 |
Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb, alt.support.diabetes, sci.med.cardiology
From: Bob Pastorio <pasto...@rica.net>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2003 23:07:07 -0400
Local: Wed, Jul 9 2003 11:07 pm
Subject: Re: A Brilliant Cardiologist Once Wrote......
Chris Malcolm wrote: It explains my "practical understanding" of how different countries and > >See, here we get into credentials. I've been around the world as a > Ah, that explains where your inflated ideas of food consumption come cultures see their dining needs. Your assumptions are ignorant and self-serving. In fact, the differences between commercial feeding and domestic feeding has been well-studied and understood. Because you're blissfully ignorant of it doesn't mean that everybody is. > >And both of you missed the point, again. That with two pounds of food Well, then, that settles that. No one who isn't a dirigible eats more > >distributed across three or more meals means that each will be so small > Three or *more* meals? I don't know *anyone* who eats more than three than 3 times a day. Next question. Idiot. > And where does this It's sneaking that "equal size" in there that lets you steam up and do > idea of balance between meal sizes come from? I don't know anyone who > eats three meals a day of roughly equal size who isn't considerably > overweight. (I don't know any athletes or heavy manual workers, who > may wellneed to eat that much, without getting fat.) your strawman thing. Nicely done. Well, except for the small fact that no one has posited that but you. I was illustrating yet another point that sailed over your head that if > >as to be mere snacks and that any hungers between those sparse meals Right. Now you're also a physiologist in addition to a nutritionist, > >must either go unsatisfied > If you can't skip breakfast and wait for lunch then I don't think it's cultural anthropologist, sociologist and all-round social theoretician. Good on ya, mate. > >It takes discipline to restrain one self at those buffets. But then The utter failure of the human race to colonize space is because those > >again it takes discipline to restrict eating by whatever name you call > >it. It takes discipline to restrict carbs. Or to eat low-fat. It all > >takes discipline. But the ones where caloric intake is counted rather > >than gross weight have actual science behind them rather than some > >fanciful story about mountain climbers. > Nutritional science is well known to be one of the "sciences" least damned astrophysicists haven't done their jobs. Freakin scientists. Can't count on them for anything. What unabated twaddle. > In fact there is suggestive evidence that Nutritional science, like all science is an ongoing process, not a > the failings of nutritional science's comprehension is partly to > blame. Another good indication of its scientific status is the > "scientific" basis on which it decided that it would be good for > people's health to subsitute margarine for butter. The truth is that > orthodox nutritional science as taught to professional dieticians and > nutritionists and doctors is scandalously unscientific. firmament. And, yes, the state of it is in ferment and has been erratic in the past. But the nature of science is that it's a process that constantly unfolds. Today's science is the best information we have today. Tomorrow's will be more precise. And the next day's will be more exact yet. But that isn't to say Orthodox nutritional teachings have not been good. Agreed. BTW, there But not to put too fine a point on it, science is proceeding in quarters But, not one scientist has endorsed weighing food rather than analyzing I bet it's a conspiracy... <dark music up> Pastorio You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||