Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 year later...
Posted

Nothing new there. A repeat of common sense. Yes, active, physically fit people who  have  normal  triglyceride and  cholesterol levels can  eat foods that others cannot. There is a reason why they can do that.

 

Unfortunately, what we will now see are the morbidly obese slobs using this as a justification for them to walk into McDonalds or Burger King and consume super sized portions of fried potatos, fried chicken, fried beef cuttings & gristle with  sugar filled drinks. 

Posted
Nothing new there. A repeat of common sense. Yes, active, physically fit people who  have  normal  triglyceride and  cholesterol levels can  eat foods that others cannot. There is a reason why they can do that.
 
Unfortunately, what we will now see are the morbidly obese slobs using this as a justification for them to walk into McDonalds or Burger King and consume super sized portions of fried potatos, fried chicken, fried beef cuttings & gristle with  sugar filled drinks. 

Lucky Bastards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Posted
On Sunday, November 06, 2016 at 0:00 AM, geriatrickid said:

Nothing new there. A repeat of common sense. Yes, active, physically fit people who  have  normal  triglyceride and  cholesterol levels can  eat foods that others cannot. There is a reason why they can do that.

 

In fact it's relatively new since the 70s. And you have it rather backwards: it's more that people who have normal  triglyceride and cholesterol levels, and weight, from eating only certain foods that others can, too--but won't--are more likely to be physically fit. What seems common sense may simply be indoctrination from advertising and government guidelines influenced by politics, academic interests, and the food industry.

 

Quote

Unfortunately, what we will now see are the morbidly obese slobs using this as a justification for them to walk into McDonalds or Burger King and consume super sized portions of fried potatos, fried chicken, fried beef cuttings & gristle with  sugar filled drinks.

 

No, there's no justification in the article for any such thing. But it blew the wheat "analysis" by narrowly defining the issues as Alzheimer's and gluten allergy. And so it failed even to mention other starches, and sugars, entirely missing the 800 lb gorilla in the room. That was unfortunate.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...