Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

is actimel junk food?

124»

Comments

  • #92
    Frigga_92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,809 ✭✭✭Frigga_92


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Can you post links to these studies, like I did. I'm blunt, not argumentative.

    A simple google search will find articles and studies both in favour and against.

    Your posting style comes across as argumentative and I've no interest in that so I'll leave you to it.


  • #93
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    26sdrawkcab wrote: »
    A simple google search will find articles and studies both in favour and against.

    Your posting style comes across as argumentative and I've no interest in that so I'll leave you to it.

    It is quite obvious you are talking through your arse.


  • #94
    daithi7
    Registered Users Posts: 1,292 ✭✭✭daithi7


    26sdrawkcab wrote: »
    A simple google search will find articles and studies both in favour and against.

    Your posting style comes across as argumentative and I've no interest in that so I'll leave you to it.

    BS alert, BS alert, BS alert.......warning, believing this poster's waffle may be harmful to your health!! :-)

    P.s. not being able to back up arguments he has doggedly repeated is a red flag to common sense, and Tbh, Credibility.


  • #95
    Frigga_92
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,809 ✭✭✭Frigga_92


    daithi7 wrote: »
    BS alert, BS alert, BS alert.......warning, believing this poster's waffle may be harmful to your health!! :-)

    P.s. not being able to back up arguments he has doggedly repeated is a red flag to common sense, and Tbh, Credibility.

    What waffle?
    There are many studies and articles both in favour and against HFLC, in the same way as there are many studies and articles both in favour and against any way of eating. A simple google search will return these results to you, is there a problem with that suggestion?

    I haven't doggedly repeated anything, you are very much mistaken there. I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. What works for one person may not work for the next, everybody is different.


  • #96
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    26sdrawkcab wrote: »
    What waffle?
    There are many studies and articles both in favour and against HFLC, in the same way as there are many studies and articles both in favour and against any way of eating. A simple google search will return these results to you, is there a problem with that suggestion?

    I haven't doggedly repeated anything, you are very much mistaken there. I don't shove anything down anyone's throat. What works for one person may not work for the next, everybody is different.

    I've looked for the 12 month studies you say you've read and cant find them. I supplied 4 links and a very brief description of each when the burden of proof was on you. You could least have the decency to provide three. Unless of course as is quite obvious you are talking through your arse.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    September1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭September1


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Obviously. The studied population is tested against the control population. It would totally defeat the purpose, having both groups on HFLC diets.

    It's all right, don't sweat it.

    You are totally right here :-)

    I should have said they were not doing HFLC, they just increased amount of fat in quite regular diets.

    "The role of dietary fat in body fatness: evidence from a preliminary
    meta-analysis of ad libitum low-fat dietary intervention studies look at compating medium-fat diet or habitual diet (I would assume it is typical 21st century food) vs low fat and high protein foods. There is no HFLC being compared to anything.

    "The role of low-fat diets in body weight control" again is comparing 40% to 30% fat diets roughly - those are pretty low ranges of HFLC.

    "Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins" is intresting choice, it first goes on fact that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates does not improve total/HDL ratio, then indeed it suggests that unsaturated fats are better than carbohydrates. They note that lauric acid is quite good in reducing this ratio, and it is actually saturated fatty acid. So is palmistic and myrysitc so TBH I'm confused with results.


  • #98
    wretcheddomain
    Registered Users Posts: 3,094 ✭✭✭wretcheddomain


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Why are you asking me if you infer that? How am I meant to know what you infer?

    It's a rhetorical question, or haven't you heard? You're supposed to know the inferences because you wrote the piece. Silly billy.

    The point is that waving your arms around violently about saturated fat is one thing, but that's only part of the overall story, you're being far too selective as far as I can see.

    That's what I inferred, and I was asking for clarification as to whether you really are as closed minded as you appear to be.

    Scientific nutritional dogma is not the safest place to be these days...

    Judging from your offensive posts and exaggerated replies, you appear to lack the ability for effective scientific discourse.


  • #99
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    September1 wrote: »
    You are totally right here :-)

    I should have said they were not doing HFLC, they just increased amount of fat in quite regular diets.

    "The role of dietary fat in body fatness: evidence from a preliminary
    meta-analysis of ad libitum low-fat dietary intervention studies look at compating medium-fat diet or habitual diet (I would assume it is typical 21st century food) vs low fat and high protein foods. There is no HFLC being compared to anything.

    "The role of low-fat diets in body weight control" again is comparing 40% to 30% fat diets roughly - those are pretty low ranges of HFLC.

    "Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins" is intresting choice, it first goes on fact that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates does not improve total/HDL ratio, then indeed it suggests that unsaturated fats are better than carbohydrates. They note that lauric acid is quite good in reducing this ratio, and it is actually saturated fatty acid. So is palmistic and myrysitc so TBH I'm confused with results.

    Still no sign of these mythical studies you've read? I can't see me correcting your mistakes until you have the decency to give some 'evidence' to back up your claims/stop talking through your arse.

    Unless there is some actual evidence to back up the dangerous claims of the health benefits of HFLC I won't be responding to this thread.


  • #100
    generic2012
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,013 ✭✭✭generic2012


    wretcheddomain wrote: »
    It's a rhetorical question, or haven't you heard? You're supposed to know the inferences because you wrote the piece. Silly billy.

    The point is that waving your arms around violently about saturated fat is one thing, but that's only part of the overall story, you're being far too selective as far as I can see.

    That's what I inferred, and I was asking for clarification as to whether you really are as closed minded as you appear to be.

    Scientific nutritional dogma is not the safest place to be these days...

    Judging from your offensive posts and exaggerated replies, you appear to lack the ability for effective scientific discourse.

    I do know what I inferred. You asked me what you inferred, and I said I don't know what you inferred. I think you need to read the dialogue again.

    I think you are severely overreacting, I just gave some evidence that shows spurious claims from the HFLC cult, of the health benefits of practically megadosing saturated fats, for what they are. What normal people do is bring forward evidence and discuss their views on it, until they come to a conclusion/agreement. The HFLC cult bring no evidence to the table, just making ramblings that can't be pinned down. Perhaps that is why you think it is violent?

    You either don't know the definition of dogma or what science is if you say 'scientific' nutritional 'dogma'.

    And by the way the dogma is coming from the HFLC cult, and its charismatic leaders. It's also about rich to talk about scientific discourse when you haven't yet implemented any of it and just disagree with it.

    Unless there is some actual evidence to back up the dangerous claims of the health benefits of HFLC I won't be responding to this thread.


  • #101
    September1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭September1


    generic2012 wrote: »
    Still no sign of these mythical studies you've read? I can't see me correcting your mistakes until you have the decency to give some 'evidence' to back up your claims/stop talking through your arse.

    Unless there is some actual evidence to back up the dangerous claims of the health benefits of HFLC I won't be responding to this thread.

    I did not make such claims, you are making claims about HFLC - i just pointed out that evidence you posted is not making any suggestions of HFLC diets, however surprisingly, one of links you quoted claims that some saturated fats improve markers for cardiovascular disease.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement