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.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
I didn't try to decipher most of what you wrote. Paragraphs and coherent arguments would be nice for readability...
But just that one little phrase stuck out at me: "You DON'T NEED carbs to live"
Actually you do. You need them so desperately (in the form of glucose) that the body decided somewhere along the line during its evolution, that it simply couldn't rely on the fickle environment to supply those desperately needed carbs. Liver cells go through the trouble of creating glucose (gluconeogenesis) at an energetic costs that won't be recovered when that glucose molecule is again broken down somewhere else in the body.
Even using the alternative metabolic pathways (keton production) and forcing the brain to learn to use those as alternative fuel, the body will still keep on producing glucose provided the liver cells themselves have enough fats for beta oxidation (i.e. enough energy to keep themselves alive while providing an expensive energy to other cells).
Sidenote: gluconeogenesis is actively carried out even when the body is not forced into starvation metabolic pathways: to neutralize lactate from anaerobic muscle use and the red blood cell metabolism (these kinda have no other choice than to produce lactate since they have no mitochondria though which they could use aerobic metabolic pathways and the lactate produced needs to be neutralized somehow).
(Little apologies: English is not my mother tongue and my schooling in nutrition is all in German. If some of my terminology is not on point, I do ask you to a) forgive me for that b) I'm always happy to learn something new. Reliable sources of terminology welcomed
)
But I'm actually curious what eating carbs has to do with holistic nutrition and why most MFP users are against those blood sucking leeches? (which is the topic of this discussion)24 -
Leeches, yes!
Black swans, no. The one making outrageous claims must prove their point. Hopefully with paragraphs.
Consider the history of medicine when the heart was once thought to be the seat of emotion and the brain a surplus organ, like the appendix.
Before the microscope, disease was blamed on an imbalance of the “humours”.12 -
Breaking it up for the purposes of comprehending and responding.mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)...
Okay.Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people.
It was a common belief. It was not based on scientific research or evidence as we currently understand them. Thus, not a legitimate comparison to current science or medicine, if that's what you intend. If the point is just that we can be wrong about things and there are things we don't know, obviously. That doesn't mean that everything is equally reasonable (or reasonable at all, in many cases). That's the anti-intellectual POV that is distressingly common these days -- because knowing the truth may be hard, let's just believe aliens set it all up or simply believe what feels good to us to believe.Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence.
Actually, "scientists" of the time KNEW that the world was not flat, from the Greeks, at least. That people thought it was flat seems to be a popular misconception, not sure why. It is of course true that believing the Earth was the center was common -- at least until scientific evidence/efforts led people to conclude it was not (Copernicus, for example). The opposition to this was largely NOT scientific, but based in a reliance on the Aristotlean system and theology and, indeed, largely took the form of philosophical argument.Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut.
Actually, if you are saying it happens and is significant, you would show the evidence FOR it. If something plays a significant role in medical problems, it would not do so without evidence. What you are saying is essentially like "maybe small pink fairies are poking my insides with invisible pins -- prove to me that's not so!"The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct.
To have a testable hypothesis, sure. Not to disprove every possible idea we might be able to come up with (like the pink fairy thing). But leaky gut seems to be your hypothesis, so test it.To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one.
Here you seem to be using current overused jargon incorrectly.Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed.
I get the impression from this that you don't know much about Ancel Keys, what happened following his research, and how that relates to the discussion about leaky gut or holistic medicine (hint, it does not).
In some sense, any focus on diet -- which Ancel Keys was OBVIOUSLY a proponent of -- is the good kind of holistic medicine, as a good diet does matter to health. But we are talking about a different kind of "holistic medicine" where people trained only in quackery suggest replacing real medicine with dietary interventions that make no sense or worse, things like cleanses or colonics.
Anyway, on Ancel Keys:
https://www.thenutritionwonk.com/single-post/2016/04/13/Ancel-Keys-and-the-Seven-Country-Study-A-Response-to-The-Sugar-Conspiracy
For more detail, here's a paper co-authored by Walter Willett: http://www.truehealthinitiative.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SCS-White-Paper.THI_.8-1-17.pdfThe United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises.
That's an exaggeration, but yes, obesity and obesity-related conditions are a problem. Blaming the dietary guidelines and Ancel Keys, however, is not based in evidence and -- especially relevant here -- is the topic of many other MFP threads, but NOT this one.Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now.
Obvious reason: people are too fat. Second reason: we've changed the diagnosis of it, and especially reduced the standards for diagnosing "insulin resistance." But indeed, it is a problem, and a problem related to our crazy obesity stats (and IMO probably the SAD as currently practiced which is completely different from any diet the medical establishment, nutritionists, or Dr. Keys ever promoted, btw).You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies.
This makes no sense, in that I cannot figure out what you are trying to say, maybe you left something out. However, to the extent you seem to be saying something about vegans financing the various US gov't and medical organizations responsible for the various "official" diet recommendations, um, what? That's ridiculous.Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science.
Makes no sense; misuse of the black swan thing again.I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!!
No, science does not prove a negative. That's not how it works.
Also, again, this is not a sugar thread, and standard dietary advice does not claim that sugar is irrelevant. Everyone has long advised that excessive sugary treats should be avoided. I mean, duh! This idea that people were told to eat lots of low nutrient sugary foods and not worry about, you know, vegetables and fruits and protein, so long as you just avoided sat fat is completely ridiculous and made up. And also -- have I mentioned? -- not the topic of this thread. (Nor does it have anything to do with the whole leaky gut theory which is usually about how grains, more so whole grains, and legumes are bad, bad, very bad.)Let's take some true science into THIS discussion.
Um, you might understand better if you had been following what this thread is about, as again you go off on something unrelated (and not scientific).You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven...
Yes, your body is able to manufacture them. That shows they are important for life, not that they are bad for us.
Other facts: no culture is consistently in ketosis. Those who have diets that might otherwise put them there seem to evolve/adapt so that they are not. Interesting, hmm. Seems evidence worth exploring that there might be something non-desirable about long-term keto. Probably not a huge problem for the average person with access to medical tests and care, but if one is going to try to argue from biology it seems a problem for the pro keto zealots.
Also, your body clearly prioritizes/prefers running on carbs, and does so when possible.
Blue zones eat high carb diets for the most part, and not a lot of sat fat or meat (other than perhaps fish and smaller amounts).
And, yes, no traditional cultures are vegan either. Most eat some meat, not nearly as much as we do. Most also eat tons and tons of plant foods and very high fiber diets.
Also, you can't have no carbs without eating nothing but meat and oil, and whether the no carbs will kill you or not (I don't think they would), that would be an unhealthy diet and unless you were really careful and ate some meat raw regularly and ate all parts of the animal, it would kill you from lack of nutrients.You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!!
True, but no one is saying we can or should. The US diet is incredibly high in fat compared to what is needed, did not reduce total fat post Ancel Keys (which is fine, the macros of our diet are not the problem), and we certainly do not need sat fat. (I'm not saying it's bad for us -- I think it is in excess but am not particularly worried about it -- but if we are arguing based on "not needing" = "should be avoided" that should be considered.)You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!!
Yeah, yeah, but again, so what? You can live on way less than we get (same with fat, same with carbs). I think eating less protein is usually not the way to go, but Americans eat more than enough (with all our calories the only thing we don't eat more than enough of is probably vegetables).But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!!
So? Do you think this is an argument for anything?
More significantly, what on earth does it have to do with this thread? Holistic medicine is not another term for "super low carb," you know.So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go.
Um, are you imagining that this thread is an argument about whether or not you can live on only carbs?
You do know that no one has promoted that or would recommend it.People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test.
You seem not to understand what "science" is.Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
I am actually mainly just curious why you think a "carb only" diet has anything to do with this thread (or Ancel Keys) or leaky gut or holistic medicine. Care to explain? It might be amusing.21 -
Leeches, yes!
Black swans, no. The one making outrageous claims must prove their point. Hopefully with paragraphs.
Consider the history of medicine when the heart was once thought to be the seat of emotion and the brain a surplus organ, like the appendix.
Before the microscope, disease was blamed on an imbalance of the “humours”.
Hypotheses is the beginning of evidence. Claims are to be investigated and the only way to prove a point in a scientific method is by not finding contrary evidence. Outrageous claims are deemed such because they do not fall into currently accepted thought. That doesn't cause them to be correct or incorrect.
I do concede that ANYONE making a claim should have backing to why they believe their thoughts though...
Your thought, based on the microscope, again proves the point on Black Swans, with more understandings they realized a deeper understanding which proved "humours" were not the root.14 -
TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
The very beginning of this thread4 -
mshanepace wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
The very beginning of this thread
What does that have to do with the rest of your rant about carbs?13 -
mshanepace wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
The very beginning of this thread
Excuse me, but I find you to be very confusing. Could you please streamline your ideas and put them in some rational order? Thank you.15 -
Low carb zealots are so cute with their lack of basic physiology knowledge and their Alex Jones style ranting and conspiracy theories.11
-
mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
I'm sorry . . . who here has argued that one can live completely on carbohydrates?
Or that one can live completely on protein and carbohydrates?
I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up.
Disclosure notice: I am a vegan, although I missed the planning sessions where we got control of all the experts and researchers.17 -
mshanepace wrote: »TenderBlender667 wrote: »I'm 2 months into a holistic nutrition program and I can't help but question some of the things I'm learning. I've been on mfp for several years and I've learned quite a bit on here, but a lot of the information on mfp contradicts the information I'm learning in school. People think everything from a holistic standpoint is "woo" or BS. Even if I provide some scientific evidence, most people still disagree with any information I provide. It's upsetting since I'm a firm believer in using nutrition and lifestyle as a way to improve health and manage some chronic health conditions. The teachers in my school truly believe that leaky gut syndrome and candida overgrowth are REAL problems, even the one's who've practiced allopathic medicine and have years of education behind then. I go on mfp and it's the complete opposite of everything I'm learning. Am I being scammed?
The very beginning of this thread
What about it?3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I am actually mainly just curious why you think a "carb only" diet has anything to do with this thread (or Ancel Keys) or leaky gut or holistic medicine. Care to explain? It might be amusing.
I absolutely like you... Love your response too btw... I was highly bothered reading what people believe to be true but not truly a fact necessarily. My point is based on a great scientist will NEVER stop looking for a Black Swan once he's concluded there are none. From your well put together thoughts, can you say there are NO pink fairies and be one hundred percent certain there are none?
Granted, I woke up with little sleep, started reading this information and it got under my skin. I personally hate full conclusions when, unless they are omnipresent and omniscient, they can not know.
Now, the only point I care to respond to is your last curiosity, it's not that it's about Ancel Keyes or a Keto diet. It's about what is possible or is not. 22 countries information went into Ancel's 7 country study. From lacking of funding or lacking of caring, only 7 countries fit his mold. And, ironically, 7 countries were used to make his point.
A carb based diet, which is STILL somewhat pushed as the "correct" way to eat in the U.S., is based on Ancel Keyes. The food pyramid comes directly from his research. My point about leaky gut, holistic medicine, etc comes down to one simple thought, YOU DON'T KNOW. And. Unless you are ALL knowing and every where present, you can't!18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm sorry . . . who here has argued that one can live completely on carbohydrates?
Or that one can live completely on protein and carbohydrates?
I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up.
Disclosure notice: I am a vegan, although I missed the planning sessions where we got control of all the experts and researchers.
For the record, not hating on vegans or vegetarians. Honestly, I woke up in a mood and was frustrated, so I ranted.
By nature I'm easily stirred, which is a crappy trait in my eyes too btw, and I put my thoughts out pretty rapidly. That being said, I actually love people questioning me, getting in my face (especially when I over react), and question thoughts over all, because they should.
But again, "I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up." Honestly, probably chip on my shoulder that I knocked off myself...
One more quick modification, and then I'll likely stop caring about this thread to be honest. Abraham Lincoln had a great habit, I'm saying this to myself more than to you (just sharing my thoughts), he'd go and write impassioned letters and topics, to get it out of his head, and never send them. This was one of those from me, but I sent it because I've not learned the true meaning from Mr Lincoln, get it out and get away from it.12 -
mshanepace wrote: »Now, the only point a care to respond to is your last curiosity, it's not that it's about Ancel Keyes or a Keto diet. It's about what is possible or is not. 22 countries information went into Ancel's 7 country study. From lacking of funding or lacking of caring, only 7 countries fit his mold. And, ironically, 7 countries were used to make his point.
I'm not seeing where the OP mentioned carbs at all. That's why I'm confused you think this is about carbs.
But although it's off-topic, the above is incorrect. It's a lie that's being pushed in some quarters, so I understand why you might think it is true, but it is, in fact, a lie. I strongly suggest that you read the links in my prior (long) post.A carb based diet, which is STILL somewhat pushed as the "correct" way to eat in the U.S., is based on Ancel Keyes.
Most societies eat half or more of calories from carbs, and the US diet is squarely in that group, sure. We were before Ancel Keys too, and no one really followed Keys much (or dietary recommendations much). Dietary recommendations are: eat more vegetables and fruit, eat whole grains and less refined carbs (potatoes, not fries), eat lean meat (this maybe comes from Keys in part, but there are many more studies related to this), avoid lots of low cal treats that contain added sugar and fats. And following this our calories continued to creep up, but our total amount of fat consumed did not go down (it went up, less fast than carbs, yeah, probably because of things like soda which no one recommended, and a food culture that got more dominated by snacking and convenience snack items). Again, nothing to do with Keys.
Focusing on macros is just a bad approach to nutrition, IMO. Evidence? Look at diets around the world. The US is not different from countries that do better based on overall macros. We are different in a lot of other ways.The food pyramid comes directly from his research.
Not really (it's way more complicated with many others more involved and the recommendations not followed (not because of Keys!)), and the food pyramid is not the current model, and the average person in the US did not follow the pyramid or other official advice on diet anyway. If we had, we'd eat a much better diet. (Hint: the recommendation was less processed grains and starches, and yeah, the base of the pyramid -- as with most cultures -- were those and not the vegetables that had been recommended, because if you are focused on getting adequate calories they are a cheaper source than vegetables and fruits, and part of the whole thing was what needed to be supplied through nutrition support. A less expensive diet based around whole grains, legumes, and potatoes/sweet potatoes and supplemented with some meat, dairy, and of course vegetables is not a bad diet. Nor is it how Americans eat. The idea that the problem with the US diet is "carbs" generally is silly.)My point about leaky gut, holistic medicine, etc comes down to one simple thought, YOU DON'T KNOW. And. Unless you are ALL knowing and every where present, you can't!
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.8 -
mshanepace wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I am actually mainly just curious why you think a "carb only" diet has anything to do with this thread (or Ancel Keys) or leaky gut or holistic medicine. Care to explain? It might be amusing.
I absolutely like you... Love your response too btw... I was highly bothered reading what people believe to be true but not truly a fact necessarily. My point is based on a great scientist will NEVER stop looking for a Black Swan once he's concluded there are none. From your well put together thoughts, can you say there are NO pink fairies and be one hundred percent certain there are none?
Granted, I woke up with little sleep, started reading this information and it got under my skin. I personally hate full conclusions when, unless they are omnipresent and omniscient, they can not know.
Now, the only point I care to respond to is your last curiosity, it's not that it's about Ancel Keyes or a Keto diet. It's about what is possible or is not. 22 countries information went into Ancel's 7 country study. From lacking of funding or lacking of caring, only 7 countries fit his mold. And, ironically, 7 countries were used to make his point.
A carb based diet, which is STILL somewhat pushed as the "correct" way to eat in the U.S., is based on Ancel Keyes. The food pyramid comes directly from his research. My point about leaky gut, holistic medicine, etc comes down to one simple thought, YOU DON'T KNOW. And. Unless you are ALL knowing and every where present, you can't!
There's currently *no good evidence* for pink fairies, so living my life as if they exist and I need to please them would be silly.
You seem to be profoundly confused about how facts are established, tested, and generally accepted to be true or false. Someday someone might find that pink fairies exists. But we don't know that to be true now so we can comfortably live our lives as if they don't. Does that distinction make sense to you? There is no evidence for them, so I don't need to put out a dish of sugar (or keto fat bombs) for them each night to keep them from getting unhappy with me and putting curses on my dogs.
Acknowledging that one can include carbohydrates in their diet and be healthy is nothing like what you're challenging people to do above (live on a diet that is 100% carbohydrates).14 -
mshanepace wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm sorry . . . who here has argued that one can live completely on carbohydrates?
Or that one can live completely on protein and carbohydrates?
I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up.
Disclosure notice: I am a vegan, although I missed the planning sessions where we got control of all the experts and researchers.
For the record, not hating on vegans or vegetarians. Honestly, I woke up in a mood and was frustrated, so I ranted.
By nature I'm easily stirred, which is a crappy trait in my eyes too btw, and I put my thoughts out pretty rapidly. That being said, I actually love people questioning me, getting in my face (especially when I over react), and question thoughts over all, because they should.
But again, "I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up." Honestly, probably chip on my shoulder that I knocked off myself...
One more quick modification, and then I'll likely stop caring about this thread to be honest. Abraham Lincoln had a great habit, I'm saying this to myself more than to you (just sharing my thoughts), he'd go and write impassioned letters and topics, to get it out of his head, and never send them. This was one of those from me, but I sent it because I've not learned the true meaning from Mr Lincoln, get it out and get away from it.
I didn't feel like you were hating on vegans, just involving us in a conspiracy theory for which there is zero evidence. I assure you, if vegans controlled the nutritional establishment, you'd probably see more recommendations for things like tofu and beans to meet protein needs instead of things like fish, greek yogurt, eggs, and chicken. Do you really think we're in charge and recommending people eat animal foods? Why -- to keep our cover secure?
Yes, losing your temper and posting online is a habit that can keep you from getting your point across to others. But honestly, how well and effectively you want to communicate with others is up to you.
What I'm more concerned about is how confused and contradictory your theories seem to be and the conflict you must be experiencing internally. When you develop a theory about how the world works (for example, vegans control the nutritional establishment), maybe compare that theory to see if it matches what you see in the real world?11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.
In fairness, I know you hate this but I'll visit it one last time, we do KNOW that Black Swans are substantially less likely.
We do know that IF pink fairies exist they are extremely well hidden, leaving that they likely, very likely, do not.
Do I honestly believe leaky gut IS what they say it is? Not sure. I know that recommendations based on the hypothesis work to overcome said issues however why, for certain, I did not know. Could it be leaky gut? Yes... Could it be something else, likely. Could it be a combination, certainly. Those that I would reference, such as Dr Axe, would likely be perceived by some as expert testimony and by others as a imposter of sorts. There is a great book on the topic called Eat Dirt.
I'm not saying science is meaningless or worthless, I'm saying that the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes the make amazing leaps forward and sometimes they conclude they're wrong and back pedal. So, based on the beginning of this thread, her class MAY be correct or it may not be correct. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting it's good science is misleading.
I was expecting to be attacked by what I wrote, but a few of the responses I've actually appreciated. You being highest on the list. I love to discuss, debate and even argue loudly on topics. I'm opinionated and stubborn in my thoughts. People such as yourself, not that it should matter one way or the other, I fully respect. Hopefully I've cleared SOME of the mud I threw all over the place this morning.
11 -
mshanepace wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.
In fairness, I know you hate this but I'll visit it one last time, we do KNOW that Black Swans are substantially less likely.
We do know that IF pink fairies exist they are extremely well hidden, leaving that they likely, very likely, do not.
Do I honestly believe leaky gut IS what they say it is? Not sure. I know that recommendations based on the hypothesis work to overcome said issues however why, for certain, I did not know. Could it be leaky gut? Yes... Could it be something else, likely. Could it be a combination, certainly. Those that I would reference, such as Dr Axe, would likely be perceived by some as expert testimony and by others as a imposter of sorts. There is a great book on the topic called Eat Dirt.
I'm not saying science is meaningless or worthless, I'm saying that the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes the make amazing leaps forward and sometimes they conclude they're wrong and back pedal. So, based on the beginning of this thread, her class MAY be correct or it may not be correct. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting it's good science is misleading.
I was expecting to be attacked by what I wrote, but a few of the responses I've actually appreciated. You being highest on the list. I love to discuss, debate and even argue loudly on topics. I'm opinionated and stubborn in my thoughts. People such as yourself, not that it should matter one way or the other, I fully respect. Hopefully I've cleared SOME of the mud I threw all over the place this morning.
Can I ask what you mean by "the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false"?
Do you mean that someone in this thread is arguing that we currently have a complete understanding of the world and we call that science?
I haven't seen anyone argue that and I haven't seen anyone argue that we currently know everything there is to know about our bodies and the world and that nothing new will be added to that understanding.
If that is what you're arguing against, consider that nobody (to my knowledge) is making that claim.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Can I ask what you mean by "the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false"?
Do you mean that someone in this thread is arguing that we currently have a complete understanding of the world and we call that science?
I haven't seen anyone argue that and I haven't seen anyone argue that we currently know everything there is to know about our bodies and the world and that nothing new will be added to that understanding.
If that is what you're arguing against, consider that nobody (to my knowledge) is making that claim.
Okay, I'm not suggesting that someone on this thread is arguing directly on science. I'm suggesting that what they're calling science, dealing with nutrition, isn't a complete understanding. In fact, the nutrition and exercise world is changing so rapidly right now it is just too hard to say whom is correct. And the detail of responses just got me, for whatever reason, this morning.
If you have noticed, I've responded to those that, though they've potentially disagreed with me have asked clarification questions and made points. I respect that... And, like I said, I also appreciate it.0 -
mshanepace wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Can I ask what you mean by "the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false"?
Do you mean that someone in this thread is arguing that we currently have a complete understanding of the world and we call that science?
I haven't seen anyone argue that and I haven't seen anyone argue that we currently know everything there is to know about our bodies and the world and that nothing new will be added to that understanding.
If that is what you're arguing against, consider that nobody (to my knowledge) is making that claim.
Okay, I'm not suggesting that someone on this thread is arguing directly on science. I'm suggesting that what they're calling science, dealing with nutrition, isn't a complete understanding. In fact, the nutrition and exercise world is changing so rapidly right now it is just too hard to say whom is correct. And the detail of responses just got me, for whatever reason, this morning.
If you have noticed, I've responded to those that, though they've potentially disagreed with me have asked clarification questions and made points. I respect that... And, like I said, I also appreciate it.
My question is: who has argued that they have a complete understanding of science and that changes aren't possible?
If I say "I don't see any good evidence to support [assertion x]" that isn't the same thing as saying "There will never be good evidence for [assertion x]" or "[Assertion x] is impossible." I'm just saying that -- based on what we now know there is no good evidence to believe a claim is true.
That's what I see people saying, generally, about the various claims of holistic medicine here. It may be in the future we are able to establish that something like "leaky gut syndrome" exists or that carbohydrates are dangerous and should be avoided. But what evidence do we have for those claims now? That's how people are evaluating those claims -- based on the available evidence. That doesn't mean we've eliminated the possibility that we may have better evidence in the future or better tools with which to evaluate the evidence.7 -
mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions