EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!

13468914

Replies

  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

    Why do you believe the others over Lustig?

    And it's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,893 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    What I'd like to see is Lustig going to Brazil (one of the highest consumers of sugar) and preach this to all the normal size people over there.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    On my way to exercise last week, I heard a story on NPR about Brazil and obesity, which I can't find right now, but apparently the government in Brazil considers obesity there to be a health epidemic.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-015-0107-y#page-1

    5c7768bf0f01c2dfef6f8fca474b0517.png

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Caitwn wrote: »
    Arguments like this are endless because people want science to be black and white. Definite. Absolute.

    Often it's not. Science is grey. It's a continuum. NUTRITIONAL science is grey.

    I don't think Lustig is a quack. But it makes me crazy that he draws such absolutist, stark conclusions. Just like it makes me crazy that the OP posted a thread with a hysterical title in ALL CAPS with EXCLAMATION POINTS and MUST READ as though that somehow makes it all valid.

    From what I can tell, Lustig is a competent researcher who has over-reached in his conclusions either because he's got some sort of passion for the subject that has blinded him to a more nuanced approach, or he's an opportunist. I don't know which is true, and it likely doesn't matter either way.

    What matters is that he does something that doesn't work for me when I'm trying to educate myself and make reasonable judgments about how and what to eat. He pulls out one nutrient and focuses on it as The Problem. But that doesn't work because foods are a palette of nutrients, delivered in countless different ways, all within the context of my own preferences, any emotional issues I have that impact the way I eat, my genetics, my activity level, and social context variables like my income level, the influence of advertising and marketing, and food availability. And there's more, but you're probably already tired of the list.

    The point is, things start to get pretty grey.

    And that's why I can't take people seriously when they make blanket recommendations like how I should 'eliminate added/processed sugars'. It's like recommending I use a sledgehammer on my desk when all I want to do is rearrange my study to let more light in. It's crude and careless thinking, and misses the forest for the trees.

    Here's an example of thinking that's more nuanced. It's from the conclusion to the second article that @yarwell links above (care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/4/957.full)

    "If there are any adverse effects of sugar, they are due entirely to the calories it provides, and it is therefore indistinguishable from any other caloric food. Excess total energy consumption seems far more likely to be the cause of obesity and diabetes. Although many individuals can lose a substantial amount of weight and thereby also delay the onset of diabetes, to do so has relied on an overall reduction in energy consumption. Thus, if reduced energy intake is desirable, all caloric foods are candidates. A reduction in consumption of added sugars should head the list because they provide no essential nutrients."

    That's reasonable. It's thoughtful. If you read it, you can see that it actually offers some support to each of the extreme sides of the 'sugar wars'. It's grey, so it's less likely to generate clicks or book sales.

    And just to further ruffle the feathers of those of you who imagine that science is "tainted" depending on who sponsors it...note that the study I just quoted from was supported in part by Coca-Cola. But also note that the nature of that support was an "investigator-initiated unrestricted grant". Yes, big corporations with vested interests do sponsor research. But they tend to benefit more from unrestricted research because the quality of that research is better. Instead of forcing the research to have a particular slant, they let the investigator research a question that they have interest in. They don't manipulate the conclusions. They DO cherry-pick and manipulate the way they report on results in mainstream media. But it isn't the research itself that's "tainted".

    Coca-Cola and others don't need to "cook" the research. They can rely on the fact that most people don't know squat about how to interpret research and that science illiteracy is increasing in this country, not decreasing. They know they can trap people based on the fact that people want science to be black-and-white and provide absolute answers.

    Maybe it's my own bias operating here, but I just feel like a lot of clarity can result from conversations and exchanges that are comfortable with "grey". And we could have a lot more of those if people could stop asking science to be black-and-white.



    yup.gif

    pretty much where I stand...

    it seems to me that people have this need for everything to be extreme...whether we're talking diet or fitness or politics or religion...most things in this world are nuanced...most things are not black and white...but it seems a great many people want to take just about everything to that extreme.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig is also selling a book. Arguably with more of an agenda since it's basically "Here's why you're REALLY getting fat!"

    How is that MORE of an agenda? Makes no sense.

    It's a lot like the "She's 68 but looks like 20 thanks to this one trick The Man doesn't want you to know" clickbait ads.
    It goes very against any scientific consensus of how weight loss and gain works, with a title that makes it sound like he has answers that no one else wants you to know etc.
    I've seen all that before, I collect conspiracy theory books.
  • Furbuster
    Furbuster Posts: 254 Member
    Caitwn wrote: »
    Arguments like this are endless because people want science to be black and white. Definite. Absolute.

    Often it's not. Science is grey. It's a continuum. NUTRITIONAL science is grey.

    I don't think Lustig is a quack. But it makes me crazy that he draws such absolutist, stark conclusions. Just like it makes me crazy that the OP posted a thread with a hysterical title in ALL CAPS with EXCLAMATION POINTS and MUST READ as though that somehow makes it all valid.

    From what I can tell, Lustig is a competent researcher who has over-reached in his conclusions either because he's got some sort of passion for the subject that has blinded him to a more nuanced approach, or he's an opportunist. I don't know which is true, and it likely doesn't matter either way.

    What matters is that he does something that doesn't work for me when I'm trying to educate myself and make reasonable judgments about how and what to eat. He pulls out one nutrient and focuses on it as The Problem. But that doesn't work because foods are a palette of nutrients, delivered in countless different ways, all within the context of my own preferences, any emotional issues I have that impact the way I eat, my genetics, my activity level, and social context variables like my income level, the influence of advertising and marketing, and food availability. And there's more, but you're probably already tired of the list.

    The point is, things start to get pretty grey.

    And that's why I can't take people seriously when they make blanket recommendations like how I should 'eliminate added/processed sugars'. It's like recommending I use a sledgehammer on my desk when all I want to do is rearrange my study to let more light in. It's crude and careless thinking, and misses the forest for the trees.

    Here's an example of thinking that's more nuanced. It's from the conclusion to the second article that @yarwell links above (care.diabetesjournals.org/content/37/4/957.full)

    "If there are any adverse effects of sugar, they are due entirely to the calories it provides, and it is therefore indistinguishable from any other caloric food. Excess total energy consumption seems far more likely to be the cause of obesity and diabetes. Although many individuals can lose a substantial amount of weight and thereby also delay the onset of diabetes, to do so has relied on an overall reduction in energy consumption. Thus, if reduced energy intake is desirable, all caloric foods are candidates. A reduction in consumption of added sugars should head the list because they provide no essential nutrients."

    That's reasonable. It's thoughtful. If you read it, you can see that it actually offers some support to each of the extreme sides of the 'sugar wars'. It's grey, so it's less likely to generate clicks or book sales.

    And just to further ruffle the feathers of those of you who imagine that science is "tainted" depending on who sponsors it...note that the study I just quoted from was supported in part by Coca-Cola. But also note that the nature of that support was an "investigator-initiated unrestricted grant". Yes, big corporations with vested interests do sponsor research. But they tend to benefit more from unrestricted research because the quality of that research is better. Instead of forcing the research to have a particular slant, they let the investigator research a question that they have interest in. They don't manipulate the conclusions. They DO cherry-pick and manipulate the way they report on results in mainstream media. But it isn't the research itself that's "tainted".

    Coca-Cola and others don't need to "cook" the research. They can rely on the fact that most people don't know squat about how to interpret research and that science illiteracy is increasing in this country, not decreasing. They know they can trap people based on the fact that people want science to be black-and-white and provide absolute answers.

    Maybe it's my own bias operating here, but I just feel like a lot of clarity can result from conversations and exchanges that are comfortable with "grey". And we could have a lot more of those if people could stop asking science to be black-and-white.



    Nice :) Also half-lifes....I look at some sources quoted (all over the net in general) and wonder - is that still right?
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.

    As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.

    Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.

    You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.

    Can you answer the question?

    And he isn't a scientist.

    He's a pediatric endocrinologist...that is a scientist. He's a medical doctor with a highly specialized and relevant fellowship in endocrinology. Not some guy with a fitness blog.

    Nothing is 100% in nutrition or health. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades who never get cancer, but that does not disprove the established fact that smoking causes cancer.
    No, medical doctors are not scientists. There are a lot of medical doctors who have incredibly poor understanding of the scientific process. That you make that claim, yet decry Alan Aragon as writing a blog post (despite being a sourced explanation) instead of actually addressing Alan's points doesn't bode well. Would you care to address actual science and methodology, rather than going into credentials and character arguments? They represent the fall back of someone that can't actually follow the science, and therefore has to rely on the human capacity for following the motive.
    By your style of reasoning, if someone who is colorblind is paid $5 to tell you a clear sky during the day is blue is wrong, but someone who has 20/20 vision telling you the sky is polka dot for free is correct.

    sci·en·tist
    ˈsīən(t)əst/
    noun
    a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

    Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS496US496&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=scientist define

    Endocrinologist vs blog guy....hmmm.

    According to your definition, I'm a scientist, in the respiratory sciences. I've got the degree, and years of experience in the field.

    I have no idea what you do and whether or not you could be called a scientist under any definition or not, but if you deal with respiratory issues you have no expertise in nutrition. That is all that is relevant for purposes of this discussion.

    An endocrinologist makes the cut, IMHO.
  • Bronty3
    Bronty3 Posts: 104 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

    Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

    Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig is also selling a book. Arguably with more of an agenda since it's basically "Here's why you're REALLY getting fat!"

    How is that MORE of an agenda? Makes no sense.

    It's a lot like the "She's 68 but looks like 20 thanks to this one trick The Man doesn't want you to know" clickbait ads.
    It goes very against any scientific consensus of how weight loss and gain works, with a title that makes it sound like he has answers that no one else wants you to know etc.
    I've seen all that before, I collect conspiracy theory books.

    There is no scientific consensus. That is why there are constantly new studies being published in the area of nutrition as it related to obesity or health in general. It is an area that has many open questions at this point.

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.

    As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.

    Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.

    You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.

    Can you answer the question?

    And he isn't a scientist.

    He's a pediatric endocrinologist...that is a scientist. He's a medical doctor with a highly specialized and relevant fellowship in endocrinology. Not some guy with a fitness blog.

    Nothing is 100% in nutrition or health. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades who never get cancer, but that does not disprove the established fact that smoking causes cancer.
    No, medical doctors are not scientists. There are a lot of medical doctors who have incredibly poor understanding of the scientific process. That you make that claim, yet decry Alan Aragon as writing a blog post (despite being a sourced explanation) instead of actually addressing Alan's points doesn't bode well. Would you care to address actual science and methodology, rather than going into credentials and character arguments? They represent the fall back of someone that can't actually follow the science, and therefore has to rely on the human capacity for following the motive.
    By your style of reasoning, if someone who is colorblind is paid $5 to tell you a clear sky during the day is blue is wrong, but someone who has 20/20 vision telling you the sky is polka dot for free is correct.

    sci·en·tist
    ˈsīən(t)əst/
    noun
    a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

    Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS496US496&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=scientist define

    Endocrinologist vs blog guy....hmmm.
    1. You're pulling out a google definition for a term that has specific meaning in fields. If you feel the need to source a dictionary for your argument, chances are you are talking about a field you don't understand. Just stop.
    2. By that definition, anyone who is an engineer is a scientist simply because they have to know a lot of scientific concepts, but engineers are engineers not scientists, and doctors are doctors, not scientists. So aparently now I'm a scientists, and I say Lustig is a quack. Awesome.
    3. By that definition, a lot of Jeopardy contestants are scientists. Can I quote Ken Jennings's on sugar now?
    4. A scientist is not marked by their knowledge, but their acquisition of it. A scientist is someone employing the scientific method to actually expand the field of knowledge, not simply memorizing facts.
    5. Alan Aragon isn't just someone with a blog. The fact that you can't actually address Alan's argument and have to try to discredit his credentials - which you aren't because you honestly haven't even bothered to learn who he is - does not speak well for your level of understanding. As long as you have your Google dictionary open, look up ad hominem, relying on it means you're not making your most effective argument.
    6. Should I just rephrase Alan's argument with the sources he uses so you're forced to actually address the argument and not the character?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig is also selling a book. Arguably with more of an agenda since it's basically "Here's why you're REALLY getting fat!"

    How is that MORE of an agenda? Makes no sense.

    It's a lot like the "She's 68 but looks like 20 thanks to this one trick The Man doesn't want you to know" clickbait ads.
    It goes very against any scientific consensus of how weight loss and gain works, with a title that makes it sound like he has answers that no one else wants you to know etc.
    I've seen all that before, I collect conspiracy theory books.

    There is no scientific consensus. That is why there are constantly new studies being published in the area of nutrition as it related to obesity or health in general. It is an area that has many open questions at this point.

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

    Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

    Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

    I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

    Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    edited August 2015
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    I've seen lots of Lustig-bashing here but never any evidence that he's a quack. Links please? Apply the usual standards to the quality of sources.

    Links that says he is a quack? No. Links that disprove damn near everything he has said/written? yes.

    Here is one.
    http://sweetenerstudies.com/sites/default/files/resources/files/Scientific-Review-of-Lustigs-Fat-Chance.pdf

    So you give us something published by the Corn Refiner's Association? Seriously? Using something published by a trade association to discredit a scientist whose conclusions are damaging to their industry is not very credible.

    Ever hear of an obvious conflict of interest?
    Prove he's not a quack.
    Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!
    But you said it is how it works. If you expect others to prove a negative, you should stand ready to do the same. So... go!

    Or does this mean you've come around to seeing burden of proof in the same way it's been seen for thousands of years?

    Or do you just go with whichever way always puts the burden of proof on others rather than yourself?

    Calling someone a quack could be libelous in certain circumstances. That is very strong language. If you say that, you should be able to back it up with something other than a sugar industry blog.

    I think most people reading this thread understand that very clearly. If you want to pretend not to, that's fine with me.
    Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ6LhzCrPpk

    You either didn't understand what you saw, or you are pretending not to. What he said makes perfect sense.

    He called fructose a poison and said it is not a poison at the same time. That's a contradiction. Do you not follow that?

    No, you completely misunderstood that. He said there is no food that naturally contains fructose that is poisonous to humans. Then he said that we should "think of" fructose as poison because of all the bad effects it has on the human body. What don't you understand?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig advertises his book at the beginning of the article. It's a link to amazon so you can buy it. Also, he's an endocrinologist. He probably has less training in nutrition than someone with an advanced degree in nutrition. My friend is a doctor and has less knowledge than me about bones because, unless you specialize in it, you just get an introduction to it in anatomy. Other studies have been done that claim that added sugar consumption does not lead to obesity, but instead it's overeating and not moving. Why do you believe Lustig's study over the others?

    Sorry, I would trust an endocrinologist over a nutritionist any day. If you want to manage your health differently, that is your right. I have several doctor friends. My infectious disease specialist friend knows less about nutrition than me. My endocrinologist friend knows much more...and deals with it daily in his work.

    Why are you taking what Lustig says as the end all be all? There are studies out there that come to different conclusions. He doesn't even list any references in his article that are meaningful and support his claims. You say you want references, yet don't need them from the guy you are defending.

    I already stated this. It's not just Lustig. I am not basing my opinions off of one man's statements or work. I have read many studies by many people and I find the overall body of evidence that sugar is addictive and just plain bad for you very compelling. Lustig is really not even an important part of that.

    Even major health organizations are telling people to drastically reduce sugar. This isn't a radical idea.

    Oh, now you're coming with major health organizations. The same ones who are NOT claiming it's "plain bad for you". The ones who are simply saying it's got calories and you shouldn't have too many calories to prevent weight gain.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    What I'd like to see is Lustig going to Brazil (one of the highest consumers of sugar) and preach this to all the normal size people over there.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    On my way to exercise last week, I heard a story on NPR about Brazil and obesity, which I can't find right now, but apparently the government in Brazil considers obesity there to be a health epidemic.

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12992-015-0107-y#page-1

    5c7768bf0f01c2dfef6f8fca474b0517.png

    But their obesity rate is lower than the US is the point. If you lined up sugar consumption and obesity rates by country, the two graphs wouldn't show much correlation. That's the point.
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.

    As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.

    Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.

    You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.

    Can you answer the question?

    And he isn't a scientist.

    He's a pediatric endocrinologist...that is a scientist. He's a medical doctor with a highly specialized and relevant fellowship in endocrinology. Not some guy with a fitness blog.

    Nothing is 100% in nutrition or health. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades who never get cancer, but that does not disprove the established fact that smoking causes cancer.
    No, medical doctors are not scientists. There are a lot of medical doctors who have incredibly poor understanding of the scientific process. That you make that claim, yet decry Alan Aragon as writing a blog post (despite being a sourced explanation) instead of actually addressing Alan's points doesn't bode well. Would you care to address actual science and methodology, rather than going into credentials and character arguments? They represent the fall back of someone that can't actually follow the science, and therefore has to rely on the human capacity for following the motive.
    By your style of reasoning, if someone who is colorblind is paid $5 to tell you a clear sky during the day is blue is wrong, but someone who has 20/20 vision telling you the sky is polka dot for free is correct.

    sci·en·tist
    ˈsīən(t)əst/
    noun
    a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

    Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS496US496&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=scientist define

    Endocrinologist vs blog guy....hmmm.

    According to your definition, I'm a scientist, in the respiratory sciences. I've got the degree, and years of experience in the field.

    I have no idea what you do and whether or not you could be called a scientist under any definition or not, but if you deal with respiratory issues you have no expertise in nutrition. That is all that is relevant for purposes of this discussion.

    An endocrinologist makes the cut, IMHO.

    I made the point because you posted the definition of a scientist. Not an endocrinologist, a scientist. And by your definition, the 'blog guy', as you keep disrepectfully referring to him, is also a scientist. He has the degrees, and is an expert in his field. Yet you continue to disregard his knowledge because it doesn't fit your particular agenda. You haven't bothered to read any of the links we've given you because again, they don't fit your agenda. As Caitwyn said, there are things that have been posted in several of the links in this thread that are of value and prove that nutrition, and sugar and other food sources and their effects on the body can be gray areas. Having an open mind during these discussions is a very important thing.
    If you just blindly argue and keep saying 'I disagree!' and 'I don't believe that!' ad nauseum, you don't sound very credible.
  • senecarr
    senecarr Posts: 5,377 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig is also selling a book. Arguably with more of an agenda since it's basically "Here's why you're REALLY getting fat!"

    How is that MORE of an agenda? Makes no sense.

    It's a lot like the "She's 68 but looks like 20 thanks to this one trick The Man doesn't want you to know" clickbait ads.
    It goes very against any scientific consensus of how weight loss and gain works, with a title that makes it sound like he has answers that no one else wants you to know etc.
    I've seen all that before, I collect conspiracy theory books.

    There is no scientific consensus. That is why there are constantly new studies being published in the area of nutrition as it related to obesity or health in general. It is an area that has many open questions at this point.

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    There is an absolute and overwhelming scientific consensus that weight loss and weight gain operate on calories in versus calories out.
  • FatFreeFrolicking
    FatFreeFrolicking Posts: 4,252 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    No one is posting science because there is a lot to debunk. Not sure why you feel you need peer reviewed science to debunk a Huffington Post article, but to each his own.

    As I asked earlier, IF sugar causes obesity, how come people lose weight and others aren't obese while eating sugar? If you can answer that simple question, I will concede.

    Interesting, because I constantly see people asking for peer reviewed studies to prove sugar is addictive, or sugary drinks lead to weight gain, etc.

    You called a scientist a quack. It seems to me you need more than blogs from people pushing high carb books or paid by the sugar industry to back that up.

    Can you answer the question?

    And he isn't a scientist.

    He's a pediatric endocrinologist...that is a scientist. He's a medical doctor with a highly specialized and relevant fellowship in endocrinology. Not some guy with a fitness blog.

    Nothing is 100% in nutrition or health. There are people who smoke a pack a day for decades who never get cancer, but that does not disprove the established fact that smoking causes cancer.
    No, medical doctors are not scientists. There are a lot of medical doctors who have incredibly poor understanding of the scientific process. That you make that claim, yet decry Alan Aragon as writing a blog post (despite being a sourced explanation) instead of actually addressing Alan's points doesn't bode well. Would you care to address actual science and methodology, rather than going into credentials and character arguments? They represent the fall back of someone that can't actually follow the science, and therefore has to rely on the human capacity for following the motive.
    By your style of reasoning, if someone who is colorblind is paid $5 to tell you a clear sky during the day is blue is wrong, but someone who has 20/20 vision telling you the sky is polka dot for free is correct.

    sci·en·tist
    ˈsīən(t)əst/
    noun
    a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.

    Source: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS496US496&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=scientist define

    Endocrinologist vs blog guy....hmmm.

    According to your definition, I'm a scientist, in the respiratory sciences. I've got the degree, and years of experience in the field.

    I have no idea what you do and whether or not you could be called a scientist under any definition or not, but if you deal with respiratory issues you have no expertise in nutrition. That is all that is relevant for purposes of this discussion.

    An endocrinologist makes the cut, IMHO.

    An endocrinologist specializes in the endocrine system; not nutrition/dietetics. They receive no more education in nutrition than a cardiologist does.

    Just because they work with patients who generally need to follow a specific diet does not mean they are knowledgable in said area. That is why endocrinology offices have registered dietitians in the office.
  • MoiAussi93
    MoiAussi93 Posts: 1,948 Member
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    tigersword wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    mccindy72 wrote: »
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »

    "Alan's Blog" is not a peer reviewed medical journal. This guy's main claim to fame seems to be that he writes for Men's Health magazine and has a book of his own that he likes to promote. He's not even a scientist or a medical doctor.

    Here's a good one. It even has a lot of science in it. http://anthonycolpo.com/why-you-cant-trust-the-abc-to-report-the-truth-about-diet-exercise-fat-loss/

    ANOTHER blog...from a guy selling books with names like "The Fat Loss Bible".

    LOL!

    And... you didn't bother to read it. Of course. There's a lot of actual science in it. Just because it's a blog doesn't mean it isn't worth reading, or factual. You seem determined to run around with your eyes closed. While defending someone who just had an opinion that's being debunked with science. (which you'd know if you'd read the link)

    It debunks nothing.

    While a few blogs are worth reading they are nothing more than a starting point. To really understand an issue, or to discredit someone, you need "actual science". ..not yet another guy trying to convince you to buy his diet book instead of someone else's. The guy has several diet books...I really don't think relying on his blog to discredit someone whose theory hurts his book sales makes sense.

    You should read things from a wide range of viewpoints...not just the blogs that you agree with.
    So, everyone else should read from a wide variety of viewpoints, but you can instantly dismiss all other viewpoints? Alan Aragon's blog is fantastic, the man has advanced degrees in human nutrition and is a published author in peer reviewed journals. He's not just trying to sell a book, he's trying to educate. If you actually read the blog, he doesn't try to sell any product in that entry, he's strictly taking Lustig's claims and refuting them with actual science. He even gets into an actual debate with Dr. Lustig himself in the comments section, which Alan easily won, as once he debunked Lustig's claims with peer reviewed references, Dr. Lustig was reduced to defending himself by stating that his video is popular, so he's right, no matter what the evidence actually says.

    Lustig also has advanced degrees...degrees that took more years of study than the guy with the blog. He also has published many research articles.

    And typically when people are trying to sell a book, they don't mention it in an article attacking a competing viewpoint. That's not how it works. He has an agenda.

    Lustig is also selling a book. Arguably with more of an agenda since it's basically "Here's why you're REALLY getting fat!"

    How is that MORE of an agenda? Makes no sense.

    It's a lot like the "She's 68 but looks like 20 thanks to this one trick The Man doesn't want you to know" clickbait ads.
    It goes very against any scientific consensus of how weight loss and gain works, with a title that makes it sound like he has answers that no one else wants you to know etc.
    I've seen all that before, I collect conspiracy theory books.

    There is no scientific consensus. That is why there are constantly new studies being published in the area of nutrition as it related to obesity or health in general. It is an area that has many open questions at this point.

    And it's not like he's the only person in the field expressing these beliefs.
    Here's the consensus: energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change from one state to another. Where there's no excess energy, no energy can be stored.
    Gee, it's shocking that every person in the world is not the perfect weight. You should get this message out. I have no idea why scientists are wasting their careers and governments and corporations are spending millions researching something that has already been solved.

    Yes, I am being sarcastic. But you are greatly oversimplifying something that is extremely complicated. If you don't want to have a serious discussion, then why bother?
This discussion has been closed.