Rand and "Black Hate Radio"

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/29, 9:30pm)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/29, 9:30pm)

Post 201

Monday, May 29, 2006 - 9:35pm

============
Some interesting data, I didn't realize that about metabolic acidosis. I do like cheese, too. Does this apply to alcohol as well? Isn't the main metabolite of alcohol acetic acid?

So what does a daily diet look like for you, Ed? What is the percentage breakdown in terms of carbohydrates, fat (among the different types), and protein? Also, what do you make of the protein powders, like the whey protein isolates? Any negatives or benefits from these as opposed to animal/vegetable sources?
============

Michael, alcohol's primary metabolite is acetaldehyde -- which is converted to acetic acid. Alcohol doesn't acidify the urine of rats (and possibly humans, neither). I eat around 100 grams of fat, 200 grams of protein, and 300 grams of carboydrates per day. Whey isolates are great (except right before bedtime, where they might over-stimulate their own oxidation -- leaving you with a net-negative protein balance by morning). 1 gram of whey protein is equivalent (in terms of muscle-building potential) to 2 grams of soy protein.

Let me know if you have further questions,

Ed

Post 202

Monday, May 29, 2006 - 10:06pm

Bill, I mean this with benevolence ...
You are outmatched -- since you (in the face of contradictory evidence) won't back-off, then I will attempt to make "an example" out of you ...

=================
My understanding also is that it is the sulfur-containing amino acids (which are more plentiful in animal protein) - i.e., cysteine, methionine and taurine - that have the greatest calcium draining effect on the bones.
=================

This is borderline-dishonest question-begging from you, Bill (I have already posted data on how there will be a calciuric effect WITHOUT bone loss). Merely "re-stating" that protein (primarily the sulfur-containing amino acids) drains calcium from bones (ie. causes bone loss) -- after a superior explanation has been given for the calciuric effect of protein -- is a bit disingenuous.

=================
It's well to remember too, that osteoporosis is not the only risk associated with high-protein diets ...
=================

Osteoporosis IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH-PROTEIN DIETS (geezus Bill, re-read the contributions I've marshalled in the RoR Fitness thread). Bone density tracks closely with a potassium-protein ratio (it doesn't track closely with total protein -- and there is a REASON that it doesn't).

=================
the other is the effect on one's kidneys, which is well-documented in the studies that I cited.
=================

Bill, you are such a great debator (usually). You stick to the points of argument (usually). You integrate with logic as a non-exception-making guide-post (usually). Yet you are breaking down into some kind of evidence-overlooking fanatic here. Re-read the contributions I've marshalled in the other RoR Fitness thread (on protein intake and kidney function; protein intake at 3-and-a-half times the RDA).

=================
But that which maximizes muscular strength does not promote health and longevity.
=================

Bullshit.

=================
Increased saturated fat also promotes muscle development by increasing the liver's production of cholesterol, in turn increasing hormone levels, e.g., testosterone, as does exogenous testosterone in the form of steroids.
=================

Bill, this is not well-supported by the literature (ie. it's only a hypothesis).

=================
The hulking body builders that you see on the covers of muscle magazines pay a price in terms of shorter lifespans.
=================

Arbitrary conjecture.

=================
The evidence that high fat diets cause heart disease is by now overwhelming.
=================

Bill, in the face of the higher-fat Mediterranean diet out-performing the lower-fat Step 1 diet (a slew of references available upon request) -- I'm starting to find your defense of this position on this matter unconscionable.

=================
One study compared 250 breast cancer patients with a control group of 500 healthy women. The results indicated that a diet rich in fat, particularly saturated fat, and animal proteins was associated with a two-to-threefold risk of breast cancer.
=================

[sigh] Please, just go here and click on the diagrams, why don't you.

Bill, you are normally such a stand-up guy -- I'm so disappointed in your lack of integration of the marshalled evidence here.

Ed

Post 203

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 8:42am

What this diagrams-link (http://www.jco.org/cgi/content/full/21/13/2500/F1) is showing:

Breast cancer survival was maximized when (A-F) ...

A) Fat intake was around 40% of total energy intake (as it is in the Mediterranean diet, Zone-friendly, and Paleo diets)

B) Carbohydrate intake was between 40-45% of total energy intake (same as above)

C) Protein intake was around 20% of total energy intake (same as above)

D) Alcohol was between 2-4% of total energy intake (same as above)

E) Cholesterol intake was over 400 mg per day

F) Polyunsatured-to-saturated fat ratio was between 0.6-0.8 (total polyunsaturates amounted to 60-80% of the total saturated fat intake)

This study is an important step forward because researchers looked for 2nd order or binomial (U-shaped) association. The reason that they did this was because body weight itself is U-shape-associated with breast cancer survival -- ie. with increased mortality at the extremes. And also because linear association had been difficult to get consensus on. Incidentally, the only linear association they found was a positive one with protein (with increased protein associated with increased survival).

It's really nice that the end-point was death, because death is pretty much an uncontroversial end-point (we don't usually fight over whether or not it actually occurred in a subject).

Also, avoiding death is one of the most important outcomes that folks are really looking for -- when determining what to consume -- so, using it as a dependent variable here has utility over-and-above, say, whether or not you excreted an extra 100 mg of calcium for a couple of weeks (in your urine).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/30, 8:44am)

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 5/30, 8:47am)

Post 204

Tuesday, May 30, 2006 - 10:39pm

Ed, you need to calm down. Seriously, I'm not going to discuss this issue with you at all if you continue to argue in this manner, with all of the innuendos as to my intellectual honesty and aspersions cast on my character. Can't you engage in a civil discussion without imputing unworthy motives to those who disagree with you?

I do have replies to your evidence, which is interesting, but you're acting as if my disagreement with you is so outrageous - so riddled with bad faith - that it doesn't merit a respectful response. So, I'm not going to humor you, by pretending that I'm engaged in a civil discussion with an objective, open minded participant, when it's obvious I'm not.

- Bill

Post 205

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 12:32am

Bill,

I hope that we can get past this disagreement.

Sincerely,

Ed
[and -- in your final analysis of our current predicament -- don't forget that you, yourself, have more than once jumped onto the soap-box proclaiming how you can't believe how 'wrong' I am]

Post 206

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 - 2:19am

=============
Ed, you need to calm down.
=============

That's likely.

=============
Seriously, I'm not going to discuss this issue with you at all if you continue to argue in this manner, with all of the innuendos as to my intellectual honesty and aspersions cast on my character.
=============

I have endeavored to illustrate (ie. acknowledge) you as a well-reasoning man, Bill -- even an exceptional one, at that. Indeed, I have often been caricatured as your proverbial 'cheerleader' here on this forum. I have not engaged in some tirade of character assassination against you. What you -- here and now -- take as a personal attack on your character -- I see as a mere response to what seems to be a passionate cling to a given interpretation of marshalled evidence.

=============
I do have replies to your evidence, which is interesting, but you're acting as if my disagreement with you is so outrageous - so riddled with bad faith - that it doesn't merit a respectful response.
=============

Well, that's just the trouble with experts such as myself -- ie. they think that, because they've spent hundreds of hours ruminating on the current, relevant evidence regarding a given matter -- that they're convinced they've reached a conclusion that is altogether unimpeachable.

Don't hate me because of my expertise on this subject, Bill. In a certain respect, my felt certainty "comes with the territory." It is natural and normal for me to -- having spent this vast amount of time, energy, and diligence -- to feel the way I do about my hard-earned conclusions.

=============
So, I'm not going to humor you, by pretending that I'm engaged in a civil discussion with an objective, open minded participant, when it's obvious I'm not.
=============

And I won't fault you for not continuing on in this debate, should you choose thusly (ie. I'll still think highly of you, and interact with you on other matters -- because I, highly, value your thinking capacity, and what I might receive from continued association with you).

Ed

Post 207

Monday, March 8, 2010 - 1:59pm