My Actual Libertarian Experience

[teo123]

I don't think the benefits that the proponents of keto diets are claiming are unproven, I think they are proven wrong to any reasonable person. Proponents of keto diets are claiming a keto diet can reverse type-2-diabetes. If that were true, how it is that if you got type-2-diabetes before the invention of the insulin, you had only months to live? Because keto diets were a standard treatment for type-2-diabetes before the insulin. Maybe they help a little if no insulin is available (obviously, they are counter-productive if taken together with insulin), but claiming they are better than insulin... I think it would require a conspiracy. For similar reasons, I think that what Neal Barnard is claiming would take a conspiracy to be true.

I thought when I first saw you were quoting my whole post that maybe you were responding to the discussion for anarchism. I want to respond to you, but it is not clear to me exactly what you are saying. I do not personally believe keto, which I really see should be referred to as ketosis, which is what it is, starving the body of needed carbohydrates, is better for health. Claim I heard that it was had been from adherents' early observation of seeing some benefit. That really cannot last with longterm starvation of any kind, with not getting needed fiber and even some complete sugars and having inadequate vitamins. But your concluding statement is confusing. It would take a conspiracy for something to be true? What could that mean? Doctor Neal Barnard is promoting healthy eating with whole food from plants. Isn't he? That isn't making claims about a diet using ketosis.

Neal Barnard is claiming, among other things, that type-2-diabetes can be reversed by eliminating fat from the diet. That was tried before the invention of the insulin, and it didn't work. That's why I am saying that for what he is claiming to be true, there would need to be a conspiracy.

[FredVegrox]

I never heard about eliminating fat from our diet. Animal fat is still not necessary, or at all better for us. There are oils and fats in foods from plants, especially in certain ones we can be aware of, and so get enough of what is needed for that. What is had from animals can clog up blood vessels, which will cause serious problems. WFPB can stop and possibly reverse type 2 diabetes, along with the many other benefits.

[teo123]

I never heard about eliminating fat from our diet. Animal fat is still not necessary, or at all better for us. There are oils and fats in foods from plants, especially in certain ones we can be aware of, and so get enough of what is needed for that. What is had from animals can clog up blood vessels, which will cause serious problems. WFPB can stop and possibly reverse type 2 diabetes, along with the many other benefits.

If you are going to promote somebody as an authority (like you do for Neal Barnard), you should at least be vaguely aware of their claims. Neal Barnard is claiming that sugar doesn't cause type-2-diabetes, and is using typical denialist tactics to support that. His basic argument for that is "Statistics suggest that sugar consumption in the USA reached its peak in 1990s, yet type-2-diabetes rates continued to increase.". Where else did I hear that argument? Oh yeah, from saturated fat deniers. They say stuff like "Statistics suggest that saturated fat consumption in the USA reached its peak in 1970s, yet heart disease rates continued to rise.".

[FredVegrox]

I never heard about eliminating fat from our diet. Animal fat is still not necessary, or at all better for us. There are oils and fats in foods from plants, especially in certain ones we can be aware of, and so get enough of what is needed for that. What is had from animals can clog up blood vessels, which will cause serious problems. WFPB can stop and possibly reverse type 2 diabetes, along with the many other benefits.

If you are going to promote somebody as an authority (like you do for Neal Barnard), you should at least be vaguely aware of their claims. Neal Barnard is claiming that sugar doesn't cause type-2-diabetes, and is using typical denialist tactics to support that. His basic argument for that is "Statistics suggest that sugar consumption in the USA reached its peak in 1990s, yet type-2-diabetes rates continued to increase.". Where else did I hear that argument? Oh yeah, from saturated fat deniers. They say stuff like "Statistics suggest that saturated fat consumption in the USA reached its peak in 1970s, yet heart disease rates continued to rise.".

I do not promote Neal Barnard, I have heard of him being associated with WFPB, but I have not read things from him. What I read was from The Forks Over Knives Plan, which was not authored by Neal Barnard. Regardless of sugar's role, fruit gets maligned when it is still healthy for us, and the food we can have that is from whole food from plants is the healthiest and will work against diabetes type 2, along with working against cancer, and heart attacks and strokes, and high blood pressure, along with many other things. But it means avoiding processed foods along with avoiding animal products.

[FredVegrox]

I don't think sugar consumption or saturated fat consumption had reached a peak so long ago, if either has reached a peak yet. Either much sugar or much saturated fat will contribute to health problems, having much of both will come to much worse problems. But it is saturated fat in animal products, specifically dairy and meat, that is so bad for us, and sugar that is better avoided comes in great amounts with processed foods. And there is cholesterol and other things not healthy from animal products, and lack of certain vitamins and any dietary fiber. It is all involved with whole food from plants being so helpful to our health and to avoid problems that are really, in fact, now epidemic in our general population.