Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I am actually mainly just curious why you think a "carb only" diet has anything to do with this thread (or Ancel Keys) or leaky gut or holistic medicine. Care to explain? It might be amusing.
I absolutely like you... Love your response too btw... I was highly bothered reading what people believe to be true but not truly a fact necessarily. My point is based on a great scientist will NEVER stop looking for a Black Swan once he's concluded there are none. From your well put together thoughts, can you say there are NO pink fairies and be one hundred percent certain there are none?
Granted, I woke up with little sleep, started reading this information and it got under my skin. I personally hate full conclusions when, unless they are omnipresent and omniscient, they can not know.
Now, the only point I care to respond to is your last curiosity, it's not that it's about Ancel Keyes or a Keto diet. It's about what is possible or is not. 22 countries information went into Ancel's 7 country study. From lacking of funding or lacking of caring, only 7 countries fit his mold. And, ironically, 7 countries were used to make his point.
A carb based diet, which is STILL somewhat pushed as the "correct" way to eat in the U.S., is based on Ancel Keyes. The food pyramid comes directly from his research. My point about leaky gut, holistic medicine, etc comes down to one simple thought, YOU DON'T KNOW. And. Unless you are ALL knowing and every where present, you can't!18 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm sorry . . . who here has argued that one can live completely on carbohydrates?
Or that one can live completely on protein and carbohydrates?
I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up.
Disclosure notice: I am a vegan, although I missed the planning sessions where we got control of all the experts and researchers.
For the record, not hating on vegans or vegetarians. Honestly, I woke up in a mood and was frustrated, so I ranted.
By nature I'm easily stirred, which is a crappy trait in my eyes too btw, and I put my thoughts out pretty rapidly. That being said, I actually love people questioning me, getting in my face (especially when I over react), and question thoughts over all, because they should.
But again, "I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up." Honestly, probably chip on my shoulder that I knocked off myself...
One more quick modification, and then I'll likely stop caring about this thread to be honest. Abraham Lincoln had a great habit, I'm saying this to myself more than to you (just sharing my thoughts), he'd go and write impassioned letters and topics, to get it out of his head, and never send them. This was one of those from me, but I sent it because I've not learned the true meaning from Mr Lincoln, get it out and get away from it.12 -
mshanepace wrote: »Now, the only point a care to respond to is your last curiosity, it's not that it's about Ancel Keyes or a Keto diet. It's about what is possible or is not. 22 countries information went into Ancel's 7 country study. From lacking of funding or lacking of caring, only 7 countries fit his mold. And, ironically, 7 countries were used to make his point.
I'm not seeing where the OP mentioned carbs at all. That's why I'm confused you think this is about carbs.
But although it's off-topic, the above is incorrect. It's a lie that's being pushed in some quarters, so I understand why you might think it is true, but it is, in fact, a lie. I strongly suggest that you read the links in my prior (long) post.A carb based diet, which is STILL somewhat pushed as the "correct" way to eat in the U.S., is based on Ancel Keyes.
Most societies eat half or more of calories from carbs, and the US diet is squarely in that group, sure. We were before Ancel Keys too, and no one really followed Keys much (or dietary recommendations much). Dietary recommendations are: eat more vegetables and fruit, eat whole grains and less refined carbs (potatoes, not fries), eat lean meat (this maybe comes from Keys in part, but there are many more studies related to this), avoid lots of low cal treats that contain added sugar and fats. And following this our calories continued to creep up, but our total amount of fat consumed did not go down (it went up, less fast than carbs, yeah, probably because of things like soda which no one recommended, and a food culture that got more dominated by snacking and convenience snack items). Again, nothing to do with Keys.
Focusing on macros is just a bad approach to nutrition, IMO. Evidence? Look at diets around the world. The US is not different from countries that do better based on overall macros. We are different in a lot of other ways.The food pyramid comes directly from his research.
Not really (it's way more complicated with many others more involved and the recommendations not followed (not because of Keys!)), and the food pyramid is not the current model, and the average person in the US did not follow the pyramid or other official advice on diet anyway. If we had, we'd eat a much better diet. (Hint: the recommendation was less processed grains and starches, and yeah, the base of the pyramid -- as with most cultures -- were those and not the vegetables that had been recommended, because if you are focused on getting adequate calories they are a cheaper source than vegetables and fruits, and part of the whole thing was what needed to be supplied through nutrition support. A less expensive diet based around whole grains, legumes, and potatoes/sweet potatoes and supplemented with some meat, dairy, and of course vegetables is not a bad diet. Nor is it how Americans eat. The idea that the problem with the US diet is "carbs" generally is silly.)My point about leaky gut, holistic medicine, etc comes down to one simple thought, YOU DON'T KNOW. And. Unless you are ALL knowing and every where present, you can't!
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.8 -
mshanepace wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I am actually mainly just curious why you think a "carb only" diet has anything to do with this thread (or Ancel Keys) or leaky gut or holistic medicine. Care to explain? It might be amusing.
I absolutely like you... Love your response too btw... I was highly bothered reading what people believe to be true but not truly a fact necessarily. My point is based on a great scientist will NEVER stop looking for a Black Swan once he's concluded there are none. From your well put together thoughts, can you say there are NO pink fairies and be one hundred percent certain there are none?
Granted, I woke up with little sleep, started reading this information and it got under my skin. I personally hate full conclusions when, unless they are omnipresent and omniscient, they can not know.
Now, the only point I care to respond to is your last curiosity, it's not that it's about Ancel Keyes or a Keto diet. It's about what is possible or is not. 22 countries information went into Ancel's 7 country study. From lacking of funding or lacking of caring, only 7 countries fit his mold. And, ironically, 7 countries were used to make his point.
A carb based diet, which is STILL somewhat pushed as the "correct" way to eat in the U.S., is based on Ancel Keyes. The food pyramid comes directly from his research. My point about leaky gut, holistic medicine, etc comes down to one simple thought, YOU DON'T KNOW. And. Unless you are ALL knowing and every where present, you can't!
There's currently *no good evidence* for pink fairies, so living my life as if they exist and I need to please them would be silly.
You seem to be profoundly confused about how facts are established, tested, and generally accepted to be true or false. Someday someone might find that pink fairies exists. But we don't know that to be true now so we can comfortably live our lives as if they don't. Does that distinction make sense to you? There is no evidence for them, so I don't need to put out a dish of sugar (or keto fat bombs) for them each night to keep them from getting unhappy with me and putting curses on my dogs.
Acknowledging that one can include carbohydrates in their diet and be healthy is nothing like what you're challenging people to do above (live on a diet that is 100% carbohydrates).14 -
mshanepace wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I'm sorry . . . who here has argued that one can live completely on carbohydrates?
Or that one can live completely on protein and carbohydrates?
I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up.
Disclosure notice: I am a vegan, although I missed the planning sessions where we got control of all the experts and researchers.
For the record, not hating on vegans or vegetarians. Honestly, I woke up in a mood and was frustrated, so I ranted.
By nature I'm easily stirred, which is a crappy trait in my eyes too btw, and I put my thoughts out pretty rapidly. That being said, I actually love people questioning me, getting in my face (especially when I over react), and question thoughts over all, because they should.
But again, "I've read this entire thread and I have no idea what has you so stirred up." Honestly, probably chip on my shoulder that I knocked off myself...
One more quick modification, and then I'll likely stop caring about this thread to be honest. Abraham Lincoln had a great habit, I'm saying this to myself more than to you (just sharing my thoughts), he'd go and write impassioned letters and topics, to get it out of his head, and never send them. This was one of those from me, but I sent it because I've not learned the true meaning from Mr Lincoln, get it out and get away from it.
I didn't feel like you were hating on vegans, just involving us in a conspiracy theory for which there is zero evidence. I assure you, if vegans controlled the nutritional establishment, you'd probably see more recommendations for things like tofu and beans to meet protein needs instead of things like fish, greek yogurt, eggs, and chicken. Do you really think we're in charge and recommending people eat animal foods? Why -- to keep our cover secure?
Yes, losing your temper and posting online is a habit that can keep you from getting your point across to others. But honestly, how well and effectively you want to communicate with others is up to you.
What I'm more concerned about is how confused and contradictory your theories seem to be and the conflict you must be experiencing internally. When you develop a theory about how the world works (for example, vegans control the nutritional establishment), maybe compare that theory to see if it matches what you see in the real world?11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.
In fairness, I know you hate this but I'll visit it one last time, we do KNOW that Black Swans are substantially less likely.
We do know that IF pink fairies exist they are extremely well hidden, leaving that they likely, very likely, do not.
Do I honestly believe leaky gut IS what they say it is? Not sure. I know that recommendations based on the hypothesis work to overcome said issues however why, for certain, I did not know. Could it be leaky gut? Yes... Could it be something else, likely. Could it be a combination, certainly. Those that I would reference, such as Dr Axe, would likely be perceived by some as expert testimony and by others as a imposter of sorts. There is a great book on the topic called Eat Dirt.
I'm not saying science is meaningless or worthless, I'm saying that the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes the make amazing leaps forward and sometimes they conclude they're wrong and back pedal. So, based on the beginning of this thread, her class MAY be correct or it may not be correct. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting it's good science is misleading.
I was expecting to be attacked by what I wrote, but a few of the responses I've actually appreciated. You being highest on the list. I love to discuss, debate and even argue loudly on topics. I'm opinionated and stubborn in my thoughts. People such as yourself, not that it should matter one way or the other, I fully respect. Hopefully I've cleared SOME of the mud I threw all over the place this morning.
11 -
mshanepace wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.
In fairness, I know you hate this but I'll visit it one last time, we do KNOW that Black Swans are substantially less likely.
We do know that IF pink fairies exist they are extremely well hidden, leaving that they likely, very likely, do not.
Do I honestly believe leaky gut IS what they say it is? Not sure. I know that recommendations based on the hypothesis work to overcome said issues however why, for certain, I did not know. Could it be leaky gut? Yes... Could it be something else, likely. Could it be a combination, certainly. Those that I would reference, such as Dr Axe, would likely be perceived by some as expert testimony and by others as a imposter of sorts. There is a great book on the topic called Eat Dirt.
I'm not saying science is meaningless or worthless, I'm saying that the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes the make amazing leaps forward and sometimes they conclude they're wrong and back pedal. So, based on the beginning of this thread, her class MAY be correct or it may not be correct. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting it's good science is misleading.
I was expecting to be attacked by what I wrote, but a few of the responses I've actually appreciated. You being highest on the list. I love to discuss, debate and even argue loudly on topics. I'm opinionated and stubborn in my thoughts. People such as yourself, not that it should matter one way or the other, I fully respect. Hopefully I've cleared SOME of the mud I threw all over the place this morning.
Can I ask what you mean by "the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false"?
Do you mean that someone in this thread is arguing that we currently have a complete understanding of the world and we call that science?
I haven't seen anyone argue that and I haven't seen anyone argue that we currently know everything there is to know about our bodies and the world and that nothing new will be added to that understanding.
If that is what you're arguing against, consider that nobody (to my knowledge) is making that claim.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Can I ask what you mean by "the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false"?
Do you mean that someone in this thread is arguing that we currently have a complete understanding of the world and we call that science?
I haven't seen anyone argue that and I haven't seen anyone argue that we currently know everything there is to know about our bodies and the world and that nothing new will be added to that understanding.
If that is what you're arguing against, consider that nobody (to my knowledge) is making that claim.
Okay, I'm not suggesting that someone on this thread is arguing directly on science. I'm suggesting that what they're calling science, dealing with nutrition, isn't a complete understanding. In fact, the nutrition and exercise world is changing so rapidly right now it is just too hard to say whom is correct. And the detail of responses just got me, for whatever reason, this morning.
If you have noticed, I've responded to those that, though they've potentially disagreed with me have asked clarification questions and made points. I respect that... And, like I said, I also appreciate it.0 -
mshanepace wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Can I ask what you mean by "the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false"?
Do you mean that someone in this thread is arguing that we currently have a complete understanding of the world and we call that science?
I haven't seen anyone argue that and I haven't seen anyone argue that we currently know everything there is to know about our bodies and the world and that nothing new will be added to that understanding.
If that is what you're arguing against, consider that nobody (to my knowledge) is making that claim.
Okay, I'm not suggesting that someone on this thread is arguing directly on science. I'm suggesting that what they're calling science, dealing with nutrition, isn't a complete understanding. In fact, the nutrition and exercise world is changing so rapidly right now it is just too hard to say whom is correct. And the detail of responses just got me, for whatever reason, this morning.
If you have noticed, I've responded to those that, though they've potentially disagreed with me have asked clarification questions and made points. I respect that... And, like I said, I also appreciate it.
My question is: who has argued that they have a complete understanding of science and that changes aren't possible?
If I say "I don't see any good evidence to support [assertion x]" that isn't the same thing as saying "There will never be good evidence for [assertion x]" or "[Assertion x] is impossible." I'm just saying that -- based on what we now know there is no good evidence to believe a claim is true.
That's what I see people saying, generally, about the various claims of holistic medicine here. It may be in the future we are able to establish that something like "leaky gut syndrome" exists or that carbohydrates are dangerous and should be avoided. But what evidence do we have for those claims now? That's how people are evaluating those claims -- based on the available evidence. That doesn't mean we've eliminated the possibility that we may have better evidence in the future or better tools with which to evaluate the evidence.7 -
mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.0 -
mshanepace wrote: »Leeches, yes!
Black swans, no. The one making outrageous claims must prove their point. Hopefully with paragraphs.
Consider the history of medicine when the heart was once thought to be the seat of emotion and the brain a surplus organ, like the appendix.
Before the microscope, disease was blamed on an imbalance of the “humours”.
Hypotheses is the beginning of evidence. Claims are to be investigated and the only way to prove a point in a scientific method is by not finding contrary evidence. Outrageous claims are deemed such because they do not fall into currently accepted thought. That doesn't cause them to be correct or incorrect.
I do concede that ANYONE making a claim should have backing to why they believe their thoughts though...
Your thought, based on the microscope, again proves the point on Black Swans, with more understandings they realized a deeper understanding which proved "humours" were not the root.
My hypothesis is that the national and world bodies on health have it mostly right based on their conservative view of the best evidence available today. My outrageous claim is that all people are generally better off eating a varied diet that includes plenty of fruits and vegetables and a minimum amount of protein daily.
I’ve dug through my family tree through at least fourteen generations. Some died of typhoid. A cousin drowned. Another distant relative died of septic shock from a cut thumb. There were babes that did not make it to their first census, and thankfully a great many died of old age. None died from leaky gut.13 -
mshanepace wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.
In fairness, I know you hate this but I'll visit it one last time, we do KNOW that Black Swans are substantially less likely.
We do know that IF pink fairies exist they are extremely well hidden, leaving that they likely, very likely, do not.
Do I honestly believe leaky gut IS what they say it is? Not sure. I know that recommendations based on the hypothesis work to overcome said issues however why, for certain, I did not know. Could it be leaky gut? Yes... Could it be something else, likely. Could it be a combination, certainly. Those that I would reference, such as Dr Axe, would likely be perceived by some as expert testimony and by others as a imposter of sorts. There is a great book on the topic called Eat Dirt.
I'm not saying science is meaningless or worthless, I'm saying that the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes the make amazing leaps forward and sometimes they conclude they're wrong and back pedal. So, based on the beginning of this thread, her class MAY be correct or it may not be correct. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting it's good science is misleading.
I was expecting to be attacked by what I wrote, but a few of the responses I've actually appreciated. You being highest on the list. I love to discuss, debate and even argue loudly on topics. I'm opinionated and stubborn in my thoughts. People such as yourself, not that it should matter one way or the other, I fully respect. Hopefully I've cleared SOME of the mud I threw all over the place this morning.
Scientists will not just go and dedicate their life to "black swans" without there being a solid base of evidence for the hypothesis to be true.
For actual black swans that would be:
- swans are usually not black
- we know for a fact that there exist genetic mutations that can make animals that are not usually black, black
- these genetic mutations do not seem to be limited to specific animals
- therefore the hypothesis of black swans existing is valid and they may exist, further research in this direction is not a stupid idea
You can reach this conclusion just from pre-established known facts, without ever stepping out of your room to roam the wildness in search for black swans.
Now please give the logic that leads to pink fairies being a valid hypothesis, because scientists have neither the time nor the money to run after every harebrained idea there is.
THAT is the difference.19 -
I'm confused. In Australia, most of our swans are black.14
-
mshanepace wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
So we don't know anything because don't know everything, so evidence and science becomes meaningless and worthless? Sigh, that's not a valid position and is giving up (and again shows the dangers of pop post modernism).
If you want to argue for the merits of the leaky gut hypothesis, why not do that? We can look at the evidence.
In fairness, I know you hate this but I'll visit it one last time, we do KNOW that Black Swans are substantially less likely.
We do know that IF pink fairies exist they are extremely well hidden, leaving that they likely, very likely, do not.
Do I honestly believe leaky gut IS what they say it is? Not sure. I know that recommendations based on the hypothesis work to overcome said issues however why, for certain, I did not know. Could it be leaky gut? Yes... Could it be something else, likely. Could it be a combination, certainly. Those that I would reference, such as Dr Axe, would likely be perceived by some as expert testimony and by others as a imposter of sorts. There is a great book on the topic called Eat Dirt.
I'm not saying science is meaningless or worthless, I'm saying that the complete suggestion that things are as we currently call them science is false. Science is constantly evolving. Sometimes the make amazing leaps forward and sometimes they conclude they're wrong and back pedal. So, based on the beginning of this thread, her class MAY be correct or it may not be correct. Jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting it's good science is misleading.
I was expecting to be attacked by what I wrote, but a few of the responses I've actually appreciated. You being highest on the list. I love to discuss, debate and even argue loudly on topics. I'm opinionated and stubborn in my thoughts. People such as yourself, not that it should matter one way or the other, I fully respect. Hopefully I've cleared SOME of the mud I threw all over the place this morning.
By this logic it would be a fallacy to state that "everyone dies", because somewhere in some remote unexplored part of the world there might be a person who doesn't die. And again by this logic we should be devoting scientific resources to finding that person.
There is no absolute way to prove a negative, therefore there are no absolute truths. There is however preponderance of evidence based on solid, repeatable research. Should we be open to research that challenges our current understanding of how things work? Of course. Should we consider all hypothesis as equal because there are no absolutes? How would you choose one weakly supported narrative over another?9 -
mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Common and false misconception.
3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.
Actually it was the Greeks, before Alexander and long before Rome.
It's also likely that the Egyptians also knew these things, unfortunately we still can't decrypt all of what they left of knowledge3 -
mshanepace wrote: »Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence.lemurcat12 wrote: »
Actually, "scientists" of the time KNEW that the world was not flat, from the Greeks, at least. That people thought it was flat seems to be a popular misconception, not sure why. It is of course true that believing the Earth was the center was common -- at least until scientific evidence/efforts led people to conclude it was not (Copernicus, for example). The opposition to this was largely NOT scientific, but based in a reliance on the Aristotlean system and theology and, indeed, largely took the form of philosophical argument.
Perversely, under relativistic understanding of the universe, the Earth is just as good a center point as any other.
1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.
Actually it was the Greeks, before Alexander and long before Rome.
It's also likely that the Egyptians also knew these things, unfortunately we still can't decrypt all of what they left of knowledge
The classical era refers to the Greeks before Alexander.3 -
Considering the universe is accelerating from a single origin I can’t see how the earth can in any way be considered the center of anything.
It’s too hot there anyways.5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.
Actually it was the Greeks, before Alexander and long before Rome.
It's also likely that the Egyptians also knew these things, unfortunately we still can't decrypt all of what they left of knowledge
The classical era refers to the Greeks before Alexander.
Mmm from what I know of Babylonians and their study of astronomy, it is very much possible that they were aware of that fact too. We just can't decipher a lot of the writings they've left us
Who knows, maybe the guys who built Stonehenge and aligned the Menhirs in the Bretagne also understood that the Earth is not flat. They just haven't left us anything to go by. 1 -
I'm a licensed Clinical Laboratory Scientist, and until multiple, controlled studies have been performed these are not facts. Do some Internet research and find the studies if they exist.4
-
stanmann571 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.
Actually it was the Greeks, before Alexander and long before Rome.
It's also likely that the Egyptians also knew these things, unfortunately we still can't decrypt all of what they left of knowledge
Not to mention sailors. Despite popular culture pointing to the otherwise and "falling off the edge of the Earth", sailors have know the Earth was round based upon the limited line of sight.4 -
stanmann571 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.
Actually it was the Greeks, before Alexander and long before Rome.
It's also likely that the Egyptians also knew these things, unfortunately we still can't decrypt all of what they left of knowledge
Not to mention sailors. Despite popular culture pointing to the otherwise and "falling off the edge of the Earth", sailors have know the Earth was round based upon the limited line of sight.
I'm really glad to see people pointing this out. The fallacious idea that people believed the earth was flat until relatively modern times I had thought was pretty well grounded, especially as it was taught in elementary schools for years - you know, Christopher Columbus set sail to prove the earth was round.......Are they still teaching that in schools these days? Anyway, I've heard it repeated over and over my whole life in various media, I had pretty much given up on the idea of getting folks to see otherwise.
I've read that the idea that everyone in the past thought the earth was flat and that Christopher Columbus set sail to prove otherwise originated in the early 1800's with Washington Irving, meaning, if true, that the "flat earth theory" is actually a result of "modern" pop culture...... (the same reference stated that Christopher Columbus was actually sailing to prove that the Greek calculation of the circumference of the earth was wrong and that the earth was smaller than thought possible.)
What gets me is that the flat earth theory is actually on the rise today, based on a convincing youtube video that is circulating around - or at least, convincing to folks who don't have a grasp of basic physics.... I've actually seen several articles posted to debunk the idea, and it saddens me how many people will deride the author of said articles in the comments section!3 -
3
-
bmeadows380 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »mshanepace wrote: »I love it. The responses in here kill me. My typos and, potential, grammatical mistakes I'll leave in, since I'm not going to re-read this after I've written it (and yet.. I had to re-read myself.. I modified for meaning only however, corrected names and improved for meaning only... I left in the rest)... Though it wasn't a common believe the "science" of the past would bleed people. Also, a common thought in the "science" of the past, the world was flat and the Earth is the middle of existence. Hypothesis, theorems...etc... Show ME the evidence AGAINST leaky gut. The actual goal of a scientific study is to prove oneself incorrect and NOT to prove oneself to be correct. To suggest that there are NO black swans is to always be on the search for a black Swan NOT to ignore one when you find one. Let's take the information from Ancel Keyes, and group, and break down what's occurred since his hypothesis was followed. The United States of America has gone down a road of spiraling out of control health crises. Diabetes, which was barely recognized in the seventies and eighties, is out of containment, a complete household word because SO many people have it now. You've gotten vegans and vegetarians arguing "facts" about agendas while THEY'VE got agendas. Absolute fact, as the show What The Health quotes on all the funding behind the different organisations, their "experts" and "researchers" are being paid by vegan organisations. Their research IS funded by those WANTING the results they're finding. Are you kidding me!?! Lies in plain sight by omittions are still lies. Misleading everyone because you BELIEVE something is wrong doesn't make it right. The perpetual argument that there are NO black Swans, while looking at a Black Swan, is not only self deceiving but is a complete destroyer of what you all are referring to as science. I don't have to bring evidence against sugar to suggest sugar is the problem, or the level of said sugar is the problem, you've got to prove it isn't the problem. THAT'S science!!! Let's take some true science into THIS discussion. You DON'T NEED carbs to live!!! It's proven... You can't live without Fats! PERIOD!! You can't live without proteins!! PERIOD!!! But you can live on ZERO carbs!!! I'm not suggesting it's the best way to live, BUT, you can!! So, here is my suggest to anyone wanting to prove that I'm incorrect, take the scientific test and ONLY live on Carbs!! You'll DIE but give it an honest go. People HAVE and DO live on NO carb diets. Welcome to a REAL scientific test. Stop purporting to know sciences when you aren't even trying to disprove what is in front of you. I don't care of you've got a Master's or a PhD, anytime you are proving yourself right YOU'RE NOT using a scientific method! I assume I'm going to now be slammed by those of you whom BELIEVE you know better, bring it! At the end of the day, you're wrong! I truly don't care what your thoughts on this topic are or what you think of me, you're wrong. Stay blind! But, if you want to prove my statement wrong... No supplements, no fats, no proteins... Carb only diet.. Prove it! Crud, just no fats and no supplements... Proteins and carbs!!! Go!!! Prove yourselves correct, and die in the process. Because you will... I'll drop this and you can now vulture attack me.
Scientists knew the world wasn't flat as far back as the classical era and throughout the Middle Ages.
Actually it was the Greeks, before Alexander and long before Rome.
It's also likely that the Egyptians also knew these things, unfortunately we still can't decrypt all of what they left of knowledge
Not to mention sailors. Despite popular culture pointing to the otherwise and "falling off the edge of the Earth", sailors have know the Earth was round based upon the limited line of sight.
I'm really glad to see people pointing this out. The fallacious idea that people believed the earth was flat until relatively modern times I had thought was pretty well grounded, especially as it was taught in elementary schools for years - you know, Christopher Columbus set sail to prove the earth was round.......Are they still teaching that in schools these days? Anyway, I've heard it repeated over and over my whole life in various media, I had pretty much given up on the idea of getting folks to see otherwise.
I've read that the idea that everyone in the past thought the earth was flat and that Christopher Columbus set sail to prove otherwise originated in the early 1800's with Washington Irving, meaning, if true, that the "flat earth theory" is actually a result of "modern" pop culture...... (the same reference stated that Christopher Columbus was actually sailing to prove that the Greek calculation of the circumference of the earth was wrong and that the earth was smaller than thought possible.)
What gets me is that the flat earth theory is actually on the rise today, based on a convincing youtube video that is circulating around - or at least, convincing to folks who don't have a grasp of basic physics.... I've actually seen several articles posted to debunk the idea, and it saddens me how many people will deride the author of said articles in the comments section!
My opinion is it's modernist/post renaissance elitism.2 -
I don’t know that there is or isn’t research on these issues. But if they were my instructor’s —I’d ask them to tell me the what research they are basing their findings on. If it’s not in a peer-reviewed journal, or they don’t provide any, I’d leave.1
-
I'm confused. Are people disbelieving in melanistic swans, or the actual species of black swan?0
-
Forget black swans, what about grey ducks?5
-
I'm confused. Are people disbelieving in melanistic swans, or the actual species of black swan?
Black swan refers to a logical error in which hindsight gives us evidence that we should have predicted or been able to predict an event or discovery, when in reality the event/discovery was not something that necessarily could/should have been predicted.2 -
(I thought it was a joke.)1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions