Funny Events of the "Woke" world

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,018
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Well in that case you can provide the proof of how much sugar someone needs to eat for a 100% chance of diabetes. (Or, admit you don't actually know and there's no evidence of what it might be and retract your claim.)

When you actually pony up some relevant evidence, I will. Or you can just talk round it another 15 years to avoid the fact you done fucked up.
It's basic knowledge and common sense that if you eat so much sugar to get insulin resistance or prediabetes, you will get diabetes if you don't change your diet. You think what I'm saying is silly. But what is actually sillier, me saying what I said or your doctor diagnosing you with prediabetes and you saying you'll continue eating the same amount of sugar you're currently eating because most people with prediabetes don't get diabetes (Silvanus' argument)? You think you're doctor would actually agree with that conclusion?

You have no evidence that saturated fat causes inflammation. You also said cholesterol is bad without any evidence as well. You're just regurgitating the flawed and unproven hypothesis of Ancel Keys.

How often do you open the control panel?
A ton since I'm IT. I also prefer normal mode anyway though, I totally don't understand why people prefer dark mode.

I'm not going to deal with separate, new claims until you substantiate your original one. How much sugar gives a 100% risk? Can I get a source?



You can wait forever. Never claimed that, it's a different claim altogether.
I never claimed to know how much sugar?

No it's not, the only way one can eat a lot of sugar without getting diabetes is if they have immunity to insulin resistance.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
I never claimed to know how much sugar?
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.

No it's not, the only way one can eat a lot of sugar without getting diabetes is if they have immunity to insulin resistance.
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.
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,067
1,028
118
The levels being reached here to avoid saying "Sorry, I was being hyperbolic and exaggerated an extreme."

It's always the dumbest of shits who lack the ability to reflect on having mispoken, and not being the smartest person in the room on all things.

But I guess admitting it was an exaggeration also admits the point about the world existing in greys, rather than his black and white perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,697
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
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

But then, I remember having an extended conversation with someone here about co-morbidities only giving you an increased chance of being seriously hurt by COVID. And it certainly does not mean that having fewer co-morbidities stopped you from being hurt, hence me knowing a national athlete who was bedridden by COVID for over a month and can no loner compete due to damage sustained to her body
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,580
373
88
Finland
The levels being reached here to avoid saying "Sorry, I was being hyperbolic and exaggerated an extreme."
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.

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
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.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,018
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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.
Yeah, if you eat too much sugar (which varies from person to person), you will eventually get diabetes.

Where is this person that eats loads of sugar that didn't develop diabetes?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
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?

Where is this person that eats loads of sugar that didn't develop diabetes?



Diabetes is caused by eating too much sugar - FALSE
You may have wondered if eating too many sweets can cause diabetes. The simple answer is no.
With type 2 diabetes, the answer is a little more complex. Though we know sugar doesn’t directly cause type 2 diabetes, you are more likely to get it if you are overweight. You gain weight when you take in more calories than your body needs, and sugary foods and drinks contain a lot of calories.

So you can see if too much sugar is making you put on weight, then you are increasing your risk of getting type 2 diabetes. But type 2 diabetes is complex, and sugar is unlikely to be the only reason the condition develops.
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.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,018
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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?












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.

Because type 2 diabetes is not always linked to obesity and having diabetes means blood sugar levels are consistently too high
."

Getting diabetes means blood sugar levels are consistently too high but sugar, somehow, doesn't cause increased blood sugar levels? What? How does that work? And you can technically eat a good amount of sugar if it comes with it's natural fiber, but people aren't consuming sugar with its natural fiber. Technically sugar isn't the only the thing that causes diabetes as sugar is not the only thing that is high on the glycemic index and causes blood sugar levels to increase as you can eat a ton of bread and refined grains (that become sugar) and get diabetes.

There's tons of horrible articles on nutrition, just because you found something that says I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong (there's tons of articles that are wrong). Here's a CDC article about diabetes and look how much is wrong in there like saying to eat plenty of grains, saying butter/dairy/red meat/salt are bad, it's says saturated fats are bad for your heart, etc.

And for you last statement about not being overweight and being able to eat sugar, go to India and tell that to them.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
Getting diabetes means blood sugar levels are consistently too high but sugar, somehow, doesn't cause increased blood sugar levels? What? How does that work?
That's the difference between a symptom and a cause.

There's tons of horrible articles on nutrition, just because you found something that says I'm wrong doesn't mean I'm wrong (there's tons of articles that are wrong).
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".

They are more authoritative than you. Suck it up, it's not as simple as you tried to persuade us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,018
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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".

They are more authoritative than you. Suck it up, it's not as simple as you tried to persuade us.
You think sugar doesn't cause blood sugar to go up and high blood sugar doesn't cause insulin resistance?

Nutrition sources mainly misinformation because of the Ancel Keys hypothesis that everyone keeps thinking is right (to this day for some reason). I showed you the horrible CDC page on diabetes with all the misinformation.

Go tell your doctor that sugar doesn't cause diabetes and you will eat as much of it as you want and see what he/she says to that? Is me telling you guys to just eat real food that much of a reach for you? Because it's really just common sense in reality.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,510
2,176
118
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.
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.

Genetics can make a huge difference to susceptibility to disease, and lifestyle can likewise provide some major modifiers too. It is very possible that some people blessed with the right DNA and/or otherwise healthy living might be remarkably resistant to long-term damage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,094
5,389
118
Australia
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.

Genetics can make a huge difference to susceptibility to disease, and lifestyle can likewise provide some major modifiers too. It is very possible that some people blessed with the right DNA and/or otherwise healthy living might be remarkably resistant to long-term damage.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan and Ag3ma

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,510
2,176
118
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.
Very likely. Excessive drug consumption, poor diet, lack of sleep, etc. - it's all going to add up.

I suspect a lot of issues - being overweight, little exercise, eating too much sugar, or fats, smoking, high alcohol consumption, etc. are on their own often relatively modest issues. It's when people start to combine several of them that the risks start adding up. Well, not necessarily adding up, but multiplying. If someone has a base 2% chance of stroke or heart attack in the next ten years, something that increases it 50% (i.e. to 3%) might be viewed as pretty trivial. Two of them, 4.5%. Three, nearing 7%. Four, around 10%. So things can mount up. And it's not just going to be that: chances are the risks of all manner of other things degrading or going wrong is also going up - kidneys, lungs, brain, liver, immune system etc. - which themselves might create additional risks.
 

McElroy

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2013
4,580
373
88
Finland
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.

My expectation was that Trunkage's late dad's lungs, the actual chainsmoked lungs, were looked at and supposedly deemed "better than non-smokers", because they were checked after he'd died. An x-ray might look fine and the man himself might have had a decent lung function despite all the smoking, but there is no damn way the organ itself macro- or microscopically outshined a non-smoker's lung.

They are more authoritative than you. Suck it up, it's not as simple as you tried to persuade us.
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.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,018
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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).

Diet alone is the biggest component of how healthy someone is as most diseases are directly caused by a bad diet. I bet some people will read that as me saying every disease is caused by a bad diet and I never said that, but that's how people read my posts here all the fucking time.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,094
5,821
118
Country
United Kingdom
You think sugar doesn't cause blood sugar to go up and high blood sugar doesn't cause insulin resistance?
Those things can happen and do happen, to various degrees for various people, with no risk ever reaching 100%.

Nutrition sources mainly misinformation because of the Ancel Keys hypothesis that everyone keeps thinking is right (to this day for some reason). I showed you the horrible CDC page on diabetes with all the misinformation.
Still not seeing any reason to trust a random Internet commentator above accredited experts.

Go tell your doctor that sugar doesn't cause diabetes and you will eat as much of it as you want and see what he/she says to that? Is me telling you guys to just eat real food that much of a reach for you? Because it's really just common sense in reality.
Ah, you've just exaggerated your opponent's claim into a mess of strawmen again, rather than engaging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,485
929
118
Country
USA
Row Row Fight the Powah
Gurren Lagann is actually right-wing political fiction, change my mind.

Also, Libera Me From Hell (the version of that song where the rap is intermixed with opera) is one of my guilty pleasures. It really should be awful, but I love it.