“Most soy is genetically modified. Also, soy contains several different toxins, whose than wheat. Soy contains Anti-nutrients, phytates, lectins, amoung other things. I do a bit of fermented soy, like because it is not so bad, but very little and it must be organic. ”
Jan 19, 2013 at 12:22:39
“You should cut out meat because it's really unhealthy, not just because you're kinda grossed out by it.
Beef- it's what's rotting in your colon.”
eLucida on Jan 19, 2013 at 15:30:24
Trebor Notsgnivil on Jan 19, 2013 at 14:30:42
“How about the native Americans who feasted on buffalo meat? Grass fed, and free range of course. Meat isn't the problem, but how we raise it is. And of course you need vegetables to move everything through.”
gnorrfa on Jan 19, 2013 at 13:59:14
“If you eat a lot of unprocessed fiber it won't be left sitting inside you. I believe meat can be a part of your diet three or four times a week but in small portions. Fast foods, never!”
“So you say I should go and make a difference, but at the same time you won't do a single thing because they don't happen to be YOUR neighbors? Your responsibilities to other people do not end at the end of your block, your street, or town.
And, if poverty and racism are not the reason for higher crime rates in minority demographics, and you say you don't believe skin color is either, what DO you think is the reason?”
jimbeauxx on Jan 17, 2013 at 17:01:02
“That is the book that needs to be written, probably has in various forms. I think that the Civil Rights movement was spot on but all that got hi-jacked by the Great Society of LBJ.
African Americans got huge kudos from the rest of America, the strength of character required to hold up under such pressure, to remain true to the ideal of non violent protest with the most sincere understanding that this America was not a racist Nazi Germany that would just have crushed them under tanks, that the American people were better than that, much better.
And we were, we are. but the LBJ types and the Jesse Jackson's of the world figured out a way to benefit, the one giving something, practically nothing to get votes, the other getting others to follow in line in order to feather their own nests. And a proud community got corrupted for another's benefit, and addicted to government instead of taking the new responsibility and forging a real opportunity out of the hot steel that was the raw resource after the victories of Civil Rights.
And then the culture changed, also corrupted [ by media, literature, music, style ...] and an opportunity was squandered....leading to a loss of direction ... actually too much to be written in such a small space...”
“You're not looking at the causes of those numbers.
1) Minorities are way more likely to be convicted than whites because of racist judges and juries.
2) Minorities are far more likely to grow up poor, exposed to racial discrimination, and in an area already swamped by crime-- all of this leads to a far greater likelihood of becoming criminal.
3) Minorities are more often convicted of small crimes when they are young, thus damaging their permanent record, and making their entire lives look rather bleak.
4) The schools available to minorities in poor areas are atrocious. Too little funding, teachers who are overworked and underpaid, peer pressure to join gangs and commit crime, etc, etc, etc.
The point is: you can say a person is more likely to commit crime for a hundred reasons, none of them is because of skin color. The tone of your skin does not chemically alter your brain structure in some weird way to make you criminal.”
jimbeauxx on Jan 16, 2013 at 18:14:54
“I am open to looking at your sources on 1... highly doubt number 2 as there are more white people receiving food stamps and applying for medicaid.Racism exists, no doubt, but the fact is most people are more than desirous of opening their arms to all peoples.
The man now holding us all down is the top man, Obama, no matter what his color is or isn't...just a fact. The culture has to change though.
The juvenile justice system, unless it is a really bad crime, expunges records left and right...and if they do not learn their lessons when they are, as you say young, if they have not learned their lessons by adulthood, well, whose fault is that? When are people responsible for the deeds they do? I will tell you, when you become an adult. Do not go blaming that crap on the rest of us.
Like number 4, who should be taking care that those problems are not occurring in their neighborhood?
The citizens of that neighborhood...don't blame that on me and my neighborhood... if that crap was happening people should rise up and do something about it, if they wanted something done... and if not, its your bed to make or not, and yours to lay in.
And to return your color of skin point, agreed, totally, now go out and make it happen better.”
“If (and I'm not saying we do) have a demographic problem, it's due to racism like hers promoting poverty in colored neighborhoods. Poverty leads to crime, not race.”
bradfromearth on Jan 15, 2013 at 21:39:23
“Well well.. we do not have a demographic problem, what we have are demographic statistical differences.”
jimbeauxx on Jan 15, 2013 at 21:31:57
“Wait, if we do have a problem as you put it, and she is accurately describing it... how would that be racism? Yours would be a kind of biggoted statement if she is telling the truth, would you not agree? I mean, if you are telling the truth that does not make you a racist surely.
Here is the racial makeup of the USA
Black American 12.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.9%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2%
Two or more races 2.9%
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 16.3%
and murder by offender [US Dept of Justice ]:
white black other unknown
5,286 5,890 245 4,339
Would you consider that racist... or just facts?”
morefreethings on Jan 15, 2013 at 21:15:25
“nope, poor white people do not commit gun crimes at this rate”
CoveredUp on Jan 15, 2013 at 21:14:52
“In part but rural areas with poverty have no where near the crime rates of inner city areas.”
majordude on Jan 15, 2013 at 21:12:51
“I'm calling BS. The VAST majority of mass killings that I've heard of are committed by white males. I don't know what gyrations she had to go through to reach her conclusion, but i certain it's not representative of the actual data.”
Jan 12, 2013 at 10:45:55
“You can change your lifestyle and be healthy, have a nice weight, and live longer. Or you can not do it and in all likelihood get sick, be fat (and malnourished), and die sooner. It's up to you. I really don't care.
It's "Hear, hear", btw.”
I-US on Jan 12, 2013 at 19:29:12
“@seumasog: You should take it to meant that I have no intention of hopping to do your work. You're the one who mentioned bacon completely out of place; nobody else did. I mentioned intermittent fasting because people talk about it on these stories. Just because you have missed that doesn't mean it hasn't happened or that anybody else needs to read for you. And what in the world could such a comment be meaning to provoke? Nothing, that's what. Get a grip on yourself.”
seumasog on Jan 12, 2013 at 19:23:41
“@ I-US: "@seumasog: I'm not going to do your bidding, and that doesn't make me anything but wise enough not to tangle with you."
I'll take this as an admission that you can't support your false claim. Surprise, surprise. And you would be wise not to "tangle with" me further -- unless you want your clock cleaned. Stop misrepresenting me (and others) and stop making statements intended to provoke.”
seumasog on Jan 12, 2013 at 16:59:27
“@ I-US: "@seumasog: I'm not going to do your bidding ..."
That's "I-US-speak" for "I really have no support for my misrepresentations."
@ I-US: "... and that doesn't make me anything but wise enough not to tangle with you."
Then stop l y i n g and making deliberately provocative statements.”
I-US on Jan 12, 2013 at 16:52:42
“@seumasog: I'm not going to do your bidding, and that doesn't make me anything but wise enough not to tangle with you.”
seumasog on Jan 12, 2013 at 15:26:14
“@ I-US: "And plenty of people on here discuss fasting."
Then identify the comments (date, time, discussion/article) in which people who have reduced their carb intake talk about "fasting," as you imply they regularly do. Oh, now you'll say, "Why should I waste my time doing that?" -- you know, the way you did when I asked you to ID the comments in which I supposedly bring up bacon "irrelevantly ad nauseum" as you falsely claimed. Why do it? How about to show that you aren't a l i a r.”
I-US on Jan 12, 2013 at 14:28:14
“@seumasog: The fact that you haven't seen it says nothing except that *you* haven't seen it. And plenty of people on here discuss fasting. As for psychosis: don't break your mirror.”
seumasog on Jan 12, 2013 at 13:54:16
“@ I-US: "I didn't say fasting had anything to do with carbs, did I? I said that people on here reduce their carbs thereby reducing their calories and when they talk about intermittent fasting and so on, you can see what is really happening--caloric reduction."
You're implying that everyone who talks about reducing carbs also talks about engaging in intermittent fasting, and that that must be, in your view, what accounts for their loss of excess weight. I haven't seen people talking about fasting accompanying carbohydrate reduction, other than Alvarask recently saying she occasionally fasts. But who else? I've actually seen people saying they replaced the carb calories with fat calories so as to maintain a similar caloric intake. Your stuff implying that people who reduce their carb intake invariably engage in intermittent fasting as well is just another one of your fabrications (like your claim that I irrelevantly bring up bacon ad nauseum). You've become quite detached from reality. That's a sign of psychosis, you know.”
2Paco on Jan 12, 2013 at 11:31:41
“Well thank you Nicole. I will not make that spelling error again.
I was just pointing out that for many reasons it is difficult for people to make lifestyle changes. (My patients included)
Jan 12, 2013 at 10:43:14
“I'd like to see a peer-reviewed scientific study on that load of bogus. Twenty calories doesn't make a difference because your body adjusts it's metabolism slightly to compensate. You need to make larger caloric changes than that to override that. 100 calories difference a day do make a significant difference. Also, you need to keep in mind that your body needs more calories to maintain more weight. So if you eat 100 cal a day more, your body will gain as much weight until it needs that amount of calories to sustain the weight.”
Alvarask on Jan 12, 2013 at 19:04:11
“You said it yourself Nicole. It is impossible to calculate and that is what makes it nonsensical, in addition to the fat that it mis-applies thermodynamics laws. If you think your body just "adjusts its metabolism" to account for a 20 calorie swing either way, how would you go about measuring that for any given human being? How about the people with damaged metabolisms (over 40% of the population and rising)? And yet you feel that while the body will "adjust its metabolism" to compensate for 20 calories, it will NOT do so for 100 calories differential either way, and therefore that would be measurable? How would you measure whether your body was adjusting or not? At what point between 20 and 100 calories differential does the body decide to NOT adjust anymore? You have helped make my point. Yes, homeostasis....the natural adjustment of the metabolism IS important and it does happen.....and the extent to which it happens depends on numerous factors such as gender, age, and metabolic condition. The only thing that matters to the body is that it receives nutrition, and the major nutrient it requires, natural fat, is also the preferred fuel. The "100 calorie a day deficit" diet is without doubt the weight loss approach that has most consistently been demonstrated to NOT WORK, by millions of people over many decades. How about we start looking at nutrients instead calories?”
Jan 11, 2013 at 09:34:52
“That's not about what, but how you eat. When you starve yourself, your body lowers its metabolic rate. Eating throughout the day keeps your metabolism going because your body isn't scared of being starved. But that's just a minor difference. As you point out, they both lost weight. And it still comes down to your caloric intake versus output.”
Jessica Stranaham on Jan 11, 2013 at 12:56:24
“eating throughout the day to "keep your metabolism" going is actually a myth. the 6 meals a day thing is not based on science”
Rob1964 on Jan 11, 2013 at 09:36:53
“Re-read the last line. The group that ate their carbs at night had fewer craving AND lost more weight.”
Jan 11, 2013 at 09:12:49
“People yo-yo because they think all they need to do is diet. What you really need to be committed to is changing your whole lifestyle. You can cut out bacon for a few weeks, loose a few lbs, and then gain it all back because you started munching on all that disgusting grease again.”
Rob1964 on Jan 16, 2013 at 00:21:08
“The only thing wrong with most bacon grease is the pigs are fed grains and injected with hormones.”
seumasog on Jan 15, 2013 at 14:23:45
“The fact that you think that people "lose a few lbs" by cutting out bacon proves that you have no earthly idea what you're talking about.”
2Paco on Jan 11, 2013 at 22:39:23
“Here-here! It's all about "changing your whole lifestyle." But, hard for many to do.”
I-US on Jan 11, 2013 at 10:47:23
“What's disappointing is that people here believe that by cutting out carbs they are doing something different than cutting out calories. Once they begin to explain their diet, their intermittent fasting, their lack of appetite, it's pretty easy to see what has happened.”
Jan 11, 2013 at 09:09:07
“And how so? Ask any doctor or nutritionist. The only way to become thin and healthy and stay that way is to change your lifestyle. You need to eat less, especially junk, and move more. You should eat more of the good stuff like veggies and so on, but still, your overall caloric intake needs to be less than your caloric output.”
Alvarask on Jan 11, 2013 at 18:16:25
“Caloric deficit is not only untrue, it is such bad science it's an embarrassment that it's still being rolled out. It is actually, LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to determine precise caloric intake versus output in any human being. A matter of only 20 calories a day the wrong way, well within the frame of error in this silly theory, means a person can become obese in a decade. The whole thing is complete and utter rubbish. We are not simple combustion engines. The foods we eat have biological purposes and are NOT simply to fuel a mechanical object. So the only way to become HEALTHY is to eat for nutrition. By definition that will mean less junk (if you know what healthy food is and most people do not). If we truly eat for nutrition, then as our body frees up calories and releases fat from fat cells, we will gradually begin to move more. No need to "exercise". We naturally begin to move more as we lose weight and gain health.”
Rob1964 on Jan 11, 2013 at 09:16:11
“Yes caloric intake matters you can't eat 5000 calories and expect to lose weight sitting on the couch. However what you eat is a bigger factor. There was a recent study done on two control groups. Both in a caloric deficit but one group ate the majority of their carbs at night the other throughout the day. The group that ate at night lost more weight and had fewer food cravings because they didn't have the sugar highs and lows.”
“So true. However, Americans seem to think that everything that isn't America sucks. So... good luck trying to get them to their senses and looking at other highly successful countries as a model for good policies...”