Why We Get Fat - Page 4

The way I've understood it is that it's not the pesticides that are being sprayed on the foods, so much as the seeds are being genetically modified to have these pesticides and such inside of them. Making the actual product that you eat inherently toxic in some way. example, bugs that eat any part of a corn plant; stalk, leaves, corn husk, and the corn itself will die. Do you want to eat something that has killed another life form that has done the exact same thing you're doing?

What's "demonstrably wrong" about the book? And if you haven't "wasted [your] fucking time" reading it, how would you know?

Well it's deal with pesticides in/on your foods, or not eat because the bugs have destroyed the crops. Or pay twice the price for organic food which may or may not provide any advantage.


Just the entire premise of the book, and the since-disproven data from the 60s and 80s that he bases the premise on.

Because bullshit is bullshit whether I read it or not. Would you have to read a book by a creationist or flat-earth nutter to know that the ideas within it are bunk?

Which premise? That carbohydrates make you fat?

All I know is, when I did P90-X every day and watched my carb/fat intake I was ripped.

When I started back to grad school last year, no longer had time to work out, and started pigging out because I was stressed out from work and school, I started packing on the pounds.

But, that's a good thing for some of you because now I'm on here snatching up all the "fat boy" pants that don't sell otherwise because everyone else on this site looks like SpooPoker!

Tell me your shoe size though...

almost the same thing - I used to go to the gym pretty much every day for an hour -hour and a half. when my wife moved in, I found myself faced with the choice - sit on the couch with my wife or go to a gym full of smelly men and push weights around. what I didn't do was stop eating, and since my wife liked my cooking, we were eating well every night. everything went to hell from there.

Funny how you're asking for proof organically grown foods are healthier long term, and throw out a comment like this with no supporting facts. Does the fact that organic foods are not "sustainable" or "feasible" make the industrial crap any healthier? No. The proof of the damage caused by eating non-biological foods/chemicals is out there, you and many others just choose to ignore it. Do you honestly think farmers and some nerd in a chem lab are smarter than nature? It's impossible to maintain ones weight on a standard america diet (SAD). Guys like Taubes have shown again, and again our genes want to be lean healthy, we just need to eat the right things. Cancer and obesity aren't the norm.

Yes, that there is a metabolic advantage to low-carb diets and that fat people dont eat more than lean people.

Read the book "Good Calories Bad Calories" before you start with your dimwitted comments. Stop talking out of your ass and be specific, what has Taubes mentioned in his book that has been dis-proven? You come off as some hostile moron too broke/cheap to pay for organic foods.

This is exactly the type of response I would expect from a gullible clown that buys books like GCBC because it's 'sciencey' and has big words in it, while not having the ability to look at the science critically. Taubes cherry-picks sources that support his conclusion and ignores data that contradicts it. He uses outdated studies from the 60s and 80s, and studies that use self-reported food intake that are always inaccurate - basically trusting a bunch of fat fucks to accurately and truthfully estimate their food itnake. No calorie-controlled study has ever shown a metabolic advantage to low-carb diets.

shibbel go back to trolling haganah and the israel threads, thanks

Not trolling at all, bro. He made these claims, I just want him to tie himself to one. Versus saying Taubes is full shit, blah, blah, blah.

Again, stop with the fucking shotgun blasts, narrow it down, and be specific. Name one thing/study he sights that was a lie or dis-proven. Saying that he cherry picks sources doesn't make him wrong, every study does this. Also, saying data is from the 60's or 80's is just again, dimwitted- if something is a fact, it's a fact no matter when it was discovered. The earth is still round, look into when that data came about.

It's always hard to tell if the tards from the Taubes camp are trolling or not.