|
Munchies_Matt wrote: I am increasingly convinced the world of medical science doesnt know its arse from its elbow.
You haven't noticed all the money they make? If everyone was healthy they would go out of business!
|
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: Yes, but you increase your chances of many other bad things.
Ah, you mean last years/decades research that says fat is bad for you.
Nah, sorry, you arent up to date on the latest Ryan, now fat is good and transfats are bad.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: News flash: I can lose weight by chopping off my leg.
Brilliant! I think I just got the idea for my next novel! 
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: News flash: I can lose weight by chopping off my leg.
Good point.
Some people might lose weight by chopping off their ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Eating more fat implies eating less sugar.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
SO you cut down on smoking by eating more curries do you?
|
|
|
|
|
One can replace calories with calories (fat for sugar), but not replace a smoke with curries.
Unless I can smoke the curries.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you eat the same sugar and eat more fat and get obese?
|
|
|
|
|
Unless you put sugar in your dairy products.
Fat/sugar ratios around 50:50 fool the body into thinking that you haven't eaten enough -- when did you ever feel full after eating ice cream?
I'll bet you never have; most people could continuously eat ice cream until they explode. You need to eat other stuff (either lots of fat or lots of sugar is OK) to trigger your body's "I've eaten enough" response.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Amazing.... Plus the other day I heard that another study has found that a full fat diet does not increase the risks of heart attack or stroke.
Seems like anything else with science anymore.... Just wait a while and all the guidance and assumptions will change....
Truthfully, if I hear another "The science is settled" on any subject where it is still all conjecture, I think I'll puke....
Oh wait.... my stomach is rumbling.....
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, its all a crock of sh*t if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
|
There have been a lot of studies with these results for years, it's only now that it's reaching a more mainstream audience. I first started adding more fat to my diet after reading fatland ten years ago. It's a great read on how fat was systematically vilified over a period of years.
Munchies_Matt wrote: I am increasingly convinced the world of medical science doesnt know its arse from its elbow.
Before you do that, check to see how difficult it has been to do nutrition research, especially in America.
1. It's too expensive to get people to follow a prescribed diet for the years it takes, and then people cheat.
2. Surveys are one of the best tools, but then people lie, and mis-remember to feel better about themselves.
3. The Standard American Diet (SAD) is so awful, that almost any change has a positive effect. For example people cut fat by eating less fast food and improve. The effect isn't because of the fat, but that the fast food was so awful.
There are many other areas of medical science that can get much more accurate results, but even then there are so many other factors.
|
|
|
|
|
I think they know the difference anatomically they just don't know about anything between the two points.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
The studies that were used to "prove" that dietary fats, especially cholesterol, caused heart disease were made a very long time ago and were extremely flawed. It takes the medical establishment years to shift its position. the only reason that fats are bad for you is they are high in calories and we're nearly all overweight! The food processing industry largely replaced fats with sugar to compensate for the lack of taste. In order to get around the loss of hard animal fats (cholesterol), margerine was introduced and hydrogenated vetetable oils replaced animal fats. The hydrogenization process creates trans fats as a by-product.
Both sugar and trans fats are now recognized to be bad for you. Sugar, depending on the quantities and what other food is consumed at the same time, is pretty much the cause of type 2 diabetes and a major contibutor to obesity. Trans fats are never good for you (unless starvation is the alternative!) The corollary is that we were duped into unhealthy diets exactly because of bad studies (I believe the first was from Russia in the 30s!)
These facts have been known for years. John Yudkin wrote "Pure, White and Deadly" in 1986 see link for downloads[^], but you still see "low fat" lauded as the be all and end all of a healthy diet. A low fat diet for infants is actually detrimental to healthy brain development (explains a lot, huh?)
So enjoy the Roast Beef and Yorkshire Puds and bacon sarnies (don't start about nitrosamines!) and stop worrying! 
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: The food processing industry largely replaced fats with sugar
And sodium. Oh God, the sodium. You eat a low fat diet, you're practically guaranteed to get an entire week's worth of sodium in one meal.
|
|
|
|
|
It probably increases the risk of hitting the "s" key instead of the "a" key when typing the word "diabetes", though. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, don't be sn sss.
BDF
The internet makes dumb people dumber and clever people cleverer.
-- PaulowniaK
|
|
|
|
|
I had heart surgery and a stent implant. A full fat diet will kill me before I have a chance to develop type 2 diabetes..if my cardiologist doesn't kill me first.
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I keep getting certain agents asking for some documents like passport, birth certificate, dental records before they will submit my application, as it standard practise...however most seem happy with a CV and my assurance that they will be supplied when needed. Is it me, or does the agent that needs them sound a bit 'odd' I think these particular documents could be used for ID theft?... Or am I being paranoid 
|
|
|
|
|
yes
(please send bank details so I can provide further proof)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
|
|
|
|
|
I could tell you, but I'll need your bank account number first.
Edit: I'm too slow today!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
|
|
|
|
|
Copy the certificate, proving you have one, and cross out any details that can be used to identify you beyond your first/last name.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually a great idea. I wonder why it never occurred to me. 
GOTOs are a bit like wire coat hangers: they tend to breed in the darkness, such that where there once were few, eventually there are many, and the program's architecture collapses beneath them. (Fran Poretto)
|
|
|
|
|
glennPattonPUB wrote: dental records
It's to prove you won't bite people when under stress or confronted.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
