Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Causation vs correlation.
Root cause vs mere happen chance.
Once again, let's just spew anything we can, calling it science, to justify our statism where we banned something because we "don't like" it, all the while claiming we are doing this to you for your benefit... your health... because we care.
Horse poo!
You are right, but I can tell you the cause. Banning flames or gasoline will prevent fire.
When people eat sugar, insulin rises which prevents fat burning. That means any fat with a meal cannot be used as energy, including fish or olive oil. However fish or olive oil is not the kind of fatty acid the fat cells releasing during glucose depletion. We store fat as saturated fats. Most of the body can run on fat except for some vital brain tissue. So the liver begins to create ketone bodies and a small amount of glucose. If the muscles took up glucose during fasting , then the brain would get no glucose and you'd die. So circulating saturated fat tends to play a role in regulating glucose uptake, aka it suppresses it.
So what happens when you eat sugar and saturated fat? What happens when you eat trans fats which are 10 times more suppressive of glucose up take by muscles? Your cells starve and beg for more food while you are eating. No surprise overeating is nigh. Then body quickly cleans up the mess by storing lots of fat as soon as possible like in your muscles and liver , making a nice foie gras out of you.
Notice no traditional ancient diets combine sugar and fat Notice low carb or low fat respectively take away the fuse, the flame or the fuel tank. Meanwhile gurus both bicker back and forth not knowing they are both falling for a complex cause fallacy. Eat eggs and butter with impunity. Eat all the rice and potatoes as you please...All the data is there supporting rice eating or an yolk and butter fest.
Another fun fact is k2. K2 is created by the fermentation of veggies with K vitamin. Gain fed cattle do not have K, and yogurt or cheese tend not to have K2 made from their milk products. Even more fun is the antibiotics in everything kill off gut bacteria, removing the last chance to ferment some spinach into k2 in your own gut. That means calcium will end up in the soft tissues and not in your bones and teeth. It will calcify your arteries and you will get osteoporosis.
Who among you has more right to choose what I may or may not eat? Who among you has a right to prohibit me from choosing to eat at an all you can eat buffet, going back as often as I choose? Who among you has a right to say I cannot drink a 32 oz soda? By what right do you make this proclamation?
...in real Liberty, people are Free To Choose...
Would you be against at least requiring food companies to disclose honestly what's in the food?
Would you be against at least requiring food companies to disclose honestly what's in the food?
That way, people are free to choose.
Nope. Da guberment can lie just like they do. What do you think dextrose is? Its a spin word. I'd rather lower my taxes so I could subscribe to a private research group that will tell me whats in it.Ancel Keys was just another da guberment lackey.
Would you be against at least requiring food companies to disclose honestly what's in the food?
That way, people are free to choose.
Yes. I absolutely would be against the government REQUIRING food companies to disclose anything. I am not against the idea of the government suggesting and even recommending these companies do this.
Now come the people who will scream, "What about the peanut allergies?" or some such nonsense. It is not the responsibility of every company that processes, handles, prepares or serves food to make sure someone with an allergy is not harmed. Even if companies did label all ingredients, if the consumer doesn't read the label, who is responsible? The same person is responsible whether there are labels or not. That person is the one with the allergy or their parent/caretaker.
Every time the government imposes upon business a new law or regulation, it imposes upon that business' customers a higher price in order to comply with that law or regulation. Does any honest person believe the founders intended the government to have that kind of power over our everyday lives?
I cannot stress how much I am against the government regulating anything it does not have a specific enumeration granting it authority over. If, as the United States Supreme Court says, police are not required to protect people from others doing them harm, by what authority does the government, federal or State claim to have any say in the protection of what someone eats? Every honest person knows the Commerce Clause was bastardized to mean something it was never intended to mean under FDR and the only reason the Supreme Court went along with it was because he threatened to stack the court with as many justices as needed to get what he wanted.
This is precisely the kind of governance I am opposed to. I realize I am in a minority, with some people from both sides of the aisle agreeing with small limitations of governance but not as limited as my utopian view, the founding father's intent of government.
The truth is if We The People honestly thought the government needed authority or power that is not enumerated, we could easily amend the Constitutions, federal or State. This has happened numerous times at both the federal and State level, so why can't that be done before all this unconstitutional power grabbing by the government?
Tell me when the last time was that you or I were able to hold the FDA, EPA, ATF, or any of the other alphabet departments or agencies accountable by voting the bums out? The fact is We The People are powerless to hold them accountable or to compel them to obey their constitutional limits because the people in these departments and agencies are not elected officials. You can damn well be assured the founding fathers never intended government to hold that kind of power over our everyday lives, making laws and regulations that we will be compelled to obey by force or be fined, locked in a cage or killed if we say no.
The last point I will make is... IF a law or regulation is so good, so noble and so needed without question, why do these laws and regulations have to be imposed upon society and businesses by force? Surely if these ideas were so undeniably necessary, no law or regulation would be needed because everyone would be doing them anyway without being compelled by a gun (force of government) held to their heads.
I've posted this same text over and over again in this and other threads because I sincerely hope Americans think about the true meaning of these words.
...in real Liberty, people are Free To Choose...
Patrick Henry spoke of Liberty in his 1775 speech that swung the vote in favor of sending troops to battle against the British. The following is an excellent reenactment of that speech where he proclaimed, "Give me Liberty or give me death!"
Too bad these dipsticks did not learn in statistics class that correlation is not evidence of causation.
No, you're the dipstick. Correlation My or May not be Evidence of Causation. In the case of trans fats we also have other evidence that points to a correlation.
No, you're the dipstick. Correlation My or May not be Evidence of Causation. In the case of trans fats we also have other evidence that points to a correlation.
No there isn't, there are just more correlations and speculations on causation. This is the problem with statistical political garbage like this. They do not have to verify and validate their claims, they make some assumption, look for correlations, then use statistical guess work to fill in all the gaps. This is why this garbage changes from one study to the next, from one group to the next, its all politically driven hokum.
No there isn't, there are just more correlations and speculations on causation. This is the problem with statistical political garbage like this. They do not have to verify and validate their claims, they make some assumption, look for correlations, then use statistical guess work to fill in all the gaps. This is why this garbage changes from one study to the next, from one group to the next, its all politically driven hokum.
Obviously you haven't read information on any studies on the issue. You're just spouting opinionated nonsense that has no factual basis. Whether or not the government should regulate trans fats is a debatable issue. Whether or not trans fats are unhealthy is a settled issue.
It's always amazed me how willing weak people are so eager to allow government to tell them what they can and cannot do and expect tax payers to take care of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
