MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
Nutrition : High Fat is Bad - IF It's High Carb Too
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 12 of 17 in Discussion 
From: MSN Nicknamerensielk  in response to Message 2Sent: 12/26/2007 11:08 AM
HSWC, I would like a reference for the refutation of the EFA claim. All I have found is that it was in the 1948 World Book, and the study was conducted by MIT. This is not a reference. Who did the study? What was the title, journal, etc?

My claim is that maybe if we fed people a very low carb diet (0-72g), the "problems" of cooked meat would not occur. As Taka said, the combination of carbs and omega-6 seems to be esp bad. Maybe carbs are fine with high-SFA/low-PUFA, but probably not for all people. You have mentioned how your relatives are overweight and they eat more cooked meat or PUFAs, but they eat more carbs and calories too. You can't blame all problems on PUFAs, esp with simple correlations like what your relatives supposedly eat.

The Western Diet is obviously bad, but you seem to blame a single factor (PUFAs), while I think the high carb diets and/or refined carbs are involved. Agriculture, grains, and sugar did not just come along and improve our health. You can believe the evidence or not, but you can't deny that our diet changed 10,000 years ago and has undergone other radical changes such as the refining of sugar and grains, and the introduction of vegetable oils, hydrogenated oils, etc.

I am not interested in any challenges to put up money for an experiment. That is just hot air, as far as I am concerned. If you want to discuss the evidence and your interpretation of it, fine. But the burden of proof is on YOU to show that meat cooked in any way causes disease in the absence of carbs. If you can't present human studies, you lose.

If you want to propose studies, talk with someone else. I am not a scientist and neither are you. I just think carbs need to be controlled in studies claiming meat or animal foods have harmful effects. Not doing so assumes carbs are harmless, something which should be demonstrated with comparison. Surely you would not be afraid to repeat the sausage, eggs,
and hash brown study WITHOUT hash browns, and using a good coconut oil for all of the cooking.