Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Who the fuck are any of these people? And what is strike week?
If you consistency spike your blood sugar to cause insulin resistance, you will eventually get diabetes. And to think SUGAR doesn't cause high blood SUGAR is just asinine. Sugar doesn't cause diabetes is a factually untrue statement.
All the information I get is from accredited experts. You all keep acting like I came up with this shit all on my own. Any nutritional expert that really knows their shit (the biological mechanisms) agrees with what I'm saying (because it's literally what they said).
What the fuck are you talking about? You people and your strawmans and goalpost that you all do to me. The fact you can somehow say sugar doesn't cause high blood sugar is just fucking astonishing.
You literally said "All of Phoenixmgs' health and nutrition comments point to the preference of some form of a 'bacon only diet'". I never said anything along those lines. Though meat is the most nutritionally dense food. Just because I said saturated fat isn't bad doesn't equate to eating only steak or bacon or burgers. I couldn't care less about trying to eat certain proportions of food or telling people to eat certain amounts of foods either. Literally just eat real foods and you should be fine. And you can get a test showing what vitamins (if any) you are low in and you can either then supplement those or then start eating more foods that have them if that is an issue.
I can cite top experts in the field for everything I say because I got it from them.
Why don't you look into why the original food pyramid was the way it was? The expert that initially put it together changed it based on food industry interests. Most disease is a percentage chance that you can alter so it's not completely someone's fault in most circumstances. For example, getting XYZ disease eating properly might be a 5% chance and eating poorly might bump it up to a 10% chance so you won't know if the poor diet caused it or not. However, diabetes (type 2 obviously) is completely someone's own fault (outside of super rare exceptions probably). The problem with healthcare is that the symptoms are treated instead of the root cause most of the time.
Lastly, I don't get how someone saying simply to eat real foods considered crazy talk, it's basic common sense really. The stuff we grew up eating as a species throughout history is what your body is used to processing and digesting. Introducing something the body hasn't seen (or an amount the body was never used to) doesn't sound like a good idea just based on basic logic. You're acting like I'm saying stuff that is fringe and goes against common logic. Ever think people saying meat is bad were the ones not making any sense?
Why should I believe you over the experts in the field?
Sometimes you do. Other times, you take the statements of experts very selectively-- ignoring whichever ones you don't like, even from the same experts you've cited elsewhere. And other other times, you'll simply misunderstand or misrepresent what they've said to fit your own argument.
I'd encourage you to go back and reread the posts. Actually read the words. Sugar increases the risk factors that can lead to prediabetes and ultimately diabetes. But it does not, directly and of itself, cause it. Because of this disconnect, it is perfectly possible for someone to eat a lot of sugar, and to remain at less risk of diabetes than someone who eats more.
Maybe finish reading the sentence.
And I'll forgive myself for thinking that when I read through your comments. You have dozens of comments about eggs, burgers, butter, and grains, and of course more recently about sugar on top of the constant criticism of official guidelines. In any serious discussion you can't think "real foods" is the answer, because that can mean different things. Now with this extra info you've given it looks like your diet of choice would be a sort of "paleo" diet except with some dairy. And in general I think between the lines is the idea that people should put more effort into their food for its health. Many don't, though, because food is many things to people.
It becomes politics when we start to reorganize our supermarkets.
Even if the grain base is to be deemed a major mistake back in the early 90s, those guides have been revised a thousand times by now. Anyway, nice of you to back up a little from the most garish egoism. Still, assigning blame when it comes to eating is complicated - we inherit so much of it. I draw the line at delusional thinking, like fat acceptance.
You're saying eating sugar doesn't cause spikes in blood sugar levels?
I mainly talk about stuff like meat, eggs, butter because those are things people were told not to eat when they are very good for you. Remember when fake butter was said to be healthier and that ended up being like a million times worse for you? Real foods is the answer IMO, people just don't realize what those are because so many things are so processed. An orange is great, orange juice is horrible for you (but really only slightly processed compared to processed foods that are full of ingredients you can't even pronounce). Again, I said to eat like any combination of real foods that you like (obviously just don't eat like just one thing or anything). I eat nothing for breakfast, a soup and a couple fruits for lunch, then usually for dinner I have meat as the main food (because I like meat, plus again the most nutrient dense food) with a side or 2 but sometimes just do just hashbrowns and eggs. I don't know what diet that falls under and I really don't care honestly. I eat real foods that I like and that's really it. I'm not huge on diary, I don't like to drink milk but I love cheese but don't eat crap like American cheese (I always switch out American on a burger at a restuarant to something else like cheddar or swiss).
Even the CDC page for how to eat with diabetes is telling people to eat "whole" grains. You can't really get grain-based foods that aren't made with refined grains (that are worse for you than table sugar). That's why I say, grains are the main foods people don't realize are bad for you. If people were eating real grains, then it wouldn't be an issue but they aren't real grains unless you go way out of your way to make sure they are because probably 99% of grain-based foods are refined grains (regardless if they say they are whole grains or not). It's not the carbs that are bad, it's carbs sans their fiber that are bad. I didn't say not to eat potatoes for example.
I don't care about you personally but rather trying to parse together what you always complain about.
And the part about grains is just funny to me. Such nonsense. It's a perfect example of a paragraph that is bound to get dismissive reactions from others. If you can't see it then I dunno, man.
So you're saying Dr Robert Lustig is speaking nonsense? Whole grains are not whole grains like fruit smoothies are not whole fruits.
The food industry standards for whole grain I assume is correct, but his claim is wrong. He equates full grain bread (the stuff that's normally referred to that) with essentially white bread (with a bit more fiber) while talking about this whole grain and smashed grain difference as if that's where the importance is.
And I can even tell you why: he oversteps the breadmaking process. Those whole grain breads are in the recommendations because the research is done with people eating bread and cereal instead of swallowing literal intact whole grains.
edit. To elaborate on the importance of preparing food. Full grain oatmeal with blueberries sounds like a healthy breakfast. True, but you can fuck it up if you try to be trendy and make a "raw" oatmeal (let the cereals get porridge-like without heat that takes a long time) with frozen blueberries you either microwaved until warm or let thaw overnight. But properly cooking that oatmeal and adding the frozen berries into it and eating without delay preserves most of the good stuff.
And I can even tell you why: he oversteps the breadmaking process. Those whole grain breads are in the recommendations because the research is done with people eating bread and cereal instead of swallowing literal intact whole grains.
edit. To elaborate on the importance of preparing food. Full grain oatmeal with blueberries sounds like a healthy breakfast. True, but you can fuck it up if you try to be trendy and make a "raw" oatmeal (let the cereals get porridge-like without heat that takes a long time) with frozen blueberries you either microwaved until warm or let thaw overnight. But properly cooking that oatmeal and adding the frozen berries into it and eating without delay preserves most of the good stuff.
Last edited:
I think there can be an important issue in terms of processed foods: some things can be marketed as "wholegrain", but all that means is that they have some of all the parts of the grain in - not necessarily the same proportions of the grain prior to milling. Essentially, they'll split the grains into separate components, and then make what is effectively a "white" loaf but with adding only whatever they need to of the rest back in to make it look kind of brown. (Plus whatever other crap got bunged in, too - which will probably include some whole grains scattered on the top to help seal the illusion.)
So for instance I have in my cupboard white flour (2.7% fibre), 30% wholemeal flour (4.9% fibre) and wholemeal flour (9% fibre). A lot of cheap "wholegrain" breads are going to be very much closer to the 2.7% than the 9%.
I found the following channel when just searching google for blood sugar and whole breads. It looks like whole grains raise blood sugar less than standard white bread. Though something like an orange raises it far less than whole grain bread. Also, a hamburger patty does very little to your blood sugar (less than a fruit) so why would the CDC tell diabetics to eat plenty of fruits and whole grains but tell you to limit your red meat consumption?
I like the bread video, as it shows how the glycemic index is lower for the whole grain bread even if the sugar and carb content is the same. For the second one she should weigh those fruits before eating them.
Because they want to give good alternatives that people want to eat. That's it in a nutshell. Red meat recommendations for the general population have to measure in the fact that people tend to overeat and it doesn't differentiate between all the types of red meat one can have, because generally people like to have different kinds from time to time. And it's good to promote a variety of options on that front (red meat, poultry, fish, eggs, beans etc.) When CDC makes guidelines it doesn't concern itself with people that follow strict diets.
It's not just that, although that's an important element. It's also that health services take a rounded look at the overall research, they don't access a few snippets of unorthodox science and think to themselves "Hm, that's surely God's own truth!" like many YouTube watchers do.
In addition: because weight is a bigger risk factor for the development of diabetes (as attested in those links provided earlier, which Phoenixmgs has of course dismissed as rubbish). And although fruit generally has a higher sugar content, it has less impact on weight, particularly in excess.
One might note that the "sugar is poison" is the very much the line pushed by one Robert Lustig MD.
Lustig certainly is (or was, I think he's retired) a substantial researcher in the field of diet and nutrition. However, several of Lustig's theories on sugar are deeply controversial and unproven, and he has pushed them way beyond the strength of the evidence to support, even to the point of crankery. He's also a very good public communicator. An amateur who watches his presentations or reads his books will probably come away thinking this is proper, hard science-backed work. In fact it is not: he presents a very one-sided view, overstating what supporting evidence defends and understating everything else. There are a lot of criticisms of his work from within the field.
For instance, Lustig particularly attacks fructose - but the evidence out there does not significantly implicate fructose as worse than any other sugar (and some other carbohydrates). Herein lies some of the problem with later discussion. Once people have been suckered into the idea that "sugar is poison" then see that other carbohydrates give similar(-ish) insulin responses, it ends in the presumption all these other carbohydrates are also bad. But that is just error mushrooming out if fructose / sugar isn't actually that bad in the first place.
A key point here is that diet is important. And by important, we mean big business. Anyone who points to the national guidelines for healthy eating doesn't make much money. The money is in creating a unique selling proposition (USP). This is where a huge amount of this bullshit spreads, and hence the constant fads. Atkins diet, keto diet, paleo diet, blah blah blah. Then all the influencers get their income streams from pushing this stuff, so they start pumping it. It's a area staggeringly full of bullshit.
All the while in the background, the basic nutritional advice and guidelines are and always have been pretty much okay. Fundamentally, the biggest problem by far, plainly and simply, is that people are eating too much generally.
Ignoring the sugar debate
First thing is that humans have evolved to be pretty flexible with nutrition which helped a lot with being able to settle the world over. We don't need a very special diet, we can do ok with what is available in most places. In places with lots of fruits and mild climate all the year, we eat lots of fruits. In places with e.g. harsh winters we can do many months without. When lots of fish is available, it can be the most important part of our diet and in other places we do fine without eating any of it whatsoever.
Second thing is, well, we are still evolving. There is evidence of even relatively recent changes to some of us that e.g. made it easier to use diary. Or alcohol (it's still bad, but has been way worse).
And the third thing is, well, just because early humans did survive, they didn't necessarily get the best or most balanced diet. They generally ate what was available, not what was best for them. Getting enough to eat was more of a concern than what exactly was included.
But you are right, that grains only became a huge part of our diet relatively late. After we found ways to properly process them. And that many early agricultural societies using primarily grain show signs of malnutrition, hinting that their diet had less healthy than what came before. But that is basically just that a balanced died should have some variety because humans are not well adapted to focus on a single type of food.
Overall it is not really helpful to look into the distant part for dietary advice. Also despite all the various gripes, modern humans actually tend to have a somewhat healthy diet. The results are directly seen by how huge we are nowadays on average and partially in how long we live. It still could be better, especially regarding overeating and well, alcohol, but i don't thing the average human diet has been better at any time in history.
That is not completely wrong but is also not completely right.
First thing is that humans have evolved to be pretty flexible with nutrition which helped a lot with being able to settle the world over. We don't need a very special diet, we can do ok with what is available in most places. In places with lots of fruits and mild climate all the year, we eat lots of fruits. In places with e.g. harsh winters we can do many months without. When lots of fish is available, it can be the most important part of our diet and in other places we do fine without eating any of it whatsoever.
Second thing is, well, we are still evolving. There is evidence of even relatively recent changes to some of us that e.g. made it easier to use diary. Or alcohol (it's still bad, but has been way worse).
And the third thing is, well, just because early humans did survive, they didn't necessarily get the best or most balanced diet. They generally ate what was available, not what was best for them. Getting enough to eat was more of a concern than what exactly was included.
But you are right, that grains only became a huge part of our diet relatively late. After we found ways to properly process them. And that many early agricultural societies using primarily grain show signs of malnutrition, hinting that their diet had less healthy than what came before. But that is basically just that a balanced died should have some variety because humans are not well adapted to focus on a single type of food.
Overall it is not really helpful to look into the distant part for dietary advice. Also despite all the various gripes, modern humans actually tend to have a somewhat healthy diet. The results are directly seen by how huge we are nowadays on average and partially in how long we live. It still could be better, especially regarding overeating and well, alcohol, but i don't thing the average human diet has been better at any time in history.
It's not necessarily about poorly balanced diet, it might be simple lack of food. In some cases this may have related to the relative food abundance from agriculture. Early human societies appear to have operated forms of population control (up to and including infanticide) to maintain populations within the local ecosystem's ability to provide. With agriculture, many of these practices may have declined or ceased, so populations could have a greater tendency to outstrip food production, be more at risk of droughts, etc. There could also be elements of changes in how societies functioned, possibly becoming less egalitarian with wealth (and thus food access) increasingly accumulated in upper classes and resultant deleterious effects on the masses.
To be fair, people that get fat without the "aid" of sugar are rare and obesity correlates with a lack of exercise.
The recent-ish fad of adding fructose instead of regular glucose -- because of its lower glycemic index, I guess, or maybe just commercial factors -- has been mostly dropped (at least over here). It's worse for the liver, promotes NAFLD. I'd hope most people on this planet were critical of high fructose corn syrup.
This would be a good paragraph to start a heated debate on the topic, but at this point I'd just like to get back to funny woke stuff.
Definitely true. But depending on the person, (for example) saturated fat could play a much larger role, or someone may be overweight/obese without having a directly proportionate sugar intake. I guess that's more what I meant.