Re: Endless debates (was Burning Fat for Energy- low carb debate-) -Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

(Quoting me:)

> > Anyway, I second Heidi's taking issue with the " only cause " of

> > diabetes being

> > high-carb diets.

(

> I *never* made that statement. And if you and Heidi want to debate a

> point that SOMEONE ELSE made without that person here to

explain/defend

> his point that's your choice. But stop acting as if I made the

> statement.

Me:

You have a good point in that I had assumed without warrant that you

agreed with the statement. However, I never attributed it to you and

I don't see how anything I wrote indicates that I am " acting " as if

you made the statement or agreed with it. It would seem best here,

if you don't, to simply clarify your position with respect to this

question.

( quoting me:)

> > This has been debated on this list plenty in the past, but for one

> > example,

> > T2 diabetes can be induced in rats with high-sugar diets. But the

> > same diets

> > do not produce diabetes in experimental groups supplemented with

fish

> > oils.

(

> Well DUH! What have I been saying in numerous posts? That fish oils

>are an insulin sensitizer!

Me:

Since I was stating my disagreement with a quoted piece of material

that was not yours, and I don't think I even mentioned you by name in

the quoted post, why are you acting like you are arguing with me?

Perhaps the author whose article you cited and Heidi quoted deserves

the " duh " rather than I.

If a naturally present and universal component of a traditional human

diet prevents diabetes, then clearly a " cause " of diabetes is a

deficiency of this component.

(

> Furthermore rats are not people so you cannot

> expect the exact same results, maybe they might occur, but that's

> always a big maybe.

It's a maybe, but not a tremendous maybe. Insulin is basically the

same protein with the same function in all animals. It's present in

worms. Rats blood-sugar systems are similar to ours in many ways,

including with respect to insulin.

Anyway, I cited human evidence also, below, that corroborates the

animal evidence.

(Regarding my statement about gluten inducing T1 in rats,

> Is this the *only* other evidence you're going to trot out? You're

> missing some Chris. Time to spend a few more hours and go back to

> google and look for it because it's fairly significant.

Me:

Are you saying this for any other purpose than to be hostile? What

indication did I give that what I wrote was either the comprehensive

body of evidence for my argument, or the limit of my knowledge on the

subject?

On the contrary, when I began the paragraph with " This has been

debated on this list plenty in the past, but for one example... " it

indicated quite the opposite.

Would I or anyone hold you to the standard that if you write one

post, we must assume you've " trotted out " every single fact contained

within the confines of your brain related to the subject?

(Quoting me:)

> > So a categorical statement that there is " no other cause " to

diabetes

> > than a

> > high-carb diet, is, by the evidence, completely and utterly wrong.

(

> I've come to the conclusion that on this forum the competitive

> atmosphere and, at times, the lack of the joy of sharing

>information in a communal setting is not something I want in my

>life.

I'm sorry if you took personally anything I wrote in the thread. I

meant to write what I wrote in response to Heidi's email, but figured

I'd just write two in one shot, since they were on the same subject.

So I didn't choose to respond to your email as if I was responding to

you personally.

Debating doesn't bother me, and I neither give nor take personally in

a debate, so I guess I tend to assume that others are the same way.

I'll try to be more careful in how I phrase my emails and to whom I

appear to direct the email.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Re: Re: Endless debates (was Burning Fat for Energy- low

>carb debate-) -Chris

>

>

>

>

>Actually some people may love the back and forth competitive

>one-upmanship, I however, do not feel that it is productive when it

>gets out of hand. There is a better way to discuss topics than going on

>the attack.

I saw absolutely nothing in Chris' posts that constituted an " attack. " JMHO.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>I've come to the conclusion that on this forum the competitive

>atmosphere and, at times, the lack of the joy of sharing information in

>a communal setting is not something I want in my life. This back and

>forth debating, for me, has really gotten to be a drag.

Well, DO feel free not to debate! But I for one have learned a LOT

from debating with and he's a gentleman (doesn't call

anyone names). I've learned a lot from listening to others debate

too. Have two intelligent people (or more) intelligently debating

is a great way to learn stuff you didn't know. It is certainly time

consuming for the debaters though, so as has been said

before ... feel free to opt out or hit the delete button.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

had written:

> A few things are worth noting about the instance to which you are

> referring

> here (the 20 rep squat thread):

______

responded:

<<<<<No Chris. I was referring to the majority of your posts to me, not just

the one you mentioned.>>>

_____

currently writes:

You said that I questioned your experience, and that was the only time I did

anything resembling that, which is why I chose it as the example that seemed

to be embodying your criticism.

_____

wrote:

<<<<If i have hurt your feelings by being snide I apologize.>>>>

____

writes:

Oh, no you haven't.

_____

had written:

> like the recent one addressing the fact,

> apparent to you,

> that I'd emptied the entire contents of my brain into an email

____

responded:

<<<I dont recognize what you are referring to here. >>>

____

presently writes:

I was referring to the immediately last thread we debated in, in which you

asked me if what I'd said was all I could " trot out " as evidence that there are

other causal mechanism in diabetes independent of high-carb diets, after I

mentioned two rodent experiments.

_____

Chris