EXCESS SUGAR CAUSES OBESITY-MUST READ!
Replies
-
-
stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.
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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, just how I sometimes handle dealing with people who aren't being logical.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
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.stevencloser wrote: »
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 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
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.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 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.
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.
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?
Says the one dismissing a published scientist as a blog guy.
You said there's no consensus on weight loss. There is, based on pretty much highschool physics. Sugar alone without creating a calorie surplus is incapable of making anyone obese. Lustig seemingly goes against this.
There is no consensus. People don't spend their lives in a lab under controlled conditions. WHAT you eat influences many things...such as blood sugar. Certain foods create cravings to eat more. Certain foods are more filling making it less likely you will overeat due to hunger. To ignore these things and pretend we are machines that simply eat what some calorie counter program tells us to eat is ridiculous.
Saying things like that is not at all helpful to anyone struggling. What you eat matters. For weight, and for health. Pretend otherwise if you like, but I won't.
No, they don't.
They do. In many, many, many people they do. This is currently an area of active study for a very good reason...many in the field think there is something to it, and millions of people deal with it every day.
Your link to the proof? As this was discussed, in great length, in a fabulous thread the other day, and there is no scientific proof to show that there is any food that causes cravings or addictions in humans.
Sigh
Deep breathing as an exercise in avoidance?
You claim Lustig doesn't contradict himself then accuse others of not being logical? Thanks for the laugh at your highly illogical position.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?0 -
Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Oh, not again. People and rats don't react the same way to food. Or sugar. Or cancer drugs.
It's where you start, and it's valid research.
Absolutely, when the research proves out the original theory. But it's already been proven that rat studies and sugar don't carry over to human studies. Just as it has with many cancer research studies.
What does cancer studies have to do with this conversation?
Rats are used in lab research often in many different studies that are intended to carry over to human trials. However, when the original studies are carried over to human trials, the research doesn't prove out - it has happened in both the food trials, and the cancer research trials - it's a correlation between the two. Showing that just because something happens in rats, doesn't mean it's going to happen in humans the same way.
I see. So you are saying since cancer drugs that work on rats don't work on humans that means nutritional studies on rats also don't apply to humans?
It means that just because something is true in a rat does not mean it is compelling enough evidence that the same will hold for a human. That's why people are asking for HUMAN studies. So far, none have shown the same result. So providing a rat study does not provide substantial evidence.0 -
Haven't read all the commits,
but the op is 2 years old.... and is just a blog post by a guy trying to sell his book.
asfaras I am concerned, overeating of Anything will cause you to be obese.
Years ago it was Fat..... now it is sugar.... carbs are coming a long nicely now too.
Hasn't this guy been proven to exaggerate/twist data to sell his books.
Many people overeat on meat and potatoes, not sugar. hey maybe I should write a book about how...excess protein causes obesity....as long as I have DR. in my name I can blog anything.
0 -
Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Rats are not human beings.
Are you sure? Go watch the GOP debate
I work closely with politicians. In fact, I was at a debate watch party so I've been there, done that. Not quite sure where you are trying to go with the debate.
I'll say it again… rats are not humans. While there are similarities, there are certainly limitations when it comes to using animal models in research. Functional similarities do not equal biological similarities.
I'm not sure why you are trying to derail this thread.
Of course rats aren't human but animal models can predict human response
Um, no actually, they cannot.
Animal models cannot be used to hypothesize how a human will respond. Rats and humans vary in physiologies and biochemistries. Therefore, multiple sclerosis in a rat is not identical to MS in a human.0 -
She's listed it as an example, and you're picking on that detail because you're avoiding that it can be shown that rats are poor for studying sugar metabolism in humans. Last I looked at our nearest living relatives, there is a lot of sugar in their diets.Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Oh, not again. People and rats don't react the same way to food. Or sugar. Or cancer drugs.
It's where you start, and it's valid research.
Absolutely, when the research proves out the original theory. But it's already been proven that rat studies and sugar don't carry over to human studies. Just as it has with many cancer research studies.
What does cancer studies have to do with this conversation?
Rats are used in lab research often in many different studies that are intended to carry over to human trials. However, when the original studies are carried over to human trials, the research doesn't prove out - it has happened in both the food trials, and the cancer research trials - it's a correlation between the two. Showing that just because something happens in rats, doesn't mean it's going to happen in humans the same way.
I see. So you are saying since cancer drugs that work on rats don't work on humans that means nutritional studies on rats also don't apply to humans?0 -
mantium999 wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »Bronan_The_Brobarian wrote: »This thread is fantastic. Has anyone produced the studies that substantiate sugar being addictive in humans (inb4avenaratstudylol) and sugar bad for you?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235907/
Oh, not again. People and rats don't react the same way to food. Or sugar. Or cancer drugs.
It's where you start, and it's valid research.
Absolutely, when the research proves out the original theory. But it's already been proven that rat studies and sugar don't carry over to human studies. Just as it has with many cancer research studies.
What does cancer studies have to do with this conversation?
Rats are used in lab research often in many different studies that are intended to carry over to human trials. However, when the original studies are carried over to human trials, the research doesn't prove out - it has happened in both the food trials, and the cancer research trials - it's a correlation between the two. Showing that just because something happens in rats, doesn't mean it's going to happen in humans the same way.
I see. So you are saying since cancer drugs that work on rats don't work on humans that means nutritional studies on rats also don't apply to humans?
It means that just because something is true in a rat does not mean it is compelling enough evidence that the same will hold for a human. That's why people are asking for HUMAN studies. So far, none have shown the same result. So providing a rat study does not provide substantial evidence.
Exactly.0 -
It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
Let's do this in logical steps:
1. Fructose is a molecule.
2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
3. Lustig said fructose is poison
4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.
If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.
That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no0 -
Yes, too much sugar will cause obesity.
And also...too much steak will cause obesity...and too much extra virgin olive oil...and EVEN TOO MUCH TOFU!
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
So you'd eat some sources of something you consider poison? *sigh*0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.0 -
He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."MoiAussi93 wrote: »
It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
Let's do this in logical steps:
1. Fructose is a molecule.
2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
3. Lustig said fructose is poison
4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.
If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.
That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
So you'd eat some sources of something you consider poison? *sigh*
You want to eat sugar, go for it. Eat as much as you like. In fact, you can have my share. Double up.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
The negative effects of something which we seek out in particular because it's basically in our dna that it is good for us to eat since hundreds of thousands of years ago?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
He did not say, "like", or "as if it was", he agreed with "thinking about fructose as a poison".
He also said natural foods containing fructose are "all good".0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
So you'd eat some sources of something you consider poison? *sigh*
You want to eat sugar, go for it. Eat as much as you like. In fact, you can have my share. Double up.
0 -
mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.
Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.0 -
He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."MoiAussi93 wrote: »
It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
Let's do this in logical steps:
1. Fructose is a molecule.
2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
3. Lustig said fructose is poison
4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.
If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.
That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.
"as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.0 -
So why is the same molecule causing different health effects when it described as added to food, but fine when it occurs naturally in food?MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.
Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
He agreed with the statement: "we should be thinking about fructose as a poison."MoiAussi93 wrote: »
It's edited to put together two quotes that contradict themselves because they're from different talks. I'll rightly admit it, but now I feel you're trying to avoid showing how it isn't a contradiction, other than trying to perform refutation by repetition.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
Let's do this in logical steps:
1. Fructose is a molecule.
2. Molecules are the same and retain their same chemical properties when in mixtures like food.
3. Lustig said fructose is poison
4. It follows from 2 and 3 that foods that contain fructose are therefore poisonous.
5. Lustig said no natural food containing fructose is poisonous.
6. 4 and 5 contradict each other, we must conclude one of the premises in 1,2,3, or 5 are false.
If you treat something that is bad for you, for whatever reason, as if it were poisonous, then you simply won't eat it. Fructose is not deadly in the sense that it will kill you within minutes of ingestion. He never said that. He never implied that. To state otherwise is a lie. However, if you avoid fructose as if it were deadly, you will be much better off. He does believe it is bad for you, and does believe it should be avoided.
That's the great thing about the English language. Words can be used in different ways....especially when you throw words such as "like" or "as if it was" in front of it. Now, if you want to continue to pretend to misunderstand what he was really saying, when he responded to SOMEONE ELSE's comment, then so be it.
"as a " yes...and it's very clear what he was saying. Most doctors will tell you the same thing, btw.
Absolutely no, most of them will not.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why is everything so black and white, When it comes to sugar consumption!?
If someone thinks sugar is bad, they will post a link proving/stating this.
Then along comes a sugar advocate and posts a link disproving the link the other person posted, and on and on it goes.
You're either on one side or the other, there doesn't seem to any grey areas in people opinions when it comes to sugar consumption.
Sugar is in just about every packaged food on the planet. I can't imagine a study coming out any time soon saying sugar is the cause of this or that. It would be not in the food/drink industries best interests if a study saying sugar is dangerous or whatever came to light.
I'll stay in the middle, not too much and not none either
0 -
So why is the same molecule causing different health effects when it described as added to food, but fine when it occurs naturally in food?MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.
Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
She continues to ignore this question0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
The non-edited continuous parts of the video areMoiAussi93 wrote: »
So how can fructose be a poison, but it not be a poison when it is in natural food? It is two different quotes splice and edited and for a reason: at different times, he's stated two things that contradict each other.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
No, I'm simply not being charitable and letting the contradiction stand as some misunderstanding. Since you know exactly what he means, why don't you tell me how it isn't a contradiction instead of being reactionary and insisting to me what I do or do not understand.MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Lustig is a quack, he debunks himself:MoiAussi93 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
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!MoiAussi93 wrote: »
Well, you're the one who invented the board proof rules, so you should realize that's not how it works. LOL!DeguelloTex wrote: »
Prove he's not a quack.MoiAussi93 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?
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.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?
Are you really so desperate to defend him that you can't see it is a contradiction? Fructose is a molecule. You can't have it chemically unaltered in a natural food and have it be safe, and have it be a poison when it isn't. If he was trying to say it is a matter of the dose makes the poison, he's failed when he said it isn't poisonous in natural foods.
You're being extremely disingenuous. You know exactly what he was saying.
You posted a highly repetitive, highly edited video which you apparently find amusing. Great, I'm glad you are so easily amused, but he never contradicted himself and it is obvious what he is saying. To pretend otherwise is just silly. But go ahead, if that amuses you keep at it.
He never contradicted himself. That was, as I already said, highly edited. Surely, you realize this. Why play this silly game?
1) him saying no natural food with fructose in it is poisonous to humans, it's in our dna to like it because it's safe food. Fructose = yum yum
and
2) him agreeing to someone saying to regard fructose as poison as result of his presentation
How is that not contradictory unless he and you think fructose in one thing is different than fructose in another?
He agreed that you should avoid fructose AS IF it was poison because of the negative effects it has. Again, this makes sense and there is no contradiction.
If thats the case, one should avoid ALL sources of fructose, no?
no
You just, 1 minute ago, stated that if you treated fructose as if it were deadly you would be much better off. Now you say no to avoiding all sources of fructose. Seriously, make a statement, stand by it, and support it. Cuz this merry-go-round you are on lacks cognitive thought.
Again, you can eat all the sugar you like. Have my share. I make decisions for my health based on the available evidence, whether I like it or not. If you want to pretend added sugar on a regular basis isn't bad for you, go for it.
Explain how fructose should be treated as deadly but you shouldnt avoid all fructose0 -
kshama2001 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
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
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.
My point is niner mentioned that Brazil is one of the highest consumers of sugar and the Brazilian government is concerned about their obesity health epidemic.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions