Good theories (was: Re: Soy & Milk)

[Guest guest]

> -

>

> >But everytime I examine the implications of the GI theory,

> >you accuse me of arguing against straw men. If you aren't prepared

to

> >have your theory used prospectively, you shouldn't put it on the

> >table.

>

> Here we go again.

You don't get to decide when you do and don't like a theory. It

either fits all the data, or you chuck it.

<big snip>

> First, your assumption that traditional methods of preparation

always raise

> the glycemic index of a food is, I believe, faulty. ... I ferment

my

> yoghurt for 24 hours, which I'm told leaves only about 1% of the

lactose in

> the final product. Some of the galactose from lactose consumption

remains,

> and some, AFAIK, is also consumed by the bacteria responsible for

producing

> the yoghurt. So in all likelihood, the GI of yoghurt thus prepared

is

> lower than the GI of the raw ingredients

http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm

Go to the dairy section:

Milk, full fat 39 27

Milk, skim 46 32

Yogurt, unspecified 51 36

Yakult (fermented milk) 64 45

Nice theory. Just like GI, it doesn't fit the facts.

>Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a

> person's vulnerability to foods high on the index depends on how

deficient

> he is in zinc -- the more deficient, the more vulnerable, the less

> deficient, the less vulnerable. (This is, of course, a stunning

> simplification, but zinc is involved in glucose sensitivity and

metabolism,

> so it's not actually a bad example.)

>The healthy people WAP observed who

> ate higher on the index were eating whole foods balanced as best as

> possible and grown on fertile, zinc-rich soil, so of course they

fared

> better than people eating modern devitalized foods high on the

index. Such

> a scenario would involve two factors -- the GI, and zinc. Reality

is

> likely to be much more complicated, of course, but complete

understanding

> doesn't usually come in one step.

Remember when Suze and I were talking about endothelial dysfunction

and how copper is a catalyst for superoxide dismutase? Well, as Suze

points out, zinc is also a catalyst for the enzyme. You zinc argument

just underscores what a good theory does: it fits all the data.

Meanewhile you are now claiming two factors: zinc and GI. You keep

backing away from GI when you don't like what it predicts, you keep

saying you don't believe in it 100%, you keep claiming

multifactoriality. This is straight out of cholesterol science!

But more importantly, it shows how science is done. If future data

contradicts the endothelial theory, then I'll drop it. I won't say

that its a " good guide " or that I " mostly " believe in it. Thats the

same bunk that the cholesterol scientists are doing.

> ..there are several reasons carrots and potatoes are unhealthy,

> though potatoes are far, far worse. Potatoes, besides prompting a

> tremendous rise in blood sugar and prompting an equally enormous

release of

> insulin, feeds bad flora in the gut. What's your evidence that

potatoes

> are healthy?

This must be one of the places in which you are a believer in the GI

theory!

WAP is the evidence that they're healthy. I love how potatoes are now

unhealthy because they 'prompt an enormous relase of insulin' but

earlier you got mad at me for arguing against your 'straw man' that

according to you, insulin is toxic. How am I supposed to know when

you ignore the GI theory, when you rely on other random tidbits like

zinc, and when you actually do believe in it?

> (BTW, IIRC you said you think you're somewhat hypoglycemic -- which

means

> you have a damaged insulin mechanism and can therefore benefit by

some

> degree of carb restriction.)

Yup, which is why I eat about 30/20/50. Spending my high school,

college and skibum years guzzling soda pop will do that to you. Lucky

for me it was soda and not a really high GI food like potatoes! Oh

wait, I'll bet this is one of the times in which you conveniently

discard the GI theory.

[Guest guest]

-

>You don't get to decide when you do and don't like a theory. It

>either fits all the data, or you chuck it.

Until and unless you show me (and anyone else reading this thread) where I

espoused this theory, stop wasting my time.

-