***HU SNG REGS THREAD***

[bunzablood]

Originally Posted by yaqh

yea i was kidding about being disappointed in ucnatspell, but i find the arguments for a paleo diet very unconvincing.

firstly, we've been eating grains for a few thousand years, and this is plenty of time for some new evolution to happen, esp if all that needed to happen was a change in frequency of alleles in the population, as opposed to generation of new ones through mutation or w/e.

but secondly and more importantly, historically, there was absolutely no evolutionary pressure whatsoever driving us towards what would now be considered long, healthy lives.

even if we accept that we evolved so that the paleo diet was 'best' for us, and that we havent changed since then, its important to keep in mind what 'best' means in that context. basically, its whatever kept people healthy and happy up through the time they were reproductively active, that is, up to around the age of 35 at the very latest (ppl didnt live so long back then). whatever happens to individuals after that has no effect on how likely their genes are to be passed on.

if your goal is to be healthy into your 30s, then maybe the paleo argument makes sense, but if you have longer-term plans in mind, then theres no reason to think what worked for the cavemen is appropriate for you.

Def. this. Yaqh explains it well. Early man lived to his mid-30's, thus his diet represented what was needed for that lifespan. We are in a vastly different society, and grains have indeed been in our regular diet for ~10,000 years.

Originally Posted by u cnat spel

@Bunza, a few points:

1) Cholesterol numbers are useless unless they are divided into HDL (good) and LDL (bad) levels. The ratio between the two is a much better assessment for heart risk. Thus, saying grains lower cholesterol doesn't mean anything unless the study specifically says it lowers LDL.

2) Saying red meat leads to heart attacks is contraversial imo. Heart risk factors depend on too many things to be specifically pinpointed on red meat. I suspect the studies will point to the high saturated fat content of red meat; this is however one of the most disturbing misconceptions in nutrition.

Saturated fat is actually a very healthy fat. Those who have taken organic chemistry will remember what a saturated fat looks like: the carbon atoms are saturated because all available bonds are filled with hydrogen molecules. This makes it a very stable fat that doesn't produce trans fats when used in cooking. FWIW, my ancestors in the Philippines used coconut oil everywhere in their cooking. Coconut oil is almost exclusively saturated fat. If saturated fats were really that bad for you, they would of probably died at a very young age. This didn't happen because coconut oil is actually one the healthiest fats in the world. I personally eat 2-3 tablespoons a day.

Finally, the relationship between cancer and red meat is a lot more likely to be associated with the cooking process than the meat itself. The cooking process produces many carcinogens; studies have shown that eating your steak bloody is less carcinogenic than eating it rare.

Wholegrains (the ones with the germ embryos intact) like oatmeal have antioxidants, protect against diabetes, cancer, heart disease and indeed vastly reduce LDL. Refined grains are the ones to avoid.

As for red meat and cancer, I'm not sure what the correlation is, maybe it's in the way cows are doped/fed??

As for coconut oil, the Philippines is in the tropics. People there sweat that stuff off year round -> they sweat just by walking. You live in Canada, temperate climate, not sure if the same goes here. I've read about 'temperate' vs. 'tropical' foods and fruits, and they say that you should eat the foods native to that climate. Thus, eating apples/pears/kiwis and avoiding mangoes/OJ/jackfruit etc. is better they say for (i.e.) North Americans. So I'm not convinced coconut oil is good for you in Canada. But by the same token, the cold in Canada does benefit from saturated fats I believe...

The debate is endless. I think it's 45% exercise and 55% foods. If you take care of the exercise and try your best to eat right (and cut down sugar and salt) and eat more natural stuff and not over-eat, you give yourself a good chance of getting old healthy. Tho in my case, I abuse my body with vices like alcohol and weed (and sometimes heavier stuff) so it's probably moot!!!

Edit: grain debate: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-g...are-unhealthy/ -> I read this, I think it's similar to your argument. Not convinced tho...but it does say exercise is key.

[u cnat spel]

Originally Posted by alexrjl

I'm not going to respond any further to the part I paraphrased, but the last part I take real issue with.

"Truth" does pass through stages before being accepted. First empirically testable predictions are made based on a theory. Experiments are then performed which determine whether the predictions were accurate. If they were, and the statistic significance and accuracy of the evidence is deemed sufficient by peer review, the theory is accepted as "truth", at least until either a better theory is produced or subsequent experimental evidence falsifies the theory.

My paragraph my not roll of the tongue quite as nicely as yours, but it's a much better way of working out what to believe than thinking "everyone else think's I'm an idiot for thinking this, so it must be true".

By the way, way to assume the entire world has healthcare that works exactly like America's.

That is fine and I totally understand the scientific method. The last part of my post was a quote by a German philosopher. An example would be the truth: "the earth is round". It was ridiculed, violently opposed then accepted as being self-evident. I feel as if the current health revolution is facing the same kind of opposition. Obviously, scientific truth does not go through this cycle.

The problem with your explanation though is that nutrition and consequences to the human body are not as easily testable as experiments in chemistry/physics. Daily diet is extremely volatile and the effects of specific foods reveal themselves over the long term. Thus, the scientific method is very hard to apply in this case.

I'm a little annoyed that you're putting words in my mouth though . I did not present any of this information as fact. It is merely the evidence suggested by new research which I happen to read about all the time. Going by your definition, this would in fact be "truth" until a better theory is produced.

Lastly:

By the way, way to assume the entire world has healthcare that works exactly like America's.

wut

[u cnat spel]

@Bunza, Eskimos ate a lot of saturated fats. Saturated fat is good for you weather you live in the tropics or in the polar circles .

If I went on yet another tangent on why grains are bad for you, I would be clogging this thread even more. The main problem with grains is what they're doing to our insulin levels. Sure, there could be a few benefits; however this is by far outweighed by the cons. I could explain the metabolic effects of insulin and why having too much insulin is THE main factor for "Syndrome X", but I feel like I've killed this thread enough that I should stop posting now >_>.

[dhcg86]

Do you guys remember that people used to KNOW that the earth was round, or that god controlled the sun and the moon?

Can someone explain to me what a conspiracy theory is after it is proven to be true?

[alexrjl]

I'm not really bothered about whether you like eating raw meat and hate pasta. I took issue with the very first thing you said, because while "alternative diets" are by and large harmless, "alternative healthcare" ranges from being a cynical scam to being horribly dangerous.

I hope you see the irony in/I'm getting leveled by your "You put words into my mouth! No fair!" line after your previous post about how I think diet soda is really good for me (even if it was, that stuff tastes like ****).

As for my last line. It's all very well saying stuff like "doctors/pharmaceutical companies have an interest in keeping you sick and charging you for treatment" if your view of the world is that it's essentially identical to America except for there being a few more Muslims and better beer, but it starts to look very silly when you realise that not all healthcare provision is profit driven.

[dhcg86]

Originally Posted by alexrjl

I'm not really bothered about whether you like eating raw meat and hate pasta. I took issue with the very first thing you said, because while "alternative diets" are by and large harmless, "alternative healthcare" ranges from being a cynical scam to being horribly dangerous.

I hope you see the irony in/I'm getting leveled by your "You put words into my mouth! No fair!" line after your previous post about how I think diet soda is really good for me (even if it was, that stuff tastes like ****).

As for my last line. It's all very well saying stuff like "doctors/pharmaceutical companies have an interest in keeping you sick and charging you for treatment" if your view of the world is that it's essentially identical to America except for their being a few more Muslims and better beer, but it starts to look very silly when you realise that not all healthcare provision is profit driven.

You really think that america doesnt run the world?
Level?

[alexrjl]

Originally Posted by dhcg86

Do you guys remember that people used to KNOW that the earth was round, or that god controlled the sun and the moon?

Can someone explain to me what a conspiracy theory is after it is proven to be true?

It's called truth. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

There's also a different word for "complimentary and alternative medicine" after It's been proven to work. That word is medicine.

I'm pretty sure there's a "conspiracy theory" that says pokerstars/Merge rigs the deck to create more action. There was also a "conspiracy theory" that superusers existed on AP. One of those things is still called a conspiracy theory, the other has been accepted as true.

If your only reason for believing a conspiracy theory is that in the past some conspiracy theories have been proven to be correct, why are you still playing online poker?

Edit: America may be powerful, but it still has just about the worst healthcare model in the industrialised world.

[Joe Pulaski]

yo coffee never gets this deep irl. get him behind a computer and damn he get surrrrious.

also, bread is second best food behind steak

[dhcg86]

Originally Posted by alexrjl

It's called truth. That's exactly the point I've been trying to make.

There's also a different word for "complimentary and alternative medicine" after It's been proven to work. That word is medicine.

I'm pretty sure there's a "conspiracy theory" that says pokerstars/Merge rigs the deck to create more action. There was also a "conspiracy theory" that superusers existed on AP. One of those things is still called a conspiracy theory, the other has been accepted as true.

If your only reason for believing a conspiracy theory is that in the past some conspiracy theories have been proven to be correct, why are you still playing online poker?

Edit: America may be powerful, but it still has just about the worst healthcare model in the industrialised world.

what current conspiracy theories do you believe in or accept as truth?

[Adversity]

In b4 illuminati.

[alexrjl]

The closest things I can think of off the top of my head are.

- Israel possesses nuclear weapons.
- Evidence was falsified somewhere along the line between the British military and the government in the run-up to the Iraq war.
- Aliens exist (however I think it's unlikely any alien life has been in contact with humans).

Obviously I think there is now sufficient evidence for the theories that they should not be considered conspiracy theories, but of the things I believe I think these are the most likely for people to dismiss as such. Obviously wrt to evidence the belief in aliens is a bit thin, but the universe is a really, really, really big place, so I'm going with it.

[Joe Pulaski]

the female orgasm exists!

[yaqh]

the belief that aliens probably exist because the universe is a big place is not a conspiracy theory. a conspiracy theory has to involve a conspiracy.

[alexrjl]

Originally Posted by yaqh

the belief that aliens probably exist because the universe is a big place is not a conspiracy theory. a conspiracy theory has to involve a conspiracy.

I looked down the Wikipedia list of conspiracy theories and aliens existing was one, even though it was more about area 51 etc. Thought I'd better mention what I believed anyway, especially as it is one of the few "hunches" I have without direct evidence.

You're completely right though.

[plowking2010]

i saw a guy on the highway today driving from Toronto to Buffalo with the licence plate "PKR STAR" ... it was a dodge durango with tinted windows. famous poker pro?