Taka:
You have presented "contrary" evidence here in the past, and it has often been helpful in illuminating nuances, such as the one about Asian vegetarians having less oxidized LDL despite consuming more PUFAs than the meat eaters. However, Bruce is making claims that have a sort of religious certainty about them, yet he won't cite a study so that we can all take a look at it and comment. He also does not make his point clear.
One point I'll mention in this thread (though it's applicable to others) is that there has to be an underlying biochemistry to any nutritional claim, and this is why the molecular-level evidence is so important (especially consdiering how much of it there is now). For example, there is the evidence on cooked meat (HCAs generated, which is even worse if cooked with a PUFA-rich oil), but what is the molecular-level evidence against "simple carbs?" If you want to use such terms or phrases, then you can't turn around and say something like, "well, if you eat too much fructose there is strong molecular-level evidence suggesting that it is dangerous" because that was not your claim - you said "simple carbs," not "high fructose." This is the kind of thing Bruce is doing, and he may not realize it, so that's why I have yet to reject any of his posts. As I've said before, all the evidence is consistent with the general points I've made, and if anyone thinks this is not true, I am very interested to hear what you have to say, but you can't argue the way political pundits do on cable TV news stations - you have to do it in a way that is consistent with basic academic standards. Because not everyone understands that, I have been willing to be patient and hope that Bruce realizes what this means. My patience, however, is not unlimited, because I don't want others to think that this is a site with no standards. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
