PILOT SPIN

Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: CharlieTango on October 25, 2015, 10:26:34 AM

Title: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: CharlieTango on October 25, 2015, 10:26:34 AM
I recently figured out that I was fat and unhealthy by believing and following the government's 'science' based recommendations.

We are all pretty familiar with James Watts and Micheal Mann et al and how they had to 'hide the decline' in order for the remaining and corrected data to support their theory.

The USDA's food pyramid is similarly based on cherry picked data and an irrelevant study. 

Ancel Keys (Nutritionist for whom K rations are named) got it started with a study in 1953 where he demonstrated a correlation between high saturated fat consumption and high levels of heart disease in 7 countries. This study along with the Russians rabbit study in 1910 is the basis for our modern ideas regarding cholesterol and heart disease.

The problem with the 7 nation study is that Keys had data from 22 nations but had to throw most of it out to show the correlation he believed in.  When the other 15 nations are added there is not correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease.  Much like Mann et al hiding the decline to support the hockey stick.

The 1910 study had the same goal and showed a correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease but used rabbits that are purely vegetarians and consume zero dietary cholesterol. The same study using omnivores might have been valid but 'science' was okay with relying on these two invalid reports.

In 1988 Surgeon General Coop confirmed (with no new studies / evidence to rely on) that the science was as sound as the science behind tobacco as a health hazard and scared us into following an upside down / wrong pyramid that focused on grains and seed oils. (The problem is these foods cause inflammation that results in atherosclerosis, the very thing they are supposed to prevent.)

Even today the bad science dominates the thinking and people without any calcium deposited in their arteries are prescribed dangerous statins because we are afraid of cholesterol that is essential.

I'm begginning to believe that information from governments supported by popular science are to be believed at you peril.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Sleepingsquirrel on October 25, 2015, 10:41:17 AM
I have never been interested in my cholesterol number , I did get a flu shot this year because I perceived  my risk changed (first time ever). My Grand-children are living with me (one in daycare one in 5th grade). Should I get them vaccinated for Influenza?

The science for selecting the strains to protect against influenza must be connected to the warming science. Last year the vaccine was 22% effective. :P
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: txflyer on October 25, 2015, 11:10:44 AM
Grains, nuts, oils, and all that so called healthy stuff tears my GI system up if I eat very much of it.

I go by the old saying "too much of anything is bad" and try to eat a little of each food group every day.

Except dairy. Dairy tears me a new one. I used to love milk, but it's either my aging system or something in the milk has changed. 

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 25, 2015, 12:12:15 PM
I've eaten low carb for quite awhile.  I use butter, I have eggs for breakfast nearly every day.  My cholesterol was tested high (260+) many years ago.  I did the ground turkey, chicken, etc and never saw it come down significantly. Probably a half dozen years or so ago my family doc out me on a low dosage statin. It keeps things at an acceptable level.  Personally, I believe cholesterol is a genetic thing and you're pretty much stuck with what you get.  Perhaps Michael can weigh in since genetics is his specialty.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: nddons on October 25, 2015, 04:33:45 PM
Grains, nuts, oils, and all that so called healthy stuff tears my GI system up if I eat very much of it.

I go by the old saying "too much of anything is bad" and try to eat a little of each food group every day.

Except dairy. Dairy tears me a new one. I used to love milk, but it's either my aging system or something in the milk has changed.
Getting old ain't for sissies.   ;)
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: GordonT on October 25, 2015, 05:48:15 PM
If you want an eye opener read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes!

If you want to loose weight you have to eliminate grains, starches and sugars and replace them with fat!!!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: CharlieTango on October 26, 2015, 05:09:20 AM
Paleo diet / lifestyle is working well for me.  No more indigestion, various health problems like skin problems, energy levels, sleep cycles have corrected and the weight comes off while I eat tons of delicious food.

This is in agreement with GordonT's post above because it includes eliminating grains, starches and sugars and replacing them with healthy fats.  Another big aspect is replacing seed oils with olive, coconut, palm oil and grass fed butter.

McDonalds ruined their fries by replacing the healthy beef tallow with seed oils, now they taste bad and contribute to the health problems that the change was supposed to correct.

Question everything about nutrition, the science is flawed.

Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Steingar on October 26, 2015, 08:43:23 AM
The only problem with the food pyramid is there is no "one size fits all" treatment that works for humans.  We are all genetically diverse, and the microflora of our alimentary tracts are also quite different.  As a result different people will do better eating different things.  That said, humans are omnivorous, and can survive eating everything from whale fat in the Arctic to an entirely vegetarian regimen in Asia.

Your BMI doesn't have to meet any medical regimentation, but you should be vigilant about the levels of metabolites in your body, as an overage of one or more can be indicative of or even lead to disease.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 26, 2015, 10:04:36 AM
Your BMI doesn't have to meet any medical regimentation, but you should be vigilant about the levels of metabolites in your body, as an overage of one or more can be indicative of or even lead to disease.

Metabolites?  How does one go about being "vigilant" about them?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Jaybird180 on October 26, 2015, 12:26:01 PM
I recently figured out that I was fat and unhealthy by believing and following the government's 'science' based recommendations.

We are all pretty familiar with James Watts and Micheal Mann et al and how they had to 'hide the decline' in order for the remaining and corrected data to support their theory.

The USDA's food pyramid is similarly based on cherry picked data and an irrelevant study. 

Ancel Keys (Nutritionist for whom K rations are named) got it started with a study in 1953 where he demonstrated a correlation between high saturated fat consumption and high levels of heart disease in 7 countries. This study along with the Russians rabbit study in 1910 is the basis for our modern ideas regarding cholesterol and heart disease.

The problem with the 7 nation study is that Keys had data from 22 nations but had to throw most of it out to show the correlation he believed in.  When the other 15 nations are added there is not correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease.  Much like Mann et al hiding the decline to support the hockey stick.

The 1910 study had the same goal and showed a correlation between dietary cholesterol and heart disease but used rabbits that are purely vegetarians and consume zero dietary cholesterol. The same study using omnivores might have been valid but 'science' was okay with relying on these two invalid reports.

In 1988 Surgeon General Coop confirmed (with no new studies / evidence to rely on) that the science was as sound as the science behind tobacco as a health hazard and scared us into following an upside down / wrong pyramid that focused on grains and seed oils. (The problem is these foods cause inflammation that results in atherosclerosis, the very thing they are supposed to prevent.)

Even today the bad science dominates the thinking and people without any calcium deposited in their arteries are prescribed dangerous statins because we are afraid of cholesterol that is essential.

I'm begginning to believe that information from governments supported by popular science are to be believed at you peril.
Everything promoted by the government has been vetted by those that consider the economic impact to U.S. budgetary concerns and geopolitical authority.  If you remember to always follow the dollar when thinking of the government you'll usually be close to the truth of what is really right/ wrong.  Morals and Ethics are sold daily on the S&P 10,000
 
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: carnack on October 26, 2015, 07:45:01 PM

Everything promoted by the government has been vetted by those that consider the economic impact to U.S. budgetary concerns and geopolitical authority.  If you remember to always follow the dollar when thinking of the government you'll usually be close to the truth of what is really right/ wrong.  Morals and Ethics are sold daily on the S&P 10,000
[/quote]

Damn... I REALLY hate agreeing with Jaybird...
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Ron22 on October 26, 2015, 07:58:59 PM
That said, humans are omnivorous, and can survive eating everything from whale fat in the Arctic to an entirely vegetarian regimen in Asia.

The fact that humans can survive eating anything is quite an mazing fact. To bad most people do not understand it.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: CharlieTango on October 28, 2015, 07:08:17 AM
The daily caller sees similar correlation that started this thread.

First, United Nations officials label bacon and deli meats as carcinogens, and now scientists are claiming that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are not only heating the planet, they’re making people dumber.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/27/scientists-claim-high-co2-levels-are-making-people-dumber/#ixzz3ps5en8Xg
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: nddons on October 28, 2015, 08:41:06 AM

The daily caller sees similar correlation that started this thread.

First, United Nations officials label bacon and deli meats as carcinogens, and now scientists are claiming that higher concentrations of carbon dioxide are not only heating the planet, they’re making people dumber.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/27/scientists-claim-high-co2-levels-are-making-people-dumber/#ixzz3ps5en8Xg

I think, scientifically, the people that are getting dumber by high Co2 levels are those that believe the science is settled, and the debate is over.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Number7 on October 28, 2015, 09:05:06 AM

[/quote]

I think, scientifically, the people that are getting dumber by high Co2 levels are those that believe the science is settled, and the debate is over.
[/quote]

Whenever someone pushes the government line on anything that limits personal liberty, you know you are being conned. That's why so many progressives wet their pants every time a new "scientific" finding is introduced. They LOVE anything that limits personal liberty, freedom to make one's own decisions on anything except abortion, and progressives seem to be obsessed with having someone to tell them what to do, think, and say.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Anthony on October 28, 2015, 12:52:48 PM
Whenever someone pushes the government line on anything that limits personal liberty, you know you are being conned. That's why so many progressives wet their pants every time a new "scientific" finding is introduced. They LOVE anything that limits personal liberty, freedom to make one's own decisions on anything except abortion, and progressives seem to be obsessed with having someone to tell them what to do, think, and say.


The absolute trust in government, and government solutions that limit freedoms, and result into more control of the populace baffles me.  Government is NOT benign, and its purpose is to sustain itself, and grow, not solve problems.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Geico on October 31, 2015, 04:36:03 AM

[/quote]
Getting old ain't for sissies.   ;)
[/quote]

You got that right!
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Steingar on January 19, 2016, 07:30:40 AM
Yeah, and vaccines cause autism.  Whatever.
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: FastEddieB on January 19, 2016, 09:01:53 AM

I propose a new logical fallacy...

Argumentum ad Governmentum

Takes the form,

The government say x...

Therefore, x is false.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on January 19, 2016, 11:21:38 AM

I propose a new logical fallacy...

Argumentum ad Governmentum

Takes the form,

The government say x...

Therefore, x is false.

What do you think?
I prefer

The government is often wrong
The government says x
Therefore, x deserves research and observation and my part before complying or endorsing
Title: Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory similare to Lipid hypothesis
Post by: FastEddieB on January 19, 2016, 01:08:09 PM
Of course! That's good skeptical thinking.

And not fallacious.