ExRx.net

On the second page, the "myth/fact" part still tends to be mostly straw man arguments, and other deception. However I agree with some of the stuff they were saying. Like highlighting the difference in insulin response in different people. That has a lot to do with why some people are fat and some people aren't. Those parts I agree with do tend to be red herrings that don't support the premise of the section they are in, but they are at least true. If nothing else those parts support my rejection of the whole "good/bad" paradigm.

hi, back again, hoping there would have been more responses to the thread :)

well thats the issue, like marks link shows, white pasta and eggs release the same amount of insulin. South beach and other low carb diets explain the science as being that grain and other carb foods release more insulin that protein and veggies, which put you in the "fat building mode", that you can eat a low-calorie diet and still gain weight if you're eating the "wrong" foods (insulin sabotaging your weight loss, total reduced calories putting you into "starvation mode" and reducing metabolism), and that if you just eat the "right foods" you can eat to your hearts content. Well if popcorn spikes insulin less than super-healthy fish, that can't be the reason..

I think the problem is that insulin and glycemic index may or may not be very accurate. It also depends on how much you eat. The more you eat the bigger the spike you get. It also isn't JUST insulin, it's the sugar that certain foods break down into as well. I would think the glycemic score would matter more, since insulin does more than just metabolize sugar. You can't really equate what insulin does with one substance, to what it does with ALL substances. Especially since the concepts we are discussing are in reference to metabolizing sugars.

You also seem to be under the impression that if you can show medical science does not know every single tiny detail having to do with this, that the whole thing is wrong, and you are right. That just doesn't logically follow. It just shows that we don't know everything, which is a given anyway.



Some people with a simplistic understanding may say something like that, but just because SOME people say that doesn't mean we all agree. In fact if you notice my position is different than that. So you seem to be applying someone else simplified view, to be my position, so you can then effectively argue against it.

Now if you are just saying that some people say that, and it's overly simplistic and not completely accurate, I won't argue about that.

And what makes you think that?

_________________
I don't know where the blind could lead the sightless
but I'd still like to witness

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... index.aspx

damn btw i just wrote a couple of paragraphs, doing research the whole time and i pressed backspace not knowing that my cursor wasnt activated and it took me back 1 post and cleared the field

ill retype my questions tomorrow, but just to ironman, to re-iterate im not trying to argue with you. The problem is that whenever i get into a discussion online or in real life about this topic, everyone has their own pet theory that they learned from somewhere else. When you actually try to go into the mechanism of it, things become confusing, counter intuitive, or contradictory, even to those with some biochem or nutrition science background. In the end, people just go back to what they said and originally and leave it at that... there's never any consensus. I just want clear, relatively verified facts on what things work and how they work when the topic comes up again, thats the reason why I started the thread in the first place...

I think we all want that but there is always going to be bias in any research and for any study that proves one thing, you will be able to find another that proves the opposite. It all depends on the lens the author of the study looks through. I think everyone should read David Freedman. http://www.freedman.com/ especially this article http://www.freedman.com/2010/10/lies-da ... ience.html from The Atlantic.

_________________
Let thy food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.~Hippocrates
Strength is the adaptation that leads to all other adaptations that you really care about - Charles Staley
_________________
Thanks TimD

Just because there isn't anything very conclusive about it. So I'm not sure of it's accuracy. I'm sure it's at least a good ballpark figure though.

Yes, that is indeed the problem. It is VERY complicated. Someone who specializes in nutrition and endocrinology would probably understand it the best, but we're talking about a medical specialist with a PHD. It's also a fact that we don't know everything about it yet.

Well according to that article 10-80% of studies are completely wrong or biased due to a combination of factors: journals prefer ground-breaking, exciting studies so researchers competing for $$$ skew their results to match this, peer based system means you dont want to piss off your fellows by submitting a study to a journal that refutes what your other peers did, and conversely peers in charge of selecting studies for publishing will publish things that they know is bull$h1t if it supports their own work, regular human sloppiness, sometimes simple fabrication, and huge bias due to drug companies funding 90% of studies...
25% of even the gold standard, double blind randomized whatever studies that become law in treatment and research are false or biased.. im gonna check out that list of 60 or so later

so there u go ironman, not even a pHD will tell you the straight-up about anything, cause all their knowledge will come from studies and chances are those studies will be bull$h1t and contradicted a few years down the line

What is this an appeal to solipsism or something? It's not quite that bad. But yea, there is a lot of junk science out there. However if you evaluate the study you can tell whether it is or isn't. Usually the junk science supports the establishment and corporate interests. Like basically stating as an axiom that saturated fat and sodium are the things to be most concerned with.

But like I was saying in the other thread, it absolutely is NOT just the presence of insulin. It is SPECIFICALLY the metabolizing of sugars. The protein synthesis function has nothing to do with it. I think that is where people get confused.

whats with all the big words

what other thread?

You posted about this topic in two threads.
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=8083

What big words?

You used at least three four-syllable words (absolutely, specifically and metabolizing) in your post, and that threw him for a loop. You should be patient with him, and use no more than 2-syllable words. Just my suggestion.

_________________
Our greatest fear should not be of failure, but of succeeding at things in life that don't really matter.--Francis Chan

Oh yea, I said "solipsism" too. Four, four syllable words, that's practically like using a 16 syllable word. Well good thing I wasn't talking about methylhydroxynandrolone, or gluconeogenisis, or apocalypticism, or quoting "Marry Poppins". I've been known to use the semicolon in my writing too.

His post could be described as anti-intellectualism......
Oooh, what if I was talking about the guy being discussed in this video.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDPqB9i1ScY

@ the thesaurus battle

Anyway, in that topic you disproved a lot of what the woman wrote about in her article but mentioned nothing specific about the metabolism of sugars and the mechanism by which carb restriction is or is not effective in fat reduction... if thats the key then i guess thats what we're trying to get at here :) what do you mean specifically??