Yeah, I wish I could get more grass fed beef, but it just hasn't caught on enough yet to get into most markets.
We subsidize the corn, which we feed to the animals and people, which makes them sick, which requires us to subsidize health care. A win-win for big government subsidizes:)
Actually, that's a very good point - it's quite possible that we cannot feed humanity a healthy diet of animal meat and fat, just based on the amount of arable land available. It's also quite possible that the promotion of grains and starches and sugars as "healthy" has been a conscious effort on the part of authorities, to stop the impoverished and underprivileged from rioting against the cheap foods that they are left to consume. The side effect of also affecting the dietary attitudes of the affluent in the same negative way is simply blowback:)
Climate scientists have already examined this issue and produced models of the very warming we are currently experiencing.
Name any combination of global average temperature and global average CO2 that would serve as a falsification of those models if observed next year.
Models that are not falsifiable are not scientific.
Taubes rightly points out that singling out one macronutrient to blame for all our problems is a absurd proposition, and then foolishly decides to myopically single out a different macronutrient for all our problems.
No, Taubes points out that the myopic use of the precautionary principle in defense of one's prejudices leads us down a wrong path, and that only through the ruthless application of skepticism to our own conceits can we try to find the truth. The fact is that carbohydrate, as a macronutrient, is a chronic toxin. We know this from the biochemistry, and from observed history. We know this from laboratory experiment, and we know this from successful treatments of the "diseases of civilization".
The absurd proposition has always been "fruits and vegetables are good, and animal meats and fats are bad". You've clearly internalized this as a passionate belief system, and it seems you've got no strength of character to challenge yourself on your belief.
There are massive number of stupid ways to cluster the data, but there is exactly one way to cluster the data by diseases of affluence vs diseases of poverty: examining the prevalence of diseases.
From the paper you didn't read:
"6. The use of a three-variable chain to connect animal-based foods with cholesterol and cholesterol with “Western” diseases.
To form a comprehensive method for examining disease patterns, Campbell creates two dichotomous sets of diseases—one associated with affluent living conditions and one associated with poverty. While searching for underlying nutritional patterns characterizing the diseases of affluence, he observes that plasma cholesterol has a positive correlation with the collective group, and concludes that “one of the strongest predictors of Western diseases was blood cholesterol.”
Given that a variety of factors—dietary and otherwise—can influence cholesterol and the cause-and-effect relationship between cholesterol and disease is not always clear, Campbell’s use of cholesterol as an intermediary between animal foods and disease is unsubstantiated. For instance, a shift from a highly active lifestyle in agriculture-dominated regions to a more sedentary one in industrialized areas may, in itself, be enough to explain higher cholesterol levels in certain areas—a plausible theory, given that regions with greater industry employment in the China Study tended to have higher total cholesterol (r = 0.45, pNo, Minger didn't show any other clustering would have statistically significant results.
Again, from the paper you didn't read:
"Oversight of a third, potentially significant disease cluster. Myocardial infarction, hypertensive heart disease, stroke, brain and neurological diseases, and diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs share strongly statistically significant correlations with each other and with shared nutritional variables, such as non-rice grain consumption, while correlating inversely with the variables associated with diseases of affluence. Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions."
In the early 90s there was a major question as to why affluent countries suffered much higher rates of certain diseases than impoverished countries. This study addresses that critical question and does so in the natural way.
This study clearly starts off with a predetermined conceit, and does everything it can to preserve that conceit, despite the logical and statistical problems it faces. It looks at cholesterol instead of blood glucose, and ignores anomalous non associations.
Your fervent defense of Campbell, and inability to understand Minger's critique is puzzling.
The diet coke has 0.35 grams per can, 93 / 7% beef has 0.5 gram of carbs per ounce
Both effectively zero grams. Look up the glycemic load or index on either of those.
Oh, and always get the fattiest meat - 93/7% beef is a waste of time.
carbs are NOT HARMFUL in a normal human.
Of course they are. They're chronic toxins.
. The fruits and vegetables hominids including humans have been eating for millions of years contain carbs.
None of the fruits and vegetables you buy in the store are anything like what humans may have occasionally ate while evolving. That apple has been genetically engineered and grafted for enhanced sweetness. That whole grain has been ruthlessly manipulated for higher yield.
Fruits and vegetables should be fed to ruminants, and then the humans can eat those tasty animals.
What you did wrong was try to cut down on total calories while maintaining your level of carb intake.
Which was the dietary advice given to me by my doctor and the USDA - low-fat, low-calorie diet with exercise, which by definition, is going to have a high proportion of carbohydrate.
Your high intake of what I presume was almost 100% simple carbs contributed to your health problems.
Actually, it was complex carbs - whole wheat bread, brown rice, carrots - and a bunch of fruit, including "healthy" bananas, apples, oranges and "real" fruit juice.
Year 1, you cut out the simple carbs, good for you. It's also basic knowledge to anyone with the slighest idea about nutrition and/or exercise.
Actually, I cut out *all* carbs, not just simple ones. The problem I was having wasn't because of sugary soda, it was because of that starchy baked potato and whole wheat bread, both of which are touted as "healthy" by your average USDA indoctrinated nutritionist.
You should be doing more per week and preferably add some explosive training to your regimen, but it's a good start.
Actually, I did a few months with 30 minutes twice a week on slow burn, but frankly, I've been able to slowly maintain gains with just 30 minutes a week. Since I'm doing this to stay healthy, not competitive, I'm perfectly satisfied with doing the bare minimum for continued fitness gains, no matter how slow:)
Would you say a marathon runner or bicycle road racer should completely neglect his cardio and just lift weights?
Not at all - and Fred Hahn addresses this in his book too - someone who is competing in a sport needs to practice that sport. While marathon running and bicycling may not be very efficient exercise for fitness, the only way you can be competitive in those sports is to practice them. What slow burn fitness does for you is get you fit - you still need the specialized training for any given sport, otherwise all that fitness isn't going to do you much good (for example, while we might believe both bicyclists and runners are in extremely good "cardio" shape, you wouldn't expect a champion bicyclist to beat a champion marathon runner in a 20k run, or vice versa for a 200k bike).
Cardio, as in "just do whatever you can to get your heart rate up, and keep it up, for long periods of time" is inefficient. It can work, but it does so slowly, and frankly, I'd rather spend 30 minutes a week on fitness than 10 hours.
Campbell clustered the data in exactly the right way
That contradicts your statement that "There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data." Minger clearly shows that his arbitrary choice of clustering was just that - arbitrary. Expecting to find wisdom in a cherry-picked conclusion that can be refuted by the same data used to generate it is foolish.
The results Campbell showed were statistically significant.
What Minger points out is that there were other statistically significant results Campbell *didn't* highlight, that contradicted his basic premise that plant-based diets were superior for health.
I saw that if Campbell had actually conducted the analysis the way Minger wanted then he probably would have seriously damaged his career by wasting money conducting research outside the scope of his project.
And there's the problem - Campbell was concerned more about his career than with science. The scope of his project was arbitrarily limited to avoid any contradictory information to his basic conceit.
Don't you see that as a problem?
If you think Minger's critiques are so scientifically devastating, then why don't you defend them on their merit instead of making baseless accusations?
I have been defending them on their merits. What you've been doing is giving Campbell a pass, for what I'll assume is either naive deference to authority, or some sort of ideological alignment with his basic conceit.
Of course the greenhouse effect has a falsifiable premise. But asserting that because the greenhouse effect exists that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic increases in temperature over say, 100 years, is a jump of logic that isn't justified, and must be subject to the strict scrutiny of falsifiable hypotheses.
I agree with Gary Taubes that refined sugars are a serious health problem. But just because sugar is bad doesn't imply bacon is good.
Did you read his book? His point isn't that refined sugars are a serious health problem - his point is that we've misdiagnosed the causes of obesity and the diseases of civilization, and blamed dietary fat (which makes "common" sense but isn't true), and instead should be looking at dietary carbohydrate. His critique isn't just about sugars, and it's not even just about diet -> the whole science of obesity was corrupted, turned into a government fiat, and hasn't been amenable to correction (much like some other "science" you can guess for yourself).
Whole wheat is bad, low-fat yogurt is bad, oranges are bad, apples are bad, and bacon is good.
Year 0 - 7 hours of cardio a week, decreased calories, increased carbohydrates - overweight, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol
Year 1 - no cardio, increased calories, lowered carbohydrates - 50 lbs. weight loss, normal blood pressure, good cholesterol
Year 2 to 4 - no cardio, increased calories, lowered carbohydrates, and a mere 30 minutes of slow strength training a week - maintain 50 lbs. weight loss, normal blood pressure, good cholesterol
Year 0 and Year 1 shows that exercise had *nothing* to do with weight loss. Year 2 - 4, I managed to gain fitness *without* gaining weight, and *without* lowering calories.
The whole idea behind "cardio" is crap - your lungs don't get bigger, your heart doesn't get bigger, you're just wasting time doing inefficient exercise. Slow strength training of the muscles you can consciously control is the most efficient exercise, and it makes your muscles more efficient at using oxygen, thereby putting less strain on your lungs and heart (which, as mentioned before, don't get any bigger with "cardio").
Read Fred Hahn's "Slow Burn Fitness Revolution" and get back to me.
However, the question would be could a family eat enough liver from what a hunter would gather to supply all of their vitamin A and B from the liver (assuming early man)?
The answer is yes. Both Inuit and Masai lived eschewing eating *anything* but animal products before western contact.
Unless you are eating your meat raw, most vitamins, like B and C are destroyed by cooking.
Fun fact -> scurvy was caused by the hard tack rations (carbohydrates) which leached vitamin C out of the body. Had sailors simply eaten meat their entire voyages, they wouldn't have gotten scurvy in the first place.
The point is, it only takes an infinitesimal difference to make a difference.
The problem with the whole discredited concept of "race" though is that there are more differences *within* groups than *between* groups. Human variation is quite the norm, and whatever "difference" you may assert between races, you'll find that it is literally, only skin deep.
Likewise, the Inuit and Masai go through feast and famine periods in the diets,
Cite?
which further emphasizes the reason humans store fat,
The reasons human store fat is simple -> it is the preferred energy source. A hunter can go out, make a kill, eat protein and fat, and without any sort of seasonal fat accumulation, replenish his stores with his meal. The release of fatty acids as energy from fat cells is nice and steady, giving a nice constant energy even though "fill ups" might not be constant.
Humans are *not* hibernating animals, which accumulate excess fat stores with internal biological clocks.
Why listen to the American Heart Association when you can just mouth ignorant Atkins bullshit after reading some idiotic blog post.
Because Atkins was right and the AHA is wrong.
Just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. Creationism, Climate Denial, the belief that Bacon is a health food.
Well, creationism actually goes together with the whole Church of Global Warming (neither area having falsifiable hypotheses). As for bacon is health food, we've clearly established, by empirical evidence, that it is. The silly idea that dietary fat is somehow harmful is the sad legacy of Ancel Keys and his perverted application of the precautionary principle before actually bothering to *test* any of his hypotheses.
Seriously, read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, or just google for one of his lectures, and then get back to me. Your appalling ignorance is showing.
There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data.
And isn't that the point of the critique that you've missed? Campbell's analysis didn't come from the data, it came from how he decided to torture it. His conclusions are simply the lens through which he decided to cluster the data, rather than being driven by what was actually *in* the data.
I'm not inclined to go digging through it.
And that's clearly why you don't understand. You've essentially outsourced your judgement to someone you believe is an authority figure, and haven't bothered to look at the actual data.
Did for the first year, but then started slow-burn fitness (http://slowburnfitness.com/). Gained back the muscle, lost more fat, and kept the weight off.
Cribbed mercilessly from someone's comment on a blog somewhere:
"Just simple math is needed to show how bogus the whole calorie hypothesis is. Just to make the math a little easier to follow I'll use round numbers. An adult male is supposed to need about 2,500 calories per day to maintain their weight...not gain, not lose. So that means over the course of a year you consume 912,500 calories (2500 * 365). To change your weight you are supposed to consume 3,500 extra (to gain) or less (to lose) calories in order to change your weight by one pound. So in order to NOT change your weight over the course of a year your consumption of calories has to be accurate to a level of 0.4% (3500/912500) or about 10 calories (2500 * 0.004) PER DAY. Anybody really think they are that precise with their calorie intake? Or that all of the mistakes over a year will balance out that accurately?"
Your body adapts itself as necessary, to whatever caloric intake you give it. When you give it carbohydrates, though, you fuck up its control system, and if you're unlucky enough to be insulin resistant, you get fat. The problem isn't the calories, it's the carbohydrates.
As I already mentioned, sugar goes to muscles and liver first, and only THEN to fat
Um, bullshit. Increased blood sugar levels causes insulin levels to rise. *Insulin* is what tells fat cells to stop releasing fatty acids into the blood stream for energy, and causes fat cells to accumulate fat. You're treating the muscles, liver and fat cells as if they were simply buckets, when in fact they are *active* participants in metabolism.
My cholesterol got much better on a primarily meat and fat diet, as did my blood pressure.
As to why I did it, it's because one day, I heard Gary Taubes on NPR, then bought his book, read through it, and became thoroughly convinced that our diet and exercise recommendations from the government were completely ass backwards. The science is clear, and our authorities simply cannot admit their error because admitting error would reduce their authority.
Of course plants don't produce food year round - that's why hunters hunt *animals* and eat them. The advent of agriculture, and the tying of humans to specific plots of land is actually quite a recent invention.
Actually, I did begin strength training exercises after about a year, and now exercise precisely 30 minutes a week, and I keep getting stronger. While I can't do ten pull-ups yet, I can certainly do six, and frankly, I'm perfectly happy to be at that point.
The answer to obesity is to stop eating carbohydrates. The answer to fitness is "slow-burn" ala Fred Hahn - http://slowburnfitness.com/
Simply put, running 5 miles a day, eating 2300 calories a day, I was gaining weight, and getting unhealthier. Doing slow strength training 30 minutes a week, and eating 3000 calories a day, I've both maintained weight loss and increased fitness. The common wisdom of diet and exercise is bullshit.
It's a control system where the primary control is the hormone insulin.
"Eat less, move more" does not address the controlling factor, which is the hormone insulin. When "eat less, move more" does work, it is because it just happened to align with the "eat less insulin producing foods".
Yes, the sun rises when the rooster crows. The rooster didn't make the sun rise, though.
I dropped carbs, replaced them with *greater* calories of protein and fat, and I lost weight.
Your body mass is determined by the sum of calories that enter your fat cells, and the sum of calories that exit your fat cells, and that, dear sir, is moderated by the hormone insulin.
"Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions.
Consequently, Campbell’s use of these disease clusters to identify relationships between diet and diseases of Western nations may be unsound, especially given a myopic focus on cholesterol to the point of excluding other pertinent factors."
Ignoring data that would invalidate your postulations *is* exaggerating about both the accuracy of one's analysis and the significance of one's analysis. Campbell may not have been intentionally dishonest, but he simply wasn't rigorously scientific, and his findings are of no merit.
Applying the conservation of mass and energy is inapplicable to a complex system like a human and their digestive system.
How many calories are in a penny? Put the penny in a calorimeter, burn it, measure the output. Now eat a penny and see if any of those calories get into your fat cells. (And if you want to argue that it is simply excreted undigested, have you bothered to consider the caloric value of excrement in general?)
The simple biochemical fact is that fat is accumulated under the influence of insulin. If you don't have insulin to tell fat cells to accumulate fat, they simply *do not* get fatter. It is the *type* of calorie that matters, not the simple existence of an energy potential in a solid.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I wish I could get more grass fed beef, but it just hasn't caught on enough yet to get into most markets.
We subsidize the corn, which we feed to the animals and people, which makes them sick, which requires us to subsidize health care. A win-win for big government subsidizes :)
Actually, that's a very good point - it's quite possible that we cannot feed humanity a healthy diet of animal meat and fat, just based on the amount of arable land available. It's also quite possible that the promotion of grains and starches and sugars as "healthy" has been a conscious effort on the part of authorities, to stop the impoverished and underprivileged from rioting against the cheap foods that they are left to consume. The side effect of also affecting the dietary attitudes of the affluent in the same negative way is simply blowback :)
Name any combination of global average temperature and global average CO2 that would serve as a falsification of those models if observed next year.
Models that are not falsifiable are not scientific.
No, Taubes points out that the myopic use of the precautionary principle in defense of one's prejudices leads us down a wrong path, and that only through the ruthless application of skepticism to our own conceits can we try to find the truth. The fact is that carbohydrate, as a macronutrient, is a chronic toxin. We know this from the biochemistry, and from observed history. We know this from laboratory experiment, and we know this from successful treatments of the "diseases of civilization".
The absurd proposition has always been "fruits and vegetables are good, and animal meats and fats are bad". You've clearly internalized this as a passionate belief system, and it seems you've got no strength of character to challenge yourself on your belief.
From the paper you didn't read:
"6. The use of a three-variable chain to connect animal-based foods with cholesterol and cholesterol with “Western” diseases.
To form a comprehensive method for examining disease patterns, Campbell creates two dichotomous sets of diseases—one associated with affluent living conditions and one associated with poverty. While searching for underlying nutritional patterns characterizing the diseases of affluence, he observes that plasma cholesterol has a positive correlation with the collective group, and concludes that “one of the strongest predictors of Western diseases was blood cholesterol.”
Given that a variety of factors—dietary and otherwise—can influence cholesterol and the cause-and-effect relationship between cholesterol and disease is not always clear, Campbell’s use of cholesterol as an intermediary between animal foods and disease is unsubstantiated. For instance, a shift from a highly active lifestyle in agriculture-dominated regions to a more sedentary one in industrialized areas may, in itself, be enough to explain higher cholesterol levels in certain areas—a plausible theory, given that regions with greater industry employment in the China Study tended to have higher total cholesterol (r = 0.45, pNo, Minger didn't show any other clustering would have statistically significant results.
Again, from the paper you didn't read:
"Oversight of a third, potentially significant disease cluster. Myocardial infarction, hypertensive heart disease, stroke, brain and neurological diseases, and diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs share strongly statistically significant correlations with each other and with shared nutritional variables, such as non-rice grain consumption, while correlating inversely with the variables associated with diseases of affluence. Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions."
This study clearly starts off with a predetermined conceit, and does everything it can to preserve that conceit, despite the logical and statistical problems it faces. It looks at cholesterol instead of blood glucose, and ignores anomalous non associations.
Your fervent defense of Campbell, and inability to understand Minger's critique is puzzling.
Yup. On the very rare occasion I'll have some spinach or something, but essentially zero glycemic carbohydrates.
It seems that wheat (particularly the modern varieties of it) has some pretty dangerous properties - http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/
People who live longer have a higher risk of being coffee drinkers.
Correlation is not causality.
Both effectively zero grams. Look up the glycemic load or index on either of those.
Oh, and always get the fattiest meat - 93/7% beef is a waste of time.
Of course they are. They're chronic toxins.
None of the fruits and vegetables you buy in the store are anything like what humans may have occasionally ate while evolving. That apple has been genetically engineered and grafted for enhanced sweetness. That whole grain has been ruthlessly manipulated for higher yield.
Fruits and vegetables should be fed to ruminants, and then the humans can eat those tasty animals.
Which was the dietary advice given to me by my doctor and the USDA - low-fat, low-calorie diet with exercise, which by definition, is going to have a high proportion of carbohydrate.
Actually, it was complex carbs - whole wheat bread, brown rice, carrots - and a bunch of fruit, including "healthy" bananas, apples, oranges and "real" fruit juice.
Actually, I cut out *all* carbs, not just simple ones. The problem I was having wasn't because of sugary soda, it was because of that starchy baked potato and whole wheat bread, both of which are touted as "healthy" by your average USDA indoctrinated nutritionist.
Actually, I did a few months with 30 minutes twice a week on slow burn, but frankly, I've been able to slowly maintain gains with just 30 minutes a week. Since I'm doing this to stay healthy, not competitive, I'm perfectly satisfied with doing the bare minimum for continued fitness gains, no matter how slow :)
Not at all - and Fred Hahn addresses this in his book too - someone who is competing in a sport needs to practice that sport. While marathon running and bicycling may not be very efficient exercise for fitness, the only way you can be competitive in those sports is to practice them. What slow burn fitness does for you is get you fit - you still need the specialized training for any given sport, otherwise all that fitness isn't going to do you much good (for example, while we might believe both bicyclists and runners are in extremely good "cardio" shape, you wouldn't expect a champion bicyclist to beat a champion marathon runner in a 20k run, or vice versa for a 200k bike).
Cardio, as in "just do whatever you can to get your heart rate up, and keep it up, for long periods of time" is inefficient. It can work, but it does so slowly, and frankly, I'd rather spend 30 minutes a week on fitness than 10 hours.
That contradicts your statement that "There are a massive number of ways to cluster the data." Minger clearly shows that his arbitrary choice of clustering was just that - arbitrary. Expecting to find wisdom in a cherry-picked conclusion that can be refuted by the same data used to generate it is foolish.
What Minger points out is that there were other statistically significant results Campbell *didn't* highlight, that contradicted his basic premise that plant-based diets were superior for health.
And there's the problem - Campbell was concerned more about his career than with science. The scope of his project was arbitrarily limited to avoid any contradictory information to his basic conceit.
Don't you see that as a problem?
I have been defending them on their merits. What you've been doing is giving Campbell a pass, for what I'll assume is either naive deference to authority, or some sort of ideological alignment with his basic conceit.
Of course the greenhouse effect has a falsifiable premise. But asserting that because the greenhouse effect exists that human CO2 emissions are going to cause catastrophic increases in temperature over say, 100 years, is a jump of logic that isn't justified, and must be subject to the strict scrutiny of falsifiable hypotheses.
Did you read his book? His point isn't that refined sugars are a serious health problem - his point is that we've misdiagnosed the causes of obesity and the diseases of civilization, and blamed dietary fat (which makes "common" sense but isn't true), and instead should be looking at dietary carbohydrate. His critique isn't just about sugars, and it's not even just about diet -> the whole science of obesity was corrupted, turned into a government fiat, and hasn't been amenable to correction (much like some other "science" you can guess for yourself).
Whole wheat is bad, low-fat yogurt is bad, oranges are bad, apples are bad, and bacon is good.
No, let's be very clear.
Year 0 - 7 hours of cardio a week, decreased calories, increased carbohydrates - overweight, high blood pressure, bad cholesterol
Year 1 - no cardio, increased calories, lowered carbohydrates - 50 lbs. weight loss, normal blood pressure, good cholesterol
Year 2 to 4 - no cardio, increased calories, lowered carbohydrates, and a mere 30 minutes of slow strength training a week - maintain 50 lbs. weight loss, normal blood pressure, good cholesterol
Year 0 and Year 1 shows that exercise had *nothing* to do with weight loss. Year 2 - 4, I managed to gain fitness *without* gaining weight, and *without* lowering calories.
The whole idea behind "cardio" is crap - your lungs don't get bigger, your heart doesn't get bigger, you're just wasting time doing inefficient exercise. Slow strength training of the muscles you can consciously control is the most efficient exercise, and it makes your muscles more efficient at using oxygen, thereby putting less strain on your lungs and heart (which, as mentioned before, don't get any bigger with "cardio").
Read Fred Hahn's "Slow Burn Fitness Revolution" and get back to me.
The answer is yes. Both Inuit and Masai lived eschewing eating *anything* but animal products before western contact.
Fun fact -> scurvy was caused by the hard tack rations (carbohydrates) which leached vitamin C out of the body. Had sailors simply eaten meat their entire voyages, they wouldn't have gotten scurvy in the first place.
The problem with the whole discredited concept of "race" though is that there are more differences *within* groups than *between* groups. Human variation is quite the norm, and whatever "difference" you may assert between races, you'll find that it is literally, only skin deep.
Cite?
The reasons human store fat is simple -> it is the preferred energy source. A hunter can go out, make a kill, eat protein and fat, and without any sort of seasonal fat accumulation, replenish his stores with his meal. The release of fatty acids as energy from fat cells is nice and steady, giving a nice constant energy even though "fill ups" might not be constant.
Humans are *not* hibernating animals, which accumulate excess fat stores with internal biological clocks.
Because Atkins was right and the AHA is wrong.
Well, creationism actually goes together with the whole Church of Global Warming (neither area having falsifiable hypotheses). As for bacon is health food, we've clearly established, by empirical evidence, that it is. The silly idea that dietary fat is somehow harmful is the sad legacy of Ancel Keys and his perverted application of the precautionary principle before actually bothering to *test* any of his hypotheses.
Seriously, read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes, or just google for one of his lectures, and then get back to me. Your appalling ignorance is showing.
And isn't that the point of the critique that you've missed? Campbell's analysis didn't come from the data, it came from how he decided to torture it. His conclusions are simply the lens through which he decided to cluster the data, rather than being driven by what was actually *in* the data.
And that's clearly why you don't understand. You've essentially outsourced your judgement to someone you believe is an authority figure, and haven't bothered to look at the actual data.
Did for the first year, but then started slow-burn fitness (http://slowburnfitness.com/). Gained back the muscle, lost more fat, and kept the weight off.
Slow strength training for exercise.
Carbohydrate restriction for diet.
It's simple.
Cribbed mercilessly from someone's comment on a blog somewhere:
"Just simple math is needed to show how bogus the whole calorie hypothesis is. Just to make the math a little easier to follow I'll use round numbers. An adult male is supposed to need about 2,500 calories per day to maintain their weight...not gain, not lose. So that means over the course of a year you consume 912,500 calories (2500 * 365). To change your weight you are supposed to consume 3,500 extra (to gain) or less (to lose) calories in order to change your weight by one pound. So in order to NOT change your weight over the course of a year your consumption of calories has to be accurate to a level of 0.4% (3500/912500) or about 10 calories (2500 * 0.004) PER DAY. Anybody really think they are that precise with their calorie intake? Or that all of the mistakes over a year will balance out that accurately?"
Your body adapts itself as necessary, to whatever caloric intake you give it. When you give it carbohydrates, though, you fuck up its control system, and if you're unlucky enough to be insulin resistant, you get fat. The problem isn't the calories, it's the carbohydrates.
Um, bullshit. Increased blood sugar levels causes insulin levels to rise. *Insulin* is what tells fat cells to stop releasing fatty acids into the blood stream for energy, and causes fat cells to accumulate fat. You're treating the muscles, liver and fat cells as if they were simply buckets, when in fact they are *active* participants in metabolism.
My cholesterol got much better on a primarily meat and fat diet, as did my blood pressure.
As to why I did it, it's because one day, I heard Gary Taubes on NPR, then bought his book, read through it, and became thoroughly convinced that our diet and exercise recommendations from the government were completely ass backwards. The science is clear, and our authorities simply cannot admit their error because admitting error would reduce their authority.
Cardio is crap. Google "Jim Fixx".
Of course plants don't produce food year round - that's why hunters hunt *animals* and eat them. The advent of agriculture, and the tying of humans to specific plots of land is actually quite a recent invention.
Sure it does. In fact, the genetic differentiation between the so called "races" is infinitesimal.
Humans can, and have existed only on animal protein and fat. See the Inuit and the Masai.
Name a single essential vitamin or mineral you can't get from eating an animal.
Actually, I did begin strength training exercises after about a year, and now exercise precisely 30 minutes a week, and I keep getting stronger. While I can't do ten pull-ups yet, I can certainly do six, and frankly, I'm perfectly happy to be at that point.
The answer to obesity is to stop eating carbohydrates. The answer to fitness is "slow-burn" ala Fred Hahn - http://slowburnfitness.com/
Simply put, running 5 miles a day, eating 2300 calories a day, I was gaining weight, and getting unhealthier. Doing slow strength training 30 minutes a week, and eating 3000 calories a day, I've both maintained weight loss and increased fitness. The common wisdom of diet and exercise is bullshit.
It's a control system where the primary control is the hormone insulin.
"Eat less, move more" does not address the controlling factor, which is the hormone insulin. When "eat less, move more" does work, it is because it just happened to align with the "eat less insulin producing foods".
Yes, the sun rises when the rooster crows. The rooster didn't make the sun rise, though.
I dropped carbs, replaced them with *greater* calories of protein and fat, and I lost weight.
Your body mass is determined by the sum of calories that enter your fat cells, and the sum of calories that exit your fat cells, and that, dear sir, is moderated by the hormone insulin.
"Despite this, Campbell forces myocardial infarction into a disease cluster it does not naturally align with, and ignores the remaining diseases rather than attempt to explain their anomalous nonassociation with other Western conditions.
Consequently, Campbell’s use of these disease clusters to identify relationships between diet and diseases of Western nations may be unsound, especially given a myopic focus on cholesterol to the point of excluding other pertinent factors."
Ignoring data that would invalidate your postulations *is* exaggerating about both the accuracy of one's analysis and the significance of one's analysis. Campbell may not have been intentionally dishonest, but he simply wasn't rigorously scientific, and his findings are of no merit.
Applying the conservation of mass and energy is inapplicable to a complex system like a human and their digestive system.
How many calories are in a penny? Put the penny in a calorimeter, burn it, measure the output. Now eat a penny and see if any of those calories get into your fat cells. (And if you want to argue that it is simply excreted undigested, have you bothered to consider the caloric value of excrement in general?)
The simple biochemical fact is that fat is accumulated under the influence of insulin. If you don't have insulin to tell fat cells to accumulate fat, they simply *do not* get fatter. It is the *type* of calorie that matters, not the simple existence of an energy potential in a solid.