Happy Saturday, Let's Talk Sugar . . .
Options
Replies
-
Not sure what this thread is even about anymore...0
-
Nice passive aggressive use of "Al' there.
You need to re-read your posts - you seem to be missing a few posts there.
Also, if you are not looking to pick holes in the study, why even post? Other than to argue for arguments sake (oh, and other than to make snide comments about someone and their work that you obviously no idea about).
Calling someone big Al isn't passive aggressive - over sensitive me thinks.
This thread was posted in a general forum so is open to everyone to post in. If you wanted it closed to people you should open it in a group - then you will not get every tom, richard and harry posting.
Yes it is - and it is pretty obvious as to the intent - what was that about playing coy?
Not over sensitive - no reason to be. Trying to deflect methinks (methinks is one word btw).
I was not the OP. However, just because a thread is open to the anyone, does not mean that 'anyone's' post contributes anything, but it also means that others are free to point that out.
Oh, and when I post something that I do not want every idiot posting against, I do post it in my own group.
Agreed a lot of idiots post on threads that they do not contribute to. I've seen a lot of them over the past couple of weeks and only 3.25% were mine.0 -
Not sure what this thread is even about anymore...
It's here to simply share the article, and allow people who have the patience and basic intelligence to do so, to read it. I also mentioned Alan Aragon's name because there is frankly far too much bad information out there, and I find that people like him help me cut through the B.S. I want the most bang for my efforts, period.0 -
Nice passive aggressive use of "Al' there.
You need to re-read your posts - you seem to be missing a few posts there.
Also, if you are not looking to pick holes in the study, why even post? Other than to argue for arguments sake (oh, and other than to make snide comments about someone and their work that you obviously no idea about).
Calling someone big Al isn't passive aggressive - over sensitive me thinks.
This thread was posted in a general forum so is open to everyone to post in. If you wanted it closed to people you should open it in a group - then you will not get every tom, richard and harry posting.
Yes it is - and it is pretty obvious as to the intent - what was that about playing coy?
Not over sensitive - no reason to be. Trying to deflect methinks (methinks is one word btw).
I was not the OP. However, just because a thread is open to the anyone, does not mean that 'anyone's' post contributes anything, but it also means that others are free to point that out.
Oh, and when I post something that I do not want every idiot posting against, I do post it in my own group.
Agreed a lot of idiots post on threads that they do not contribute to. I've seen a lot of them over the past couple of weeks and only 3.25% were mine.
Only 3.25% idiot posts were yours? - a pretty bad statistic when you consider how many there are.0 -
Nice passive aggressive use of "Al' there.
You need to re-read your posts - you seem to be missing a few posts there.
Also, if you are not looking to pick holes in the study, why even post? Other than to argue for arguments sake (oh, and other than to make snide comments about someone and their work that you obviously no idea about).
Calling someone big Al isn't passive aggressive - over sensitive me thinks.
This thread was posted in a general forum so is open to everyone to post in. If you wanted it closed to people you should open it in a group - then you will not get every tom, richard and harry posting.
Yes it is - and it is pretty obvious as to the intent - what was that about playing coy?
Not over sensitive - no reason to be. Trying to deflect methinks (methinks is one word btw).
I was not the OP. However, just because a thread is open to the anyone, does not mean that 'anyone's' post contributes anything, but it also means that others are free to point that out.
Oh, and when I post something that I do not want every idiot posting against, I do post it in my own group.
Agreed a lot of idiots post on threads that they do not contribute to. I've seen a lot of them over the past couple of weeks and only 3.25% were mine.
Only 3.25% idiot posts were yours? - a pretty bad statistic when you consider how many there are.
No I've done the maths and across the board it's accurate. Just on this thread between us I'm only hitting 50%.0 -
Not sure what this thread is even about anymore...
Me neither. I keep coming back in the hope that there will be cupcakes.0 -
Nice passive aggressive use of "Al' there.
You need to re-read your posts - you seem to be missing a few posts there.
Also, if you are not looking to pick holes in the study, why even post? Other than to argue for arguments sake (oh, and other than to make snide comments about someone and their work that you obviously no idea about).
Calling someone big Al isn't passive aggressive - over sensitive me thinks.
This thread was posted in a general forum so is open to everyone to post in. If you wanted it closed to people you should open it in a group - then you will not get every tom, richard and harry posting.
Yes it is - and it is pretty obvious as to the intent - what was that about playing coy?
Not over sensitive - no reason to be. Trying to deflect methinks (methinks is one word btw).
I was not the OP. However, just because a thread is open to the anyone, does not mean that 'anyone's' post contributes anything, but it also means that others are free to point that out.
Oh, and when I post something that I do not want every idiot posting against, I do post it in my own group.
Agreed a lot of idiots post on threads that they do not contribute to. I've seen a lot of them over the past couple of weeks and only 3.25% were mine.
Only 3.25% idiot posts were yours? - a pretty bad statistic when you consider how many there are.
No I've done the maths and across the board it's accurate. Just on this thread between us I'm only hitting 50%.
Bad meaning not good, not bad meaning inaccurate.
You say only 50% of your posts in this thread are idiot ones....subjective, but it's a sunny Sunday so I am willing to concede the point.0 -
Nice passive aggressive use of "Al' there.
You need to re-read your posts - you seem to be missing a few posts there.
Also, if you are not looking to pick holes in the study, why even post? Other than to argue for arguments sake (oh, and other than to make snide comments about someone and their work that you obviously no idea about).
Calling someone big Al isn't passive aggressive - over sensitive me thinks.
This thread was posted in a general forum so is open to everyone to post in. If you wanted it closed to people you should open it in a group - then you will not get every tom, richard and harry posting.
Yes it is - and it is pretty obvious as to the intent - what was that about playing coy?
Not over sensitive - no reason to be. Trying to deflect methinks (methinks is one word btw).
I was not the OP. However, just because a thread is open to the anyone, does not mean that 'anyone's' post contributes anything, but it also means that others are free to point that out.
Oh, and when I post something that I do not want every idiot posting against, I do post it in my own group.
Agreed a lot of idiots post on threads that they do not contribute to. I've seen a lot of them over the past couple of weeks and only 3.25% were mine.
Only 3.25% idiot posts were yours? - a pretty bad statistic when you consider how many there are.
No I've done the maths and across the board it's accurate. Just on this thread between us I'm only hitting 50%.
Bad meaning not good, not bad meaning inaccurate.
You say only 50% of your posts in this thread are idiot ones....subjective, but it's a sunny Sunday so I am willing to concede the point.
Lol.
I meant 50% of the posts between you and me. It's less of a percentage across the thread as a whole.
Enjoy your sunny Sunday!0 -
I understand what this thread was supposed to be about, it's just that at this point the word 'sugar' hasn't appeared - nor has the original article been quoted - in the last page at all...
It's here to simply share the article, and allow people who have the patience and basic intelligence to do so, to read it. I also mentioned Alan Aragon's name because there is frankly far too much bad information out there, and I find that people like him help me cut through the B.S. I want the most bang for my efforts, period.Not sure what this thread is even about anymore...
To go back to what this thread is supposed to be about, and to expand on the first post a bit, it is estimated that the average citizen of the Roman empire got ~80% of his calories from carbs, and this remained stable (or even increased) until the late Middle Ages. To clear up a further misconception, malnutrition was common but subnutrition wasn't
Cane sugar may not have been common but honey and fruit sugars were. Apicius put honey in nearly everything according to his cookbook. It is fairly easy to see that high-carb or high-sugar diets don't guarantee obesity in any way.0 -
Lol.
I meant 50% of the posts between you and me. It's less of a percentage across the thread as a whole.
Enjoy your sunny Sunday!
Oh, so you are saying all your posts responding to me are idiotic...ok....
Edited to condense.0 -
I understand what this thread was supposed to be about, it's just that at this point the word 'sugar' hasn't appeared - nor has the original article been quoted - in the last page at all...
It's here to simply share the article, and allow people who have the patience and basic intelligence to do so, to read it. I also mentioned Alan Aragon's name because there is frankly far too much bad information out there, and I find that people like him help me cut through the B.S. I want the most bang for my efforts, period.Not sure what this thread is even about anymore...
To go back to what this thread is supposed to be about, and to expand on the first post a bit, it is estimated that the average citizen of the Roman empire got ~80% of his calories from carbs, and this remained stable (or even increased) until the late Middle Ages. To clear up a further misconception, malnutrition was common but subnutrition wasn't
Cane sugar may not have been common but honey and fruit sugars were. Apicius put honey in nearly everything according to his cookbook. It is fairly easy to see that high-carb or high-sugar diets don't guarantee obesity in any way.
This is another good article but it discusses the strange treatment of sugar in the media: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/0 -
Lol.
I meant 50% of the posts between you and me. It's less of a percentage across the thread as a whole.
Enjoy your sunny Sunday!
Oh, so you are saying all your posts responding to me are idiotic...ok....
Edited to condense.
Only if you are suggesting all of your posts addressed to me are idiotic!0 -
For one thing, none of those "example" studies you mentioned would pass peer review. Companies market products using "studies" all the time. Internally designed studies that haven't been peer reviewed, because they wouldn't pass peer review. This is what the peer review system is for. The peer reviewers have absolutely NOTHING to do with the study, they aren't being paid by the people that funded the study. Their sole job is to look at the hypothesis, read the methods, and look for methodological flaws and personal biases that may have affected the results. And it's not just one reviewer.I never post on here. But based on some of the comments today, I felt compelled to post a quick response.
One of the BASIC tenets of critical thinking is analyzing and synthesizing CONTEXT. What does that mean? It means that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding an argument/thesis/action/idea in order to truly understand how and/or why it is being generated.
In looking at context, you must ALWAYS look beyond the thesis, premise and evidence, and delve down into the who, what, when, why and how of the argument. Context is one of the most important factors when analyzing a theory, and to dismiss or disregard it by saying that it "doesn't matter" is a sign of your lack of critical thinking skills. No offense.
So back to the topic at hand.... The fact that the very people that are making the claim that HFCS is not harmful are the same people funding the study is the type of information you would want to know when studying the validity of the article's thesis. What if a company that manufacturers steroids came out with a study saying there are no adverse effects associated with steroid usage and in fact, steroids will actually lengthen your life span? Or if an insurance company came out with a study that said they found evidence that a lump found in a woman's breast is harmless and going to a doctor to get checked out is a waste of money? Would you look at either of these studies and question the biases associated with them or would you also say it doesn't matter who wrote and/or funded the studies as long as the theories, premises and evidence are sound?
This is why looking at the funding source, and immediately disregarding a study, rather than actually reading the study and basing conclusions on the merits of the data, is actually the real sign a of lack of critical thinking skills.0 -
Lol.
I meant 50% of the posts between you and me. It's less of a percentage across the thread as a whole.
Enjoy your sunny Sunday!
Oh, so you are saying all your posts responding to me are idiotic...ok....
Edited to condense.
Only if you are suggesting all of your posts addressed to me are idiotic!
No, I am not. 50% = 1/2 = yours. You said it yourself. If you would like to tell me mine are...then please do. Again...coy.0 -
Sorry Sun....got distracted there by the insinuations and ducking and diving of the questions. :flowerforyou:
Out to lift so hopefully no more derailing.....0 -
This sort of stuff is typical when a scientific topic is developed enough to have everyday applications (especially commercial ones) but not quite developed enough for there to be an established consensus that can be distributed to the masses.This is another good article but it discusses the strange treatment of sugar in the media: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2014/02/06/sweet-and-sour-the-media-decided-fructose-was-bad-for-america-but-science-had-second-thoughts/
In a way, it's similar to the AC vs DC debate of the late 1890's, complete with Edison-style pseudoscience being peddled for commercial purposes.
Sweets were, in fact, the "first" enemy. Artificial sweeteners are way older than fat substitutes. Then fat became the enemy, remember margarine? Now sugar is again the enemy but the pendulum might be swinging. In a way, both have a point: fat makes it easy to consume a hyooge amount of calories in little time and sugar is one of the few nutrients that provide almost no satiation.
I suspect that, 100 years from now, our grandkids will think we were idiots...0 -
Sorry Sun....got distracted there by the insinuations and ducking and diving of the questions. :flowerforyou:
Out to lift so hopefully no more derailing.....
Not at all. Enjoy the lifting!0 -
For one thing, none of those "example" studies you mentioned would pass peer review. Companies market products using "studies" all the time. Internally designed studies that haven't been peer reviewed, because they wouldn't pass peer review. This is what the peer review system is for. The peer reviewers have absolutely NOTHING to do with the study, they aren't being paid by the people that funded the study. Their sole job is to look at the hypothesis, read the methods, and look for methodological flaws and personal biases that may have affected the results. And it's not just one reviewer.I never post on here. But based on some of the comments today, I felt compelled to post a quick response.
One of the BASIC tenets of critical thinking is analyzing and synthesizing CONTEXT. What does that mean? It means that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding an argument/thesis/action/idea in order to truly understand how and/or why it is being generated.
In looking at context, you must ALWAYS look beyond the thesis, premise and evidence, and delve down into the who, what, when, why and how of the argument. Context is one of the most important factors when analyzing a theory, and to dismiss or disregard it by saying that it "doesn't matter" is a sign of your lack of critical thinking skills. No offense.
So back to the topic at hand.... The fact that the very people that are making the claim that HFCS is not harmful are the same people funding the study is the type of information you would want to know when studying the validity of the article's thesis. What if a company that manufacturers steroids came out with a study saying there are no adverse effects associated with steroid usage and in fact, steroids will actually lengthen your life span? Or if an insurance company came out with a study that said they found evidence that a lump found in a woman's breast is harmless and going to a doctor to get checked out is a waste of money? Would you look at either of these studies and question the biases associated with them or would you also say it doesn't matter who wrote and/or funded the studies as long as the theories, premises and evidence are sound?
This is why looking at the funding source, and immediately disregarding a study, rather than actually reading the study and basing conclusions on the merits of the data, is actually the real sign a of lack of critical thinking skills.
Agreed. Context matters, but that's not the entire story, it simply allows someone to check the data with perhaps a bit more of a critical eye, and that is why that information is provided with these studies. We all have or biases and that is one of the reasons why we have to rely on the scientific method and the peer review process. I agree that there are certain sources of information which aren't worth double checking, Mercola comes to mind, but that happens over time after someone has continually demonstrated his/her willingness to cherry pick or, in more limited cases, fabricate data. Dr. Wakefield's autism/vaccination study comes to mind with that latter one. Here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/0 -
http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
For one thing, none of those "example" studies you mentioned would pass peer review. Companies market products using "studies" all the time. Internally designed studies that haven't been peer reviewed, because they wouldn't pass peer review. This is what the peer review system is for. The peer reviewers have absolutely NOTHING to do with the study, they aren't being paid by the people that funded the study. Their sole job is to look at the hypothesis, read the methods, and look for methodological flaws and personal biases that may have affected the results. And it's not just one reviewer.I never post on here. But based on some of the comments today, I felt compelled to post a quick response.
One of the BASIC tenets of critical thinking is analyzing and synthesizing CONTEXT. What does that mean? It means that you have to look at the circumstances surrounding an argument/thesis/action/idea in order to truly understand how and/or why it is being generated.
In looking at context, you must ALWAYS look beyond the thesis, premise and evidence, and delve down into the who, what, when, why and how of the argument. Context is one of the most important factors when analyzing a theory, and to dismiss or disregard it by saying that it "doesn't matter" is a sign of your lack of critical thinking skills. No offense.
So back to the topic at hand.... The fact that the very people that are making the claim that HFCS is not harmful are the same people funding the study is the type of information you would want to know when studying the validity of the article's thesis. What if a company that manufacturers steroids came out with a study saying there are no adverse effects associated with steroid usage and in fact, steroids will actually lengthen your life span? Or if an insurance company came out with a study that said they found evidence that a lump found in a woman's breast is harmless and going to a doctor to get checked out is a waste of money? Would you look at either of these studies and question the biases associated with them or would you also say it doesn't matter who wrote and/or funded the studies as long as the theories, premises and evidence are sound?
This is why looking at the funding source, and immediately disregarding a study, rather than actually reading the study and basing conclusions on the merits of the data, is actually the real sign a of lack of critical thinking skills.
Agreed. Context matters, but that's not the entire story, it simply allows someone to check the data with perhaps a bit more of a critical eye, and that is why that information is provided with these studies. We all have or biases and that is one of the reasons why we have to rely on the scientific method and the peer review process. I agree that there are certain sources of information which aren't worth double checking, Mercola comes to mind, but that happens over time after someone has continually demonstrated his/her willingness to cherry pick or, in more limited cases, fabricate data. Dr. Wakefield's autism/vaccination study comes to mind with that latter one. Here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/
That's the Dr. Wakefield story in comic strip form, it's actually a very good summary of events.0 -
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 923 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions