OT: Sugar and lies

MaxDarkside wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the issue is here. If someone told me to eat something that I knew, and is commonly known, in excess, was not good for me, and I eat it, I'm not a victim, I'm an idiot. So, the real question is, how many "victims" that blame others for their self-abuses are merely idiots?

(how's THAT for a "petting the cat backwards" reply? LOL)

The issue is that they were funding studies to support that sugar is not bad for you. Kind of like the tobacco companies did. Since the 80's there have been studies done on kids stating that sugar does not make them hyper at parties, that it is only their parents expectations. yes right now I know where those came from.

BlackSpinner wrote:The issue is that they were funding studies to support that sugar is not bad for you. Kind of like the tobacco companies did. Since the 80's there have been studies done on kids stating that sugar does not make them hyper at parties, that it is only their parents expectations. yes right now I know where those came from.

So what? If I funded studies to determine the positive qualities of ingesting rat poison, does that mean it's ok for everyone to eat it? "Here's some rat poison. Eat it. No worries, I did a study that said it's OK". Idiots would eat it, remove themselves from the gene pool. Smart people would say "Eh? Get outta here".

MaxDarkside wrote:I'm still trying to figure out what the issue is here. If someone told me to eat something that I knew, and is commonly known, in excess, was not good for me, and I eat it, I'm not a victim, I'm an idiot. So, the real question is, how many "victims" that blame others for their self-abuses are merely idiots?

(how's THAT for a "petting the cat backwards" reply? LOL)

You know Max, I can almost visualize that...

Purrrr fect. I'm just having fun. I've been working and I'm done and sorta bored, so I figured I'd stir things up.
(snackin' on a SUGAR WAFER or two... dang they are good) LOL

MaxDarkside wrote:Purrrr fect. I'm just having fun. I've been working and I'm done and sorta bored, so I figured I'd stir things up.
(snackin' on a SUGAR WAFER or two... dang they are good) LOL

MaxDarkside wrote:dang they are good) LOL

Just exactly what the manufacturer's research lab guys want to hear. They succeeded in hitting the "bliss point" with those wafers, for you and millions of the rest of us!

MaxDarkside wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:The issue is that they were funding studies to support that sugar is not bad for you. Kind of like the tobacco companies did. Since the 80's there have been studies done on kids stating that sugar does not make them hyper at parties, that it is only their parents expectations. yes right now I know where those came from.

So what? If I funded studies to determine the positive qualities of ingesting rat poison, does that mean it's ok for everyone to eat it? "Here's some rat poison. Eat it. No worries, I did a study that said it's OK". Idiots would eat it, remove themselves from the gene pool. Smart people would say "Eh? Get outta here".

Yes that is called Coumadin. Dad takes it. Great example.

Regarding sugar - just where did you hear that something that tastes good is bad for you? Just because it is advertised? Have YOU done studies? People have been eating sugar for centuries, who are you to just say it is bad for you? Where did you get that information?

BlackSpinner wrote:Yes that is called Coumadin. Dad takes it. Great example.

Right. Everything in moderation. Many "poisons" are good for you. The right level of arsenic is good, but too much and oopsie!

Regarding sugar - just where did you hear that something that tastes good is bad for you? Just because it is advertised? Have YOU done studies? People have been eating sugar for centuries, who are you to just say it is bad for you? Where did you get that information?

Right, that's my point too. No one is a "victim" of "Big Sugar". It's a substance that has been around since the dawn of man and we all have a general understanding of its pro's and con's. So what if someone funds studies illustrating the positive qualities, particularly if they are in the business of selling the stuff.

MaxDarkside wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:Yes that is called Coumadin. Dad takes it. Great example.

Right. Everything in moderation. Many "poisons" are good for you. The right level of arsenic is good, but too much and oopsie!

Regarding sugar - just where did you hear that something that tastes good is bad for you? Just because it is advertised? Have YOU done studies? People have been eating sugar for centuries, who are you to just say it is bad for you? Where did you get that information?

Right, that's my point too. No one is a "victim" of "Big Sugar". It's a substance that has been around since the dawn of man and we all have a general understanding of its pro's and con's. So what if someone funds studies illustrating the positive qualities, particularly if they are in the business of selling the stuff.

The issue is that much of that funding is hidden. Scientific studies are supposed to be unbiased, that is the whole point of the concept of the scientific method and philosophy.

And we really don't have an understanding of the pros and cons of much of what we eat. Humans are complex and studying them by restricting their diets/activities for their life time is considered taboo - for a good reason. Then there are the whole religion /philosophies that believe that things which taste good or make you feel good are evil. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions around food and not much real data.

BlackSpinner wrote:The issue is that much of that funding is hidden. Scientific studies are supposed to be unbiased, that is the whole point of the concept of the scientific method and philosophy.

"Scientific" is an adjective that someone put on the studies. If they are biased, then they are not "scientific". If I conduct a study about the products we produce, I'm under no obligation to make them public. If I see a study and find them to be funded by a party with a stake in the subject, I always discount what it says, presuming it to be biased. I use that as a discounted input to my knowledge about the pros and cons of the topic at hand.

And we really don't have an understanding of the pros and cons of much of what we eat. Humans are complex and studying them by restricting their diets/activities for their life time is considered taboo - for a good reason. Then there are the whole religion /philosophies that believe that things which taste good or make you feel good are evil. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions around food and not much real data.

Right, so moderation is the choice of the individual. If you eat a balanced diet, fresh vegies, meats, fish, etc. and take a balance of sugar, starches and fats, a modicum of various salts, you'll be fine and won't be a "victim" of "biased" "Scientific" "Secret" "Studies" (ample use of "Scare Quotes"). The human body is an amazingly complex machine, well beyond the understanding of medicine. I study a lot about autonomics due to the wife's affliction and a lot about neurology due to mine and oh-my-God there's just no way to understand all the interrelationships of all the processes going on each moment, not to mention the effect of diet on that. So, middle of the road for me, nothing in excess. At least our bodies do tell us when we are pushing limits (too much sugar, carbs, calories => weight gain... too much salt => puffy, thirsty, pee'ing a lot, etc.)

MaxDarkside wrote:

BlackSpinner wrote:The issue is that much of that funding is hidden. Scientific studies are supposed to be unbiased, that is the whole point of the concept of the scientific method and philosophy.

"Scientific" is an adjective that someone put on the studies. If they are biased, then they are not "scientific". If I conduct a study about the products we produce, I'm under no obligation to make them public. If I see a study and find them to be funded by a party with a stake in the subject, I always discount what it says, presuming it to be biased. I use that as a discounted input to my knowledge about the pros and cons of the topic at hand.

And we really don't have an understanding of the pros and cons of much of what we eat. Humans are complex and studying them by restricting their diets/activities for their life time is considered taboo - for a good reason. Then there are the whole religion /philosophies that believe that things which taste good or make you feel good are evil. There are a lot of myths and misconceptions around food and not much real data.

Right, so moderation is the choice of the individual. If you eat a balanced diet, fresh vegies, meats, fish, etc. and take a balance of sugar, starches and fats, a modicum of various salts, you'll be fine and won't be a "victim" of "biased" "Scientific" "Secret" "Studies" (ample use of "Scare Quotes"). The human body is an amazingly complex machine, well beyond the understanding of medicine. I study a lot about autonomics due to the wife's affliction and a lot about neurology due to mine and oh-my-God there's just no way to understand all the interrelationships of all the processes going on each moment, not to mention the effect of diet on that. So, middle of the road for me, nothing in excess. At least our bodies do tell us when we are pushing limits (too much sugar, carbs, calories => weight gain... too much salt => puffy, thirsty, pee'ing a lot, etc.)

But middle of the road is all relative. What is middle of the road in the deep south of the US is much different than middle of the road in North Korea. What is middle of the road in the deep south today is much different than what was middle of the road in the deep south 100 years ago and 500 years ago. Middle of the road, moderation, and balanced are all as subjective, biased, and unscientific as you can get. And what is middle of the road for the sugar industry, Monsanto, and/or McDonalds is as biased, unscientific, dark and greedy as it gets.

Dreamstalker, you hit the nail on the head: moderation is great. However, many manufacturers seem to think that my food needs to taste "better" and add a ton of salt, sugar or whatever flavor enhancer they choose this week. Even worse, they may choose to add a ton of sugar substitute. Any or all of the above have been associated with increased risk of cancer. Especially if we do not get enough exercise.

Whenever I am following a recipe, in the US in particular, I always reduce the amount of sugar by one half to one third. That's way the sweetness is much more to my liking. So definitely moderation in all things, but we also need a "taste adjustment" to return to more natural cooking. If the TV ads always say "eat this" to save time, or because it's healthy, many people will rush out and buy it because of the perceived benefits. Unfortunately, the benefits may only be perceived. The reality may be different. Truly, your mileage may vary.

DreamStalker wrote:But middle of the road is all relative. What is middle of the road in the deep south of the US is much different than middle of the road in North Korea. What is middle of the road in the deep south today is much different than what was middle of the road in the deep south 100 years ago and 500 years ago. Middle of the road, moderation, and balanced are all as subjective, biased, and unscientific as you can get. And what is middle of the road for the sugar industry, Monsanto, and/or McDonalds is as biased, unscientific, dark and greedy as it gets.

Middle of the Road is a personal decision, not a societal or cultural one (granting your "norms" are in part formed by your environment and what is available to you) and if a person allows the sugar industry, Monsanto, and/or McDonalds to decide what moderation is for them then they need to talk to a professional about that. Moderation has its downside too, skipping that whipped cream and drizzled chocolate eclair from the mom and pop bakery on a picturesque side street in Paris, or not having a Belgian Waffle in Brussels, might make life a bit too dull

BlackSpinner wrote: There are a lot of myths and misconceptions around food and not much real data

Wow! That’s exactly why I posted my argument against getting flu shots. The guy’s video I posted mentioned the lack of scientific data to support getting a flu shot, in medical journals such as Lancet, if you had taken the time to listen. But no, instead I had my intelligence questioned. Your middle name should be “Double Standard.”

Will you take the time to review the literature described herein?

A Canadian-led study concludes that immunizing nursing-home workers does nothing to cut the number of confirmed influenza cases among the homes’ elderly residents.

Coming at the end of the largest flu-vaccination campaign in Canadian history, the review of previous studies calls for stepped-up research into alternative, lower-tech ways to combat the virus, such as improved hand washing.

The new paper’s co-author is Dr. Tom Jefferson, a British epidemiologist who heads vaccine research for the respected Cochrane Collaboration — and who has earned a reputation as a scientific dissident for his outspoken criticism of flu vaccination.

In media interviews last year, Dr. Jefferson was quoted as saying he “can’t see any reason” for vaccinating anyone against flu — arguing the shots did nothing to save lives — and that most influenza-vaccine studies are “rubbish.”

http://masterblog.blog.healthsourcechir ... 787889497/

BlackSpinner wrote: You are welcome to practice this idiocy as long as you stay quarantined.

I would get a flu shot if I were you - nothing there for it to damage!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=86918&p=793034&hili ... le#p793034

MaxDarkside wrote:

DreamStalker wrote:But middle of the road is all relative. What is middle of the road in the deep south of the US is much different than middle of the road in North Korea. What is middle of the road in the deep south today is much different than what was middle of the road in the deep south 100 years ago and 500 years ago. Middle of the road, moderation, and balanced are all as subjective, biased, and unscientific as you can get. And what is middle of the road for the sugar industry, Monsanto, and/or McDonalds is as biased, unscientific, dark and greedy as it gets.

Middle of the Road is a personal decision, not a societal or cultural one (granting your "norms" are in part formed by your environment and what is available to you) and if a person allows the sugar industry, Monsanto, and/or McDonalds to decide moderation is for them then they need to talk to a professional about that. Moderation has its downside too, skipping that whipped cream and drizzled chocolate eclair from the mom and pop bakery on a picturesque side street in Paris, or not having a Belgian Waffle in Brussels, might make life a bit too dull

I disagree. Middle of the road is a relative term ... relative to the society and culture that a person has been exposed to. Problem with people needing to see a professional is that the corporate marketing industry bombards the society to move culture towrds corporate profit motivated norms. Every day you get a well timed commercial on yout TV every 5 to 10 minutes. Almost every other click of your mouse pops up a marketing subliminal message to move your perception of "middle of the road". I think this relentless corporate greed is what the OP is trying to bring awareness to.

I think you confuse "liberty" and "free will" with moderation. I have no problem with liberty and the freedom for any individual to worship the dark side and addict themselves to McDonalds. I think freedom of choice is what you are trying to compare to the OP's point. Apples and oranges.