Maggie's Farm

Bliss is wrong on carbs vs fat. Wind typically follows up with a windy opinion also irrelevant to how all this works (although from time to time bumps right against how it really does work but keeps on going on the wrong direction.)

The upshot is Bliss is spouting that the Farm's old rightist myth - call it a food fad, which it is - that expects that fat is never stored as fat but sugar is always stored as fat. Obsessively repeated and probably based on one primary source, this is the mantra.

There's a clue in all this - the one Wind eventually always misses - but fads and myths die hard so it's probably also the last real clue too. The sad thing is that health is naturally tied to the topic so what this prevalent myth amounts to is bad health advice, for some odd reason delivered obsessively and with disregard to the facts.

Debunking the food faddist's "fruit is just flavored sugar" myth.

https://youtu.be/sHEJE6I-Yl4

Scientific evidence is pure rationalization, says you. (And in your prior sermon you illustrated how since genetics are the Alpha and Omega, your unique genetics speak for the genetics of all mankind - translated: diet only factors for those for whom diet factors. I'm sure that unintentional pure rationalization wasn't pure rationalization.)

And here I thought you you were given to outright projection instead of the careful analysis I've come to count on you for.

You seem to allow that only genetics respond to problem diets, which both then cause health problems (ignoring the science that's proved and continues to prove otherwise, but we'll leave that aside for a moment). When they occur, they do in fact occur, but it's just genetic predisposition, say you. What's left is only to determine the what and why, for which there'll be another line of defense as we'll see in a moment.

You acknowledge that disease and dysfunction exist within the biology. You acknowledge that, for example, 4,000 calorie days of heavy carbohydrate consumption (within the usual Western omnivorous diet) blow you up like a balloon. You just quibble that because we can arbitrarily limit this to "genetics" these effects or conditions cannot be dietary (the facts notwithstanding, but we're leaving that aside). To this you attach your personal anecdotes. etc.

Of course, this is utterly faulty on its face. Scores of cohorts do indeed react badly to new, abnormal, unbalanced, immoderate intake other cohorts will not react as badly to, which is your personal premise (and a proud one at that). Then, at its extreme, your premise fails completely: A diet of pure corn syrup is indefensible at any level, and among any school of medical thought. (Interestingly we cannot prove this in a human lab because the experiment would be considered too cruel to consider. Hmmm.)

But against extremes you simply precondition facts another way - including against real data you do not know and/or will not allow - such that "moderation" is the (arbitrary) new, anecdotal precondition that naturally makes all subsequent disease both acceptable and not atypical for the cohort that practice it. With exceptions for exceptional persons not unlike yourself, of course, they having the superior genetic makeup.

In other words, all sorts of problems occur - obesity, disease - but by your demand they may not be connected to diet unless within the narrow, anti-carbohydrate, meat-faddist's mantra. Basically, if it goes wrong, it's genetics because genetics simply must be the precursor. If it's not genetics, it's either overweight-by-spaghetti or it isn't really an abnormal abnormality. There if it goes wrong it's already been normalized as a standing proof of arbitrary concept, which is to say, to fulfill confirmation bias (but still against the real data).

Basically, you've arbitrarily ruled out anything that challenges your personal bias, Wind. Disease and obesity exist but cannot attribute to anything but genetics (or pizza) because you've redefined genetics and because if it falls outside this definition, it's a normal abnormality. The Western diet has been normalized and all medical issues are thereby normalized with it or arbitrarily sent to the genetics room for settlement.

From there we'll never get into the actual, real science, science either ignored or dismissed as somehow being as "rationalized" (as I believe you called it) as your own position actually happens to be. That's ironic.

But diet is culture. Culture affects the human animal as to quite obviously influence genetics. From data we also know that disease is highly culturalized and trended, therefore disease is tightly tied to diet, albeit within another variable, which to be generous we actually can call genetics using your arbitrary definition of the word: There is always that statistical variability within the overall trajectory, just nowhere near as universally applied as you'd like. Not even close, really.

The catalog of health sciences is exploding and the effects of diet are increasingly known to tie directly to health, or to its absence. 21st century animal food faddists can construct any number of subjective assertions, exclusionary rules, and anecdotes and cultural stereotypes - both pro and con - but the underlying data - long tied to other anecdotal, cultural tradition not found in the modern West - simply overrules them and it'll continue to do so.

Does this vindicate vegan hysterics? Food nanny-statists? Granola Marxist Maolings? Psuedo-scientists and voodooists? Of course not. But of them I think you'll find there are exponentially fewer than you imagine and exponentially more smart, informed, conscientious food reformers who know exactly what they're doing.

Of course, advocates of sound nutrition don't claim that "diet is the cause of every problem" nor do they "ignore the simple fact that whatever the problem it is a minority of people who have it" because it's not a simple fact except when you normalize dysfunction, as you have to make your faulty point. "Most people are not obese" is an obvious leading fallacy, and "virtually everyone in this country eats the same things" is not only false, it's contradicted by your own biases against cohorts you don't care for, having reinterpreted their ways and means as you have.

I tend to track a lot more favorably with that data I mentioned - including it's clear, unmistakable trajectory away from the western convention of low real nutritional value, high animal intake, and low plant consumption - than I do windy assertions and outright logical contradictions.

You're one of the more shifty folks I've met online, Wind. I suppose if I were that way I'd be tempted to paper it over like you do too.

It's well past time to discuss this in good faith; you've seen to that. I'll just say that you refuse the science but self-identify as open-minded - ergo, open to fact, which is science. You ignore rational questions but appeal to your own contradictions. You back assertion with other assertion. You create strawmen and beg questions.

Not that any of this is all that atypical. It's certainly not surprising for the mindset.

But apparently you're mightily self-impressed with these methods and views, or so it certainly seems from here. I just fail to see the point wasting the time pig-wrestling anymore. If you're who you claim to be, do the work yourself. Or, as seems to be your wont and preference, go on making these flowery odes to your own subjective opinion. I'm not here to appeal to your lack of reason, hoping to turn it.

Exploding food faddist's fat myth using science. Medical research, studies, findings, data, and stuff. You know, rationalization.

https://youtu.be/390qtST0SIA