We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Saturday, September 17. 2016
A review of how government food advice got it all wrong and gullible citizens ate it up. They went high-carb, low fat, no red meat, etc all to either zero effect or by getting fat. A quote:
Related, Drafter of U.S. Dietary Goals Was Bribed by Big Sugar to Demonize Fat - Newly released historical documents show
That is a major but unknown scandal. Think of all of the gullible Americans who avoided "red meat" and "animal fat" over a generation, for no reason at all.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
This was well known since the mid 70s. Stanley it was Woody Allen who exposed it with his documentary Sleeper.
How very obtuse. Just last night I posted 'let's blow up the fat fad' with Worst of the Fat Industry.
Interesting how Big Sugar, by its very existence, somehow prevents there ever being Big Dairy, Big Chicken, or The Egg Board.
That first sentence of the quote identifies the problem -mission creep. "Hey, as long as we're doing this, why not do that? And if we're doing that, we might as well do the other thing, too." It's hard to stay on task and do just the one thing, you start adding more things you might as well do while you're here and pretty soon you've lost sight of what the original goal was and how to get there.
Or as the kids today call it, "multi-tasking". No, you're not doing five things at once. You're [i[attempting[/i] to do five things at once and consequently doing a terrible job at all five of them. Let's just do one thing at a time, shall we? It's called "focusing".
It's not de-focusing, it's special interest and agenda. That's very focused.
Look how it sold so many of you on the myth that saturated fat was healthy.
But it was probably in self defense. There are lots of groups who try to demonize sugar. Frankly I think it's artichokes that cause heart disease and strokes. Ban artichokes.
No! Wait! It's tofu, that it. Tofu causes high cholesterol. That's it! Ban tofu.
No! No! Wait! It's hummus! Yuck! Ban hummus. It may not cause any illness but it leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. So ban hummus, tofu and artichokes. Yeah, that will do it. Surely Taubes warned us of the dangers of tofu and hummus not to mention artichokes. Taubes is believable, right? Surely he hates hummus and tofu too.
The science of eggs and how the Egg Board modifies it.
Newly released historical documents show the Sugar Research Foundation paid scientists to blame fat and cholesterol, not sugar, for coronary heart disease.
Responsible dietary bloggers include the data on cholesterol. Or their readers do...
Except for the mianly-famlial hypercholesterolemias, cholesterol levels do not correlated with coronary disease. That was the error.
Government funded scientism...and the government and academia wonder why we won't go along with AGW. Their science is as scientific as their old marijuana videos from the forties and fifties. And then there are the DDT banning advocates from the pre EPA era...how many did they kill? Beginning to see a pattern from the academia/government complex?
More on special interest-skewed data. Because only the guys you don't like are bad.
The hubbub around all the sugar/fat 'revelation' greatly exceeds its significance. It borders on the conspiracy minded belief that the 'bad guys' have incredible power.
Some compare this to the smoking issue, but fail to realize the significance: tobacco paid a fortune, but still damning studies continued to surface year after year. This story claims a potential conflict of interest 50 years ago has totally affected everything since. I'm sure industry (or government) wishes that had that power.
I'm not exonerating either sugar or fats, they both have their issues. But this belief that the sugar industry has powerfully controlled research conducted all over the world is a bit much.
" Because only the guys you don't like are bad."
I hope you were looking in a mirror when you said that!
Irony....it not just for breakfast anymore.
Indeed, yet the cultural affectation that bacon, booze, and burgers are sound pushback against leftist hippie vegans intent on reviving Marx so he can serve bean sprouts to emaciated public schoolers or something infects rightist conversations all over. It's embarrassing, and it's also detrimental to its own tacit, internal assertion that the right can't be merely ostensible or can't wrap itself in foolish appearances. The right has done both for a century and the results are telling.
It's lifestyle-signalling, the rightist equivalent of virtue signalling, and whether consciously or not, it's the only opposition to leftist virtue-signalling too many rightists have the intellectual horsepower to muster. Cultural signalling is nothing to base a structural platform on, and in fact, it's contributed to the rightists losing an entire nation because they completely lost sight of the prize and the goal.
Meanwhile, fat is and remains a killer and so the cultural rightist has covered himself in a willing bit of ignorance, which is not exactly something to advertise when trying to regain a proper ideology.
For history of shift from infectious disease to nutrition at turn of 20th C, read Vitamania
Huh? What does that even mean?
"It's lifestyle-signalling, the rightist equivalent of virtue signalling"
What does that mean? Are you saying if someone chooses to eat a "normal" diet vs a fad diet that they are the ones who have a problem??? That doesn't make any sense.
I can't understand what you write. It's like you open a thesaurus and pick words at random stinging them together with a period or comma every so often.
Now you're doing better. Clearly stated, succinct and to the point. Now try to rewrite that last mystery in a way that can be understood.
Because you're special?
Think of this as like humor: It's not if you have to explain it.
Serious diseases are making a come back thanks to Obama.
As for an example of clearly stated and well over your head, try this. Then come back and explain how healthy-fat and lifestyle-selfie blogging make sense.
As for diet, you're so dim you can't even unravel the objective difference between normal and faddish, yet you use both words. It's a mystery. I'll send you a thesaurus.
Could this be the end of SUPERBUGS? Scientists create a protein which 'rips apart' and destroys antibiotic-resistant bacteria
The 'peptide polymers' kill bacterial infections by tearing down cell walls
Called SNAPPs, they aren't toxic to the body and pose no risk to patients
Images appear to show bacteria exploding when attacked by the proteins
It is hoped the discovery could lead to better treatment against superbugs
I believe being fat is a killer. I'm less persuaded that eating fat is a killer. I eat fat, protein, and carbs, all in appropriate quantities. Some fats I avoid because they're nasty, like margarine. Margarine has no reason to exist. Butter is good stuff.
No! You are still incomprehensible. Don't simply post a link to a site that can 'maybe' explain what you can't seem to explain. Go ahead, give it a try. Simple sentences leading up to a point, something meaningful. It doesn't have to be eloquent but it should be easily understood.