The Fecking Naany State

[oaksoft]

1 minute ago, smcc said:

But

"Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.

The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much.

“About 85 percent of the cholesterol in the circulation is manufactured by the body in the liver,” he says. “It isn’t coming directly from the cholesterol that you eat.”

This, of course, refers only to the atherogenic effect of ingested cholesterol-rich foods. In terms of weight the important factor is energy in v. energy. The sad truth is that most people in Scotland eat far more than they need; you only need to look around the streets to see that.

All of this stuff is ongoing research. At a chemical level it is very difficult to understand what is going on with even the simplest reactions.

The burning of something as small as methane gas requires about 50 steps including radical chemistry.

Biology sits on top of chemistry at a higher level of abstraction and is in a completely different league of difficulty in terms of being able to tease out cause and effect. Into that vacuum of knowledge pours every crackpot nutter you could possibly imagine spouting all kinds of garbage. This is a huge problem because if you have cancer you need access to the best and most helpful and accurate information there is out there to help you. What you actually get are uneducated idiots spouting shite like "all sugars are feeding your cancer" and "sugar toxifies your body". Those crackpots then attempt to undermine genuine experts by falsely claiming that all peer reviewed research is corrupted by big business.

This sort of thing is potentially highly dangerous and the effect can be tragic on those affected by terrible diseases. It's f**king shameful behaviour.

[FTOF]

58 minutes ago, smcc said:

But

"Research is beginning to show that your genetic makeup – not diet – is the driving force behind cholesterol levels, says cardiologist Steven Nissen, MD.

The body creates cholesterol in amounts much larger than what you can eat, Dr. Nissen says. So avoiding foods that are high in cholesterol won’t affect your blood cholesterol levels very much.

“About 85 percent of the cholesterol in the circulation is manufactured by the body in the liver,” he says. “It isn’t coming directly from the cholesterol that you eat.”

This, of course, refers only to the atherogenic effect of ingested cholesterol-rich foods. In terms of weight the important factor is energy in v. energy. The sad truth is that most people in Scotland eat far more than they need; you only need to look around the streets to see that.

That's a discussion for another thread. Or maybe not!

I happen to agree with the doctor that genetic make up is the major influence on your health and as you mention, recent research is indeed backing this up.

However, the field of epigenetics adds more and complexity to over simplified statements related to both environmental and genetic influences on health.

Epigenetics for beginners -https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/what-is-epigenetics/

Advanced epigenetics - https://bscb.org/learning-resources/softcell-e-learning/epigenetics-its-not-just-genes-that-make-us/

 

 

Edited October 3, 2018 by FTOF

[smcc]

12 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

All of this stuff is ongoing research. At a chemical level it is very difficult to understand what is going on with even the simplest reactions.

The burning of something as small as methane gas requires about 50 steps including radical chemistry.

Biology sits on top of chemistry at a higher level of abstraction and is in a completely different league of difficulty in terms of being able to tease out cause and effect. Into that vacuum of knowledge pours every crackpot nutter you could possibly imagine spouting all kinds of garbage. This is a huge problem because if you have cancer you need access to the best and most helpful and accurate information there is out there to help you. What you actually get are uneducated idiots spouting shite like "all sugars are feeding your cancer" and "sugar toxifies your body". Those crackpots then attempt to undermine genuine experts by falsely claiming that all peer reviewed research is corrupted by big business.

This sort of thing is potentially highly dangerous and the effect can be tragic on those affected by terrible diseases. It's f**king shameful behaviour.

What is relevance of these comments? It looks as if you are responding to a different post. I did not mention sugars, nor any of the crackpot theories. It is known that cholesterol levels are largely genetically determined and that increased calories are largely responsible for today's  obesity epidemic.

[stlucifer]

36 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You are describing allowing poorer people to access cheap drink as though it's some kind of basic human right they are now being denied.

Alcohol abuse is not a problem limited to poorer people. I genuinely have no idea what your point is on this.

All classes of society are abusing it and the cost on the NHS is a huge problem. That's the length and breadth of it.

Not sure what poverty has to do with it.

WTF are you on about? I never implied that alcohol abuse is limited to any section of the population.

I said that the impact of minimum, pricing was a greater burden on the less well off and could stop the poorest in society from accessing a reasonable amount of alcohol for a reasonable price. I was comparing the effect on one section to another. You are so far up yourself you don't even take the 13 seconds you crave to actually read and understand other people posts.

I also said I would be more understanding of a policy which did this IF the government had the balls to put it through as a tax which would better compensate for the reduction in sales they are hoping for.  

[stlucifer]

12 minutes ago, smcc said:

What is relevance of these comments? It looks as if you are responding to a different post. I did not mention sugars, nor any of the crackpot theories. It is known that cholesterol levels are largely genetically determined and that increased calories are largely responsible for today's  obesity epidemic.

I know what you mean. 

[saintnextlifetime]

46 minutes ago, smcc said:

What is relevance of these comments? It looks as if you are responding to a different post. I did not mention sugars, nor any of the crackpot theories. It is known that cholesterol levels are largely genetically determined and that increased calories are largely responsible for today's  obesity epidemic.

I wouldn't even have dignified that with a response smcc , the guy is a sanctimonious git. .

Edited October 3, 2018 by saintnextlifetime

[oaksoft]

4 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

A typical pompous response from you where you simply don't answer the question.

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

So the idea now is to show that because you can identify one set of corrupt scientists half a century ago that you can justify writing off the entire scientific community of experts ever since and that this also then simultaneously allows any old crackpot theory to be "valid until proven wrong"? Bizarre thought process. Exactly the same reasoning religious people use. It's an intellectually bankrupt approach and preys on the most vulnerable and desperate people in our society.

Absolutely shameful behaviour.

[oaksoft]

8 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

I said that the impact of minimum, pricing was a greater burden on the less well off and could stop the poorest in society from accessing a reasonable amount of alcohol for a reasonable price.

Then my answer is .... so what? Who cares? It's hardly a priority.

[smcc]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

So the idea now is to show that because you can identify one set of corrupt scientists half a century ago that you can justify writing off the entire scientific community of experts ever since and that this also then simultaneously allows any old crackpot theory to be "valid until proven wrong"? Bizarre thought process. Exactly the same reasoning religious people use. It's an intellectually bankrupt approach and preys on the most vulnerable and desperate people in our society.

Absolutely shameful behaviour.

Are you seriously suggesting that there have been no corrupt scientists in the past half century?

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, smcc said:

Are you seriously suggesting that there have been no corrupt scientists in the past half century?

I think he's suggesting it would be foolish to discount scientists, and their work, based on some who were corrupt? 

Back on topic........................

The government should, and has throughout the years, continue to influence the public if it's for the good of the people and government resources.

Yes theirs some cases they could have overstepped the mark but in this instance, trying to reduce obesity, I believe it's step in the right direction.

[faraway saint]

[smcc]

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

I think he's suggesting it would be foolish to discount scientists, and their work, based on some who were corrupt? 

Back on topic........................

The government should, and has throughout the years, continue to influence the public if it's for the good of the people and government resources.

Yes theirs some cases they could have overstepped the mark but in this instance, trying to reduce obesity, I believe it's step in the right direction.

He seems to be suggesting that scientists always tell the "gospel truth" and he doesn't seem to accept that too much sugar is not good for you.

[faraway saint]

4 minutes ago, smcc said:

He seems to be suggesting that scientists always tell the "gospel truth" and he doesn't seem to accept that too much sugar is not good for you.

Read into it what you will, depends what you want to believe. 

I seriously don't think he's suggesting too much sugar isn't good for you. 

[St.Ricky]

Arguments are made that nature and inheritance have the major impact on one's health. Others argue that we can nurture our bodies and mind through creating optical conditions.

There is some evidence of the former so research is focussing on the latter.  I suggest that were we to introduce Alcohol,  Tobacco or Sugar into the  country then it might be dowbtfull that they might be doubtful in gaining accreditation for use in the country.. I'm 

[oaksoft]

1 hour ago, smcc said:

He seems to be suggesting that scientists always tell the "gospel truth" and he doesn't seem to accept that too much sugar is not good for you.

FFS. Is it a full moon tonight? 

Edited October 3, 2018 by oaksoft

[smcc]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

FFS. Is it a full moon tonight? 

As a "scientist" you should be aware that it is not! I am surprised that you believe that the phases  of the moon affect my mental state. 

[St.Ricky]

I have to admit that I question my own sanity (I know,  I know,  others do too)  but for posting on here.  Each of us have our own views,  our own vocabulary and approach to argument.  Some discussions move forward,  some don't, this looks to be one of the latter. 

 

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

I have to admit that I question my own sanity (I know,  I know,  others do too)  but for posting on here.  Each of us have our own views,  our own vocabulary and approach to argument.  Some discussions move forward,  some don't, this looks to be one of the latter. 

 

A potentially interesting conversation died instantly when saintnextlifetime was exposed as a conspiracy theory crackpot pretending to be a scientist offering advice about sugar "toxifying the body". I'm afraid there was nowhere to go after that. It is important that charlatans like that are exposed wherever they are found. They are poison for vulnerable and ill people. He's not the only one out there.

[saintnextlifetime]

20 hours ago, oaksoft said:

So the idea now is to show that because you can identify one set of corrupt scientists half a century ago that you can justify writing off the entire scientific community of experts ever since and that this also then simultaneously allows any old crackpot theory to be "valid until proven wrong"? Bizarre thought process. Exactly the same reasoning religious people use. It's an intellectually bankrupt approach and preys on the most vulnerable and desperate people in our society.

Absolutely shameful behaviour.

So you still can't say where the you read your ," the body needs sugar" quip ?

Yes one set of corrupt scientists got caught and as long as big business is funding "scientific" research then they will always be looked at in askance. You however seem to think that they are infallible  . Exactly the same reasoning religious people use. It's not a matter of conspiracies , it's a case of big companies wanting to find out certain things to help their business. There are plenty of research projects that don't happen because no one will fund them , that is shocking . You are not capable of doing your own research , you just want to invalidate anything that doesnae fit in with your fixed , sanctimonious beliefs.

[saintnextlifetime]

8 hours ago, smcc said:

As a "scientist" you should be aware that it is not! I am surprised that you believe that the phases  of the moon affect my mental state. 

He would need to read a peer reviewed paper on it first . .

[St.Ricky]

7 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

He would need to read a peer reviewed paper on it first . .

SNL. Some arguments  just don't reach a conclusion.  My best guess is that this is one of those. 

[oaksoft]

13 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

So you still can't say where the you read your ," the body needs sugar" quip ?

Yes one set of corrupt scientists got caught and as long as big business is funding "scientific" research then they will always be looked at in askance. You however seem to think that they are infallible  . Exactly the same reasoning religious people use. It's not a matter of conspiracies , it's a case of big companies wanting to find out certain things to help their business. There are plenty of research projects that don't happen because no one will fund them , that is shocking . You are not capable of doing your own research , you just want to invalidate anything that doesnae fit in with your fixed , sanctimonious beliefs.

Isn't it time for your evening pills?

[stlucifer]

18 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

Arguments are made that nature and inheritance have the major impact on one's health. Others argue that we can nurture our bodies and mind through creating optical conditions.

There is some evidence of the former so research is focussing on the latter.  I suggest that were we to introduce Alcohol,  Tobacco or Sugar into the  country then it might be dowbtfull that they might be doubtful in gaining accreditation for use in the country.. I'm PISSED.

FIFY

[St.Ricky]

7 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

FIFY

Love it. Isn't predictive text just wonderful.  Thanks for pointing this one out. One of my best, if I might be permitted to say so Lucy.

[faraway saint]

8 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Love it. Isn't predictive text just wonderful.  Thanks for pointing this one out. One of my best, if I might be permitted to say so Lucy.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!