Happy Saturday, Let's Talk Sugar . . .
Replies
-
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
0 -
oh and by the by.....u can find documentation that will support almost anything out there....kudos to those take a variety of literature
into account before jumping on any bandwagon
0 -
oh and by the by.....u can find documentation that will support almost anything out there....kudos to those take a variety of literature
into account before jumping on any bandwagon
Which is why delving deeper into your sources is important.0 -
Hi Charlotte,
Seems like I've addressed my open mindedness with you in the past (about 3 weeks ago).
I think I made it pretty clear then I so not believe one size fits all.
Just to note this was a thread about paleo and clean eating - I tend not to venture onto threads like vegan or IIFYM too much as I do not follow them I do not feel that happy about forcing opinions on people who have not asked for them on the initial post ( I do make some exceptions though).
Charlotte,
I think you are reading a different thread if you are the one feeling sensitive about your diet choice and feel that people on this thread are attacking you.
Most diets when eating in a calorie deficit and if the dieter is a healthy individual then, I would suggest that most of those diets would be health to that person.
Paleo, primal, clean eating, LCHF, etc...... are just other types of healthy diets and sometimes are better suited to people who have underlining issues with their current style of eating.
I'm not sure who you are referring to as someone who feels 'superiority of their choices'. Maybe you are mistaking superiority with someone who is pleased about the personal choice they have made - and for them this perceived restriction does not exist.
Just because someone is defending a choice they have made and maybe disagreeing with you doesn't necessarily mean they are trying to imply that their diet is 'the one and only' (unless of course they are Chesney).
Yes they maybe happy with the results they have had and out of some realisation that what has worked for them may work for others - so may make a recommendation that others if they are so inclined may wish to try it for themselves - but surely that as all fellow dieters would only be the polite thing to do!
Maybe the way forward would be for everyone to accept that there is not a 'one size fits all' diet.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
That's why you try to keep up to date and look at the body of evidence, and not just individual papers...as Aragon does.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted. 0 -
oh and by the by.....u can find documentation that will support almost anything out there....kudos to those take a variety of literature
into account before jumping on any bandwagon
I agree that it is very important to look at the body of evidence to determine the most likely 'best answer' as well as looking into the actual studies themselves - the full publication and not just the abstract. Peer reviewed studies are a great resource - it is usually the interpretation of them that fails.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted.
Again - I suggest you research what you are talking about - it is not a 'this one'.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted.
Again - I suggest you research what you are talking about - it is not a 'this one'.
Lol - yes I know I was just making a point that whilst this is a very interesting study, let's not get to carried away and start thinking that it is gospel. It is the results of a study carried out to certain parameters. In all likelihood if they recreated the study they may get different results (but that is true I should think of many peer reviewed studies).
I'm not picking holes in the study, the results fit in with my belief system about sugar. So I have no reason to challenge it. All I am challenging is the actual context of its importance in eating moderate amounts of sugar.
As far as Alan goes I assume he is well known in the body building community. I am not part of that so I have not come across him.
Personally I follow a style of low carb eating and tend to lend more towards experts in that field.
My though process on any new study or idea which is suggested is - if I like the idea I will research it (from independent sources), if it stacks up I'll run with it. If it doesn't I'll drop it and move on.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted.
Again - I suggest you research what you are talking about - it is not a 'this one'.
Lol - yes I know I was just making a point that whilst this is a very interesting study, let's not get to carried away and start thinking that it is gospel. It is the results of a study carried out to certain parameters. In all likelihood if they recreated the study they may get different results (but that is true I should think of many peer reviewed studies).
I'm not picking holes in the study, the results fit in with my belief system about sugar. So I have no reason to challenge it. All I am challenging is the actual context of its importance in eating moderate amounts of sugar.
As far as Alan goes I assume he is well known in the body building community. I am not part of that so I have not come across him.
Personally I follow a style of low carb eating and tend to lend more towards experts in that field.
My though process on any new study or idea which is suggested is - if I like the idea I will research it (from independent sources), if it stacks up I'll run with it. If it doesn't I'll drop it and move on.
What does this have to do with your comments on Aragon's Research Reviews?
No one is getting carried away - it's a study - that is all, and that is all it was presented to be. You were the one who started commenting on Aragon's validity. In fact, I am not sure you even made any comments about the actual study other than to comment on who funded it.
Also. Aragon is not just about bb...at all.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted.
Again - I suggest you research what you are talking about - it is not a 'this one'.
Lol - yes I know I was just making a point that whilst this is a very interesting study, let's not get to carried away and start thinking that it is gospel. It is the results of a study carried out to certain parameters. In all likelihood if they recreated the study they may get different results (but that is true I should think of many peer reviewed studies).
I'm not picking holes in the study, the results fit in with my belief system about sugar. So I have no reason to challenge it. All I am challenging is the actual context of its importance in eating moderate amounts of sugar.
As far as Alan goes I assume he is well known in the body building community. I am not part of that so I have not come across him.
Personally I follow a style of low carb eating and tend to lend more towards experts in that field.
My though process on any new study or idea which is suggested is - if I like the idea I will research it (from independent sources), if it stacks up I'll run with it. If it doesn't I'll drop it and move on.
What does this have to do with your comments on Aragon's Research Reviews?
No one is getting carried away - it's a study - that is all, and that is all it was presented to be. You were the one who started commenting on Aragon's validity. In fact, I am not sure you even made any comments about the actual study other than to comment on who funded it.
Also. Aragon is not just about bb...at all.
Okay, let's back up a bit here!
I have not questioned his validity - in fact on the first page I actually said 'I am not discrediting big Al and in fact I don't really know who he is'. You must have missed that one.
I only mentioned his book as a flippant comment to another poster to point out like all the other experts he too is now cashing in (nothing wrong with that - it's his business model after all). Just wanted to point out that he is not really set apart from others he had his research that he works hard on as does others.
As I do not know much about Al I really do not know what pies he has his fingers in - soz.
In regards to Additional comments on the study I have made none as I pointed out earlier I'm not looking to pick holes in it.0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted.
Again - I suggest you research what you are talking about - it is not a 'this one'.
Lol - yes I know I was just making a point that whilst this is a very interesting study, let's not get to carried away and start thinking that it is gospel. It is the results of a study carried out to certain parameters. In all likelihood if they recreated the study they may get different results (but that is true I should think of many peer reviewed studies).
I'm not picking holes in the study, the results fit in with my belief system about sugar. So I have no reason to challenge it. All I am challenging is the actual context of its importance in eating moderate amounts of sugar.
As far as Alan goes I assume he is well known in the body building community. I am not part of that so I have not come across him.
Personally I follow a style of low carb eating and tend to lend more towards experts in that field.
My though process on any new study or idea which is suggested is - if I like the idea I will research it (from independent sources), if it stacks up I'll run with it. If it doesn't I'll drop it and move on.
What does this have to do with your comments on Aragon's Research Reviews?
No one is getting carried away - it's a study - that is all, and that is all it was presented to be. You were the one who started commenting on Aragon's validity. In fact, I am not sure you even made any comments about the actual study other than to comment on who funded it.
Also. Aragon is not just about bb...at all.
Okay, let's back up a bit here!
I have not questioned his validity - in fact on the first page I actually said 'I am not discrediting big Al and in fact I don't really know who he is'. You must have missed that one.
I only mentioned his book as a flippant comment to another poster to point out like all the other experts he too is now cashing in (nothing wrong with that - it's his business model after all). Just wanted to point out that he is not really set apart from others he had his research that he works hard on as does others.
As I do not know much about Al I really do not know what pies he has his fingers in - soz.
In regards to Additional comments on the study I have made none as I pointed out earlier I'm not looking to pick holes in it.
So you have nothing to contribute one way or the other but can't help but respond? Seems legit.0 -
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?0 -
Alan really is such a great wealth of knowledge. I just wish more people on this website would time the time out to read his stuff and watch his videos.
I do hope as a loyal follower of Alan you have coughed up the $49.95 for his book?
I'm more interested in his Research Reviews.
Do you mean his blogs (for a better word)?
No, but rather than playing coy what exactly is your criticism? He's one of several who I'd recommend to anyone looking for good information, but no one is above reproach.
No coy, I don't really know much about the guy. I'm just wondering why you seem so sensitive about the criticism about the study.
It seems there's a lot of love in the room for the word of Alan - I just found it a bit weird. I've been on the forums for the past couple of months today his name seems to be cropping up on a few threads.
I'm not anti sugar, personally I think that most case studies done are flawed as they are basing their studies on unrealistic consumption levels (in the real world).
Did you stop to think that his name crops up a lot because he is extremely respected in the industry - for good reason? I would recommend refraining from making insinuations until you do a bit more research about him and what he actually produces.
And yes, I have his book. It's full of great information with peer reviewed studies referenced.
Question: do you even know what his Research Reviews look like or contain?
Peer reviewed studies are hot.
Just saying.
<sips on a Coke>
I think you're right peer review studies are good. Apart of course the hundred or so each year that are retracted.
Which is why Research Reviews come in handy.
Let's hope then in 5 - 10 years we don't find this one retracted.
Again - I suggest you research what you are talking about - it is not a 'this one'.
Lol - yes I know I was just making a point that whilst this is a very interesting study, let's not get to carried away and start thinking that it is gospel. It is the results of a study carried out to certain parameters. In all likelihood if they recreated the study they may get different results (but that is true I should think of many peer reviewed studies).
I'm not picking holes in the study, the results fit in with my belief system about sugar. So I have no reason to challenge it. All I am challenging is the actual context of its importance in eating moderate amounts of sugar.
As far as Alan goes I assume he is well known in the body building community. I am not part of that so I have not come across him.
Personally I follow a style of low carb eating and tend to lend more towards experts in that field.
My though process on any new study or idea which is suggested is - if I like the idea I will research it (from independent sources), if it stacks up I'll run with it. If it doesn't I'll drop it and move on.
What does this have to do with your comments on Aragon's Research Reviews?
No one is getting carried away - it's a study - that is all, and that is all it was presented to be. You were the one who started commenting on Aragon's validity. In fact, I am not sure you even made any comments about the actual study other than to comment on who funded it.
Also. Aragon is not just about bb...at all.
Okay, let's back up a bit here!
I have not questioned his validity - in fact on the first page I actually said 'I am not discrediting big Al and in fact I don't really know who he is'. You must have missed that one.
I only mentioned his book as a flippant comment to another poster to point out like all the other experts he too is now cashing in (nothing wrong with that - it's his business model after all). Just wanted to point out that he is not really set apart from others he had his research that he works hard on as does others.
As I do not know much about Al I really do not know what pies he has his fingers in - soz.
In regards to Additional comments on the study I have made none as I pointed out earlier I'm not looking to pick holes in it.
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).0 -
So you have nothing to contribute one way or the other but can't help but respond? Seems legit.
That seems to be your general rule on most other sugar threads. 0 -
So you have nothing to contribute one way or the other but can't help but respond? Seems legit.
That seems to be your general rule on most other sugar threads.
So you are admitting to it? Great, I am glad we cleared that up (not that it was not already clear).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.0 -
So you have nothing to contribute one way or the other but can't help but respond? Seems legit.
That seems to be your general rule on most other sugar threads.
So you are admitting to it? Great, I am glad we cleared that up (not that it was not already clear).
I'm generally pretty clear about my what I do - although sometimes my sarcasm does go un-noticed.
This thread just seemed a bit too sugar loving not to join in - sweet!0 -
So you have nothing to contribute one way or the other but can't help but respond? Seems legit.
That seems to be your general rule on most other sugar threads.
So you are admitting to it? Great, I am glad we cleared that up (not that it was not already clear).
I'm generally pretty clear about my what I do - although sometimes my sarcasm does go un-noticed.
This thread just seemed a bit too sugar loving not to join in - sweet!
Sugar loving? Interesting, considering when you decided to jump in and how you decided to do it. I did not see much sugar loving going on.
So, you were being sarcastic when you were making insinuations about Aragon? Also good to know that you were being 'funny' and you also think he is a great resource. Pity you took up so much of the thread trying to make your joke.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.0 -
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
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