You claimed that a certain sugar intake would result in a 100% risk-- that seems a rather foolish claim to make if you don't have any specifics or details.
Bollocks. Some people eat loads of sugar and don't develop diabetes. Others consume less sugar and do develop diabetes. Because these things aren't black and white, definite, effecting everyone identically.
My dad smoked two and a half packs a day for decades and when he died, the doctors were surprised by how clean his lungs were. They were better than non-smokers
Yeah, it's pretty weird. I can't honestly wrap my head around it. Like, I can claim that everyone who drinks enough alcohol will get alcohol poisoning. And... sure it's still true even though there are people who drink excessive amounts of alcohol all the time and don't get alcohol poisoning, because that doesn't mean they are categorically immune to it.
That's a plain lie. Some people's lung tissue adjusts to the strain and damage better, sure, but humans don't have self-cleaning lungs that could clear all the shit that tobacco smoke brings in over the years.
Yeah, if you eat too much sugar (which varies from person to person), you will eventually get diabetes.
So there's a 100% risk... but it's entirely individual? That seems pretty much impossible to demonstrate, so your source must be pretty rock solid. Where is it?
www.uhhospitals.org
So, if someone isn't overweight-- and their sugar intake isn't from particularly risk-indicating sources, like soft drinks-- they may well intake a lot of sugar from other sources and remain at relatively low risk of diabetes.
"You may have wondered if eating too many sweets can cause diabetes. The simple answer is no. But there’s more to know before giving into those cravings for cookies, candy and sweetened drinks.So there's a 100% risk... but it's entirely individual? That seems pretty much impossible to demonstrate, so your source must be pretty rock solid. Where is it?
Can Eating Too Much Sugar Cause Diabetes?
The simple answer is no. But there’s more to know before giving into those cravings for cookies, candy and sweetened drinks.
Sugar and diabetes
You don’t need to cut out sugar from your diet if you have diabetes. And while we don’t know exactly what causes type 1 diabetes, but it isn’t linked to lifestyle, and so sugar doesn’t directly cause the condition. The question of whether sugar directly causes type 2 diabetes is a bit complicated.www.diabetes.org.uk
So, if someone isn't overweight-- and their sugar intake isn't from particularly risk-indicating sources, like soft drinks-- they may well intake a lot of sugar from other sources and remain at relatively low risk of diabetes.
That's the difference between a symptom and a cause.
And this is why nobody bothers to respond to your constant requests for sources any more. Because whenever someone actually does, you'll just discount or dismiss them for various specious reasons. As soon as a source disagrees with you it's "horrible".
You think sugar doesn't cause blood sugar to go up and high blood sugar doesn't cause insulin resistance?
Actually, the lungs are self-cleaning. They produce mucus, one of the functions of which is to trap particulates, and the mucus plus whatever it has captured is transported out to the throat. It's said that someone who smokes 20 a day will collect a cup of tar in their lungs every year. That sounds bad. (Well, it is bad.) However, in the context that your lungs generally produce more than a cup of mucus every week and potentially a cup every day to clear crap out, maybe it's not necessarily that bad - as long as everything continues to work well enough so that the mucus carries on getting rid of the tar.
And some people conversely live so hard their organs age prematurely. Pretty sure that's what the pathologist said about Errol Flynn after he carked it.
www.bbc.com
Very likely. Excessive drug consumption, poor diet, lack of sleep, etc. - it's all going to add up.
Smoking stains the lungs. Pollution stains the lungs too. Anthracosis of lung tissue doesn't clear if the exposure is constant. Inhaling smoke is the problem, and it goes into the tissue, and y'know, promotes more mucus production, because that's the mechanism lungs have. Lung mucus is fine for normal stuff like pollen to eventually get coughed up, but once it's in the cells it's pretty much stuck and macrophage activity practically doesn't have the time or capacity to ever clear it all.
All of Phoenixmgs' health and nutrition comments point to the preference of some form of a "bacon only diet", or more specifically an animal product based low carb diet on top of an ego that absolutely hates statistics. Thus if somebody has a "bad diet" yet thrives it either won't last or they could just do better, and if somebody is unhealthy it's their own personal failing. Then there is the pop science or "bro science" part where one way simply works while imperfections in the opposition are used to discredit it completely.
When did I ever say to just eat meat? I only ever said to eat real foods, which include meat as well as obviously fruits, vegetable, nuts, dairy, eggs, etc. And that is somehow crazy talk? Grains are probably the sneakiest things people don't realize that are that bad for you. And fried foods are horrible for you and most people realize fried food is bad, but they eat too much of it (as fries come as a side to everything).
Those things can happen and do happen, to various degrees for various people, with no risk ever reaching 100%.
Still not seeing any reason to trust a random Internet commentator above accredited experts.
Ah, you've just exaggerated your opponent's claim into a mess of strawmen again, rather than engaging.
Gurren Lagann is actually right-wing political fiction, change my mind.
I didn't claim that. And ok, my bad then, the model plate of 1/2 greens, 1/4 side (and no, not a single recommendation guideline puts fries in there), and 1/4 meat/fish/egg/plant protein works fine as a good basis for both you and me then. For the rest of it I'm not going to bother - I doubt people take diet advice from this forum.
I doubt anyone reads it that way. I think the reason why these exchanges with you and some others drag on for so long is that they don't let you get away with bullshit.
This is plenty enough to criticize you for. When you combine this mindset with the constant distrust of nutritional guidelines, it's essentially saying those guidelines (and the experts who have made them) peddle disease to people. And the peddling becomes almost intentional when you add that the "truth" or whatever is easily found. Then it follows that individuals who either follow those guidelines or not (but don't follow the "truth") are to blame for "most diseases" they get. Finally it points to the individual who gets sick that they brought it on themselves no matter what they actually did in the past.
