a non Euclidean space the actual angle could be quite different.

In a Euclidean plane two orthogonal lines must intersect. I think that's the visualization that most people have - not a 3D or moreD space. (In a 3D space no orthogonal 1D lines must intersect, but all non-parallel 2D planes must intersect. In general, in an (n)D space a simple (n-1)D 'line' must intersect with any (n-1)D 'line' that is not parallel to it. When the 'lines' are orthogonal, the value of line 1 and line 2 and line n are not dependent in any way.

...not sure if I'm explaining my sense of this clearly, which means (to me) that I should consider more carefully before using "orthogonal" in the future.

ORTHOGONALISTICISMERS of the Metahedron UNITe!
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

 

personate-rain