Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?
Replies
-
I tend to agree with you. That being said, I think it's fine as long as it stays in the this forum. I feel like the ones that participate here are only a small subset of the overall forum membership. Some of us seem unable to walk away from debates outside of here, and I think that is unfortunate. On the other hand, a lot of the more belligerent comments on the outside come from people who are not regular participants in these debates.Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?
Can't answer for Gamliela, but my concern is that simple and reliable information such as "posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health" gets buried in unnecessary debates.
Edited for clarity
This is the debate forum, though, so it seems like a strange complaint for this particular location on the site. From what I took away, moving the debate to its own forum was meant to stop what you're concerned about from happening.
I know what you mean but I see these debates happening on smaller scales in other forums here. That's why I said the debates are unnecessary. There's a place and time for them. When NewDay16 said "this is not the place for me", he/she was referring to the MFP forums in general, not just the debate forum. @NewDay16 can correct me if I'm wrong.
Any way, I'm not looking to start anything and I'm deeper into this tangent than I intended. My posts about the state of the forums can be taken or ignored. They're simply opinions that I'm not too concerned about defending.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Lol I've never been in the southern US but I'm kinda afraid of it because of everything I hear about the ladies there.
Op would have her *kitten* handed to her if she acted like this in the South.
I am lurker, but after seeing so much hate here for anyone who dares eat a freaking carb (or doesn't care for high fat), I realize this is not the place for me. Op and others like her are not helping anybody and at this point. If I would have joined when I first started losing weight, I would have failed. The amount of b.s. on here is astounding. I feel bad for members who are new to fitness and nutrition. I am glad I have not told any of my friends about this place.
The funny thing is usually low carbers accuse the moderate eaters of this.
People who post with tones similar to the OP fall on both sides of almost any debate seen on these boards.2 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Lol I've never been in the southern US but I'm kinda afraid of it because of everything I hear about the ladies there.
Op would have her *kitten* handed to her if she acted like this in the South.
I am lurker, but after seeing so much hate here for anyone who dares eat a freaking carb (or doesn't care for high fat), I realize this is not the place for me. Op and others like her are not helping anybody and at this point. If I would have joined when I first started losing weight, I would have failed. The amount of b.s. on here is astounding. I feel bad for members who are new to fitness and nutrition. I am glad I have not told any of my friends about this place.
It's funny you say that... I've been using MFP for about 3 years now (I had an account before that I deleted when I wanted a fresh start) but I've only been reading the forums for a couple of months because whenever I would see the app recommended for counting calories almost always without fail the person recommending would add the caveat to stay away from the forums.
I've recommended the app to several friends; I also told them to stay out of the forums.2 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?
Can't answer for Gamliela, but my concern is that simple and reliable information such as "posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health" gets buried in unnecessary debates.
Edited for clarity
This is the debate forum, though, so it seems like a strange complaint for this particular location on the site. From what I took away, moving the debate to its own forum was meant to stop what you're concerned about from happening.
I know what you mean but I see these debates happening on smaller scales in other forums here. That's why I said the debates are unnecessary. There's a place and time for them. When NewDay16 said "this is not the place for me", he/she was referring to the MFP forums in general, not just the debate forum. @NewDay16 can correct me if I'm wrong.
Any way, I'm not looking to start anything and I'm deeper into this tangent than I intended. My posts about the state of the forums can be taken or ignored. They're simply opinions that I'm not too concerned about defending.
I was referring to MFP forums in general. The general forums are full of debates and are just as bad.2 -
Experts disagree. That's what they do. Pretty much everyone agrees on the benefits of exercise and sport. But then the petty arguments focus on cardio vs strength-training. Both are good.1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?3 -
NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?4 -
When you tell people that something is true, and they bring up some very good points about what you're saying, telling them to do their own research is brushing them off and ignoring the issues they raised. This thread is ten pages of refusing to address any of the issues that so many people have raised.5
-
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.
One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
To me, it's not so much the "do your own research" line as it is the absolute refusal to point in a direction. It seems to imply that the poster who employs this technique knows that people will likely find blogs, opinions, and anecdotes because the science isn't there but also doesn't want to admit it.
There is so much fluff and noise on the internet that a direction would be helpful if there was a direction to be had.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.1 -
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.
One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?
Did the professors tell you to look it up on the internet? They never gave lectures? Never took questions from students?2 -
I've been in an undergraduate online class that started off disastrous with regards to the professor/student interaction. We were given an online textbook which several students did not find very helpful. The professor basically admitted that he didn't have the time to really help, and told us to "get used to it".0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
Aliens built the pyramids. Just do your own research, you'll see.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
Aliens built the pyramids. Just do your own research, you'll see.
Well duh! I've seen Stargate.0 -
I knew you'd come around to the better science, not that outdated science that the mainstream places tell you about.2
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.
Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.
ETA: Do you own research is the best answer in some contexts and a cop out in others. Why even have a forum for sharing information and ideas if we should always only do our own research?2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.
Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.
It's like writing a paper and instead of making proper citations you write "do your own research and look it up on google". If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up yourself.7 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.
Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.
It's like writing a paper and instead of making proper citations you write "do your own research and look it up on google". If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up yourself.
Yes! Thank you!0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.
Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.
It's like writing a paper and instead of making proper citations you write "do your own research and look it up on google". If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up yourself.
Yes! Thank you!
I don't know anyone in academia or the scientific world or even middle school level who would not fail a paper that is written like that.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »I've been in an undergraduate online class that started off disastrous with regards to the professor/student interaction. We were given an online textbook which several students did not find very helpful. The professor basically admitted that he didn't have the time to really help, and told us to "get used to it".
I hope you filed a complaint.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.
Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.
ETA: Do you own research is the best answer in some contexts and a cop out in others. Why even have a forum for sharing information and ideas if we should always only do our own research?
Fun?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.
This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.
Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.
At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?
Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.
Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.
ETA: Do you own research is the best answer in some contexts and a cop out in others. Why even have a forum for sharing information and ideas if we should always only do our own research?
Fun?
That's part of it too, but this isn't the Fun and Games forum.
I've learned some things here and have been shown some interesting sources from posters just like yourself. If I were only looking for fun I wouldn't be hanging around here! 
1 -
Another classmate got contact with the department director who then talked to the professor. By the end of that class, the professor was certainly more engaged.ForecasterJason wrote: »I've been in an undergraduate online class that started off disastrous with regards to the professor/student interaction. We were given an online textbook which several students did not find very helpful. The professor basically admitted that he didn't have the time to really help, and told us to "get used to it".
I hope you filed a complaint.
2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all.
If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth
because I used to be that person.
Well one area I certainly agree with you on is not being afraid of saturated fat. That said, I have no desire to make it the bulk of my calories. 30% is enough IMO.
Humans are multi variant creatures living in a multi variant environment. To that point, I think we have the capacity to thrive on many diets, some high carb and some high fat. Which is best? I guess we really won't know until the end.
I do appreciate your passion on this topic (albeit a little one sided) as I am passionate on the topic as well. My take: eat mostly whole real nutrient dense food, get adequate protein, fat and fiber and fill in the rest with carbs. Get plenty of exercise and sleep. Try to live in the moment and keep stress at bay. I think stressing about eating a perfect diet is probably worse then eating a not so perfect diet and not stressing about it.
As I tell all my friends and clients, "train hard, eat well, get plenty of rest and go live your life..."
I believe the rest will take care of itself.
What's funny is, it sounds like we are basically in agreement.
I also think humans do well eating mostly whole real nutrient dense food. I never once said, nor do I think everyone needs to eat a ketogenic diet. I do, however, believe it is a highly effective treatment for IR and obesity, among other things--and also excellent for disease prevention.
The state of ketosis is very beneficial to the human body, but even just going in and out of it can still provide substantial benefits. I imagine our ancestors went in and out of it depending on the time of day or the season of the year (whether or not starchy foods were available). In fact, most normal, healthy people go into a mild ketosis during the prolonged fast of sleeping (after 14 hrs or so). I'm sure I often go out of ketosis after meals, but quickly get back into it. Eating nutrient dense, whole foods probably does just as much for me as regular ketosis does when it comes to the newfound ease (did not have at all on a low fat plant-focused diet--no butter, no eggs, only lean meats and fish) I have with skipping meals or fasting.
I agree with much of what you're saying but I think it's important to point out that everyone does not respond favorably to forced nutritional ketosis. Or saturated fat. Regardless of the recent reviews and favorable low carb studies I think a little less certainty is in order.
Here's some thoughts from Peter Attia:
March 2015
Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
May 2016
23:30: Ketogenic diets do not work for everyone. The efficacy of the ketogenic diets may have a genetic basis and it does not seem appropriate for everyone.
It's frustrating to a lot of patients because they just want this so badly to work and it doesn't. And there's no denying that. When you see their LDL-P skyrocket to 3500nmol/L, when you see their CRP skyrocket, when you see all of these changes that go in the wrong direction from a lipoprotein standpoint, inflammatory standpoint, from a hormonal standpoint. You can tweak it all you want you can say maybe there's too much omega 6 or maybe you gotta go more monounsaturated versus saturated fat but, you know, you've only got a handful of levers to pull there and in the end you sometimes just acknowledge that this diet is not optimal for this person. And yet, interestingly, I'll take that patient and I'll put them on a relatively carbohydrate restricted non-ketogenic diet and can have amazing results.
Episode 1: Peter Attia on how to live longer and better
http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode001/
Thanks, @alabasterverve
Yes, I have read this article once already. This is a reality that LCHF docs encounter, and why they are conducting research on it atm. You may have heard this talk from Dr. Sarah Hallberg:
https://youtu.be/w8jUmCe3zDs
The phenomenon seems to be common in the most insulin resistant patients--those with the greatest metabolic damage. This may be related to damaged ApoB receptors on the cells (meaning they can't uptake the LDL particles) or the effects of rapidly lowering serum insulin concentrations in insulin resistant patients, since insulin does play a role in down-regulating production of VLDL.
However, elevated LDL is not the main issue in heart disease, since LDL in itself is normal and not dangerous--it's oxidized LDL that is atherogenic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25318456)--mechanisms include: endothelial damage; alteration in vascular tone; monocyte/macrophage recruitment; increased uptake of LDL by macrophages, with foam cell formation; induction of growth factors; increased platelet aggregation; and formation of autoantibodies to oxidized LDL. Elevated plasma concentrations of oxidized LDL are associated with CHD (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16000355). That's why the greatest risk factors are more tied to inflammation--like insulin resistance. The problem is, it's very difficult to measure oxidized LDL in the blood (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/15/1930.full).
This is ultimately why--I think--that Cochrane Review showed no effect on hard end points (what really matters, i.e. death) with reducing SFA intake. We can increase PUFAs (in place of SFA... because replacing SFA with carbohydrates doesn't show benefit) in the diet in order to lower our LDL, but at what risk? What is causing the lowering LDL? While we need PUFAs (they are also present in meat and dairy, more so in grassfed, of course), they are also unstable and easily oxidized, especially from heating (for example, in the harsh production of vegetable and seed oils). If we are going to consume them, we need antioxidants to prevent oxidation. PUFAs interact with reactive oxygen species in the bloodstream to create these PUFA oxidation products, and since these products are not measurable with a standard lipid panel, it looks like LDL is going down, when in fact this is not a safe situation (another reason why a NMR lipid panel can be more helpful in determining what is going on).3 -
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.
One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?
Did the professors tell you to look it up on the internet? They never gave lectures? Never took questions from students?
Give me a break. That's not at all what I was saying.
Case in point: a professor writes down an equation and says something like, "it follows then that ..." or "it's intuitively obvious that ..." followed by another equation; then studying with friends you spend two hours figuring out what he was getting at. This happened to me many times in grad school.
The education comes from learning how to find the information for yourself (research, and using a kiddie tool like Google was verboten), and figuring out the problem for yourself. Kiddies in high school and bottom end students in undergraduate school look things up on the internet -- and there are automated ways of detecting plagiarism that professors regularly use in college and grad school these days. You get booted out of school if you try and you get caught. And the further along you get in your education, the heavier the scrutiny and the higher the probability you'll be found out. I've seen this happen to grad students in the past -- along with a clinical psych student being booted out of an internship because she had major unresolved psychological issues.
0 -
When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.
One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?
Did the professors tell you to look it up on the internet? They never gave lectures? Never took questions from students?
Give me a break. That's not at all what I was saying.
Case in point: a professor writes down an equation and says something like, "it follows then that ..." or "it's intuitively obvious that ..." followed by another equation; then studying with friends you spend two hours figuring out what he was getting at. This happened to me many times in grad school.
The education comes from learning how to find the information for yourself (research, and using a kiddie tool like Google was verboten), and figuring out the problem for yourself. Kiddies in high school and bottom end students in undergraduate school look things up on the internet -- and there are automated ways of detecting plagiarism that professors regularly use in college and grad school these days. You get booted out of school if you try and you get caught. And the further along you get in your education, the heavier the scrutiny and the higher the probability you'll be found out. I've seen this happen to grad students in the past -- along with a clinical psych student being booted out of an internship because she had major unresolved psychological issues.
I knew what you were saying, but my point apparently was missed by some. I was making a simple analogy that seems to have been taken too literally. For a much better analogy, see singingflutelady's post. She makes my same point in a much more concise way.
If you are at all interested in what I actually meant, which I doubt, see my reply to need2exerc1se.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions