tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7965194559527366726..comments2024-03-15T20:52:26.967-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Nutrition and InequalityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger108125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-16748937838200876072012-06-24T16:38:36.964-07:002012-06-24T16:38:36.964-07:00I guess all of you "minoritiy" haters wo...I guess all of you "minoritiy" haters would have a point but since there are more white people ond food stamps then any othere race and all races combined I guess you all just sound stupid. Oh yeah more of you are fat too. FunnyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-84830795112030077642012-01-15T14:54:09.343-08:002012-01-15T14:54:09.343-08:00" Even whether or not a person experiences th..." Even whether or not a person experiences the low blood sugar which signals the body to eat something to feed the brain is determined by what a person eats."<br /><br />Obviously. Of course different foods make us feel differently, and simple carbs make us hungrier. But you seem to be confusing the concept of feeling constantly hungry due to a poor diet causing a higher caloric intake resulting in fat gain for getting heavier at similar caloric intake due to different sources of calories. Of course, it's harder to stick to a sugary calorie budget than it is to a calorie budget low in simple carbs, but if you feed someone 3 candy bars a day, this person will resemble a cancer patient fairly soon. Most importantly, though, is that no modern government had ever told its citizens to live on desserts and fried foods. Even if you are right, and the food pyramid is slightly off, that's not what caused the obesity epidemic. Corn syrup, cane sugar, maple syrup and rice syrup all cause a sharp rise of insulin followed by a sharp fall. Doctors have told us to eat that crap in moderation for 10 decades. It's not some revelation of a government conspiracy. <br /><br />"You're obviously a person with a metabolism that, as of yet, has burned calories inefficiently giving you a false impression of what's going wrong (actually right from some perspectives) with those who store fat more efficiently."<br /><br />Wrong. My body is extremely efficient. I was a chunky kid, and everyone in my family who doesn't pay attention to his/her body's needs is obese. I was also a typical pre-teen/teen in the late 90s and early 2000s, so I've done most of the fad diets out there like low fat- high carb of the 90s and the low carb of the 2000 with a sprinkle of starvation pacts with emo friends. I also ran cross-country for 5 years, danced for about as long and still cross train actively, so I'm very aware of nutrition's role in performance. Here's the truth- every one of those weight loss methods that involves calorie deficit works as long as you work it. How you feel while on them is another matter. Everyone is different, but every running buddy, fellow dancer and military family member feels and performs his best on some variation of the good old doctor recommended way of eating: complex carbs, clean proteins, enough fats, fruit&veggies. It's just that some people need a bit more bananas and brown rice in their lives (like runners) while other need a bit more eggs and tuna to be their best. Not complicated at all.Mayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-46378774962250512162012-01-15T10:45:48.125-08:002012-01-15T10:45:48.125-08:00"If you ration 1200 calories per day with 800..."If you ration 1200 calories per day with 800 of those coming from coca-cola to any given person who requires 1950 calories a day, that person will lose 1.5 lbs/week. Period. "<br /><br />No. This isn't true. And no one has done the study to prove it or disprove it. What you eat matters. Your body doesn't use all food in the same way. Some calories will cause hyperinsulemia which will cause the person to store fat, others will not trigger such a response so would cause weight gain at a slower rate if at all. Even whether or not a person experiences the low blood sugar which signals the body to eat something to feed the brain is determined by what a person eats. Eating 200 calories worth of carbohydrates will entail being hungry sooner in many people whose insulin production will lower their blood sugar while a similar or even lower calorie amount of protein will not. Your body doesn't process all foods in the same way. Calories are not the sole indicators of whether or not a person will gain or lose weight. <br /><br />You're obviously a person with a metabolism that, as of yet, has burned calories inefficiently giving you a false impression of what's going wrong (actually right from some perspectives) with those who store fat more efficiently. The body doesn't respond to all foods in the same way. Extremists will suggest that those who can imbibe just about any type of food are genetically superior to those who can't but this position also supports my theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-10948413414981594302012-01-15T00:51:23.361-08:002012-01-15T00:51:23.361-08:00"No. That's not all. If you overeat for w..."No. That's not all. If you overeat for whatever reason, grazing on low calorie vegetables or snacks like popcorn will not pack on the pounds the way higher density foods will..."<br /><br />People who eat more calories than they need are overeating. People who consume, roughly, the number of calories that their body requires are not overeating. Quit making it sound more complicated than it is. Though soda is poisonous crap, it's not the magic cause of obesity. If you ration 1200 calories per day with 800 of those coming from coca-cola to any given person who requires 1950 calories a day, that person will lose 1.5 lbs/week. Period. His hair might fall out, and he might succumb to infection, but he won't be able to defy the laws of physics.Mayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-58905650877816894082012-01-14T09:57:43.337-08:002012-01-14T09:57:43.337-08:00"Truth is that in the areas of the world wher..."Truth is that in the areas of the world where food is readily available, the people who have no discipline or the people who are overstressed eat a lot more than their fair share. That's all."<br /><br />No. That's not all. If you overeat for whatever reason, grazing on low calorie vegetables or snacks like popcorn will not pack on the pounds the way higher density foods will. Although I must say Taco Bells food portions are small so a reasonable midnight snack there without the sugary cola isn't going to hurt much either. It may well be that our problem is imbibing sweetened drinks that typically accompany fast food meals. They don't offer much nutritional value and can quickly add extreme overages in useless caloric intake. <br /><br />P.S. There have been several studies indicating that high fructose corn syrup is more harmful than sugar cane just as there have been many refuting such claims. Periodically you'll see an article on the topic appear on Google.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39433850455729637932012-01-14T08:13:32.486-08:002012-01-14T08:13:32.486-08:00Isn't another problem one size fits all?
Watch...Isn't another problem one size fits all?<br />Watching The Biggest Loser and you see one guy lose weight first week and nothing the second. Why? The body is storing its precious fat rserves whereas other contestants were not reacting that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-68550340281792744322012-01-13T14:49:50.478-08:002012-01-13T14:49:50.478-08:00Anonymous at 1/12/12 8:13 PM,
Yawn. Look, I'm...Anonymous at 1/12/12 8:13 PM,<br /><br />Yawn. Look, I'm sure that there are some things that the government told us were healthy and they weren't and vice versa. However, clean meats, fruit and veggies, beans and complex carbs = good has been known for the past 60 years, all over the developed and semi-developed world. Ditto for fried, sugary, over-processed= bad. Even if the above model isn't 100% correct, it's not the cause of the obesity epidemic. When did the government ever tell the public to drink soda and eat chips/sugary snacks? The welfare whale is stuffing herself because it feels good at the moment and she never plans for her (even immediate) future. Also, I was never able to find any evidence that corn syrup is worse for the body than any other type of natural sweetener. The countries that use good old sugar from the cane are behind us in the fat stats because they started to gorge themselves a decade or two later, but they are catching up. Obesity is becoming a huge problem in France and Germany and its rates are skyrocketing among children in South Korea, just to name a few. Truth is that in the areas of the world where food is readily available, the people who have no discipline or the people who are overstressed eat a lot more than their fair share. That's all. Still, from what I observe, among the normal people, both the overstressed and the under-disciplined make sure to get enough nutrients in themselves before they succumb to ice cream and Taco Bell late at night. It's like they have good intentions and then fall off the wagon. The idiots, on the other hand, eat nothing but crap.<br /><br />Now, I don't think most people could eat healthy, or survive at all on Kylie's old budget. That's frigging impressive. However, eggs, bananas, red onions, sweet potatoes, young red potatoes, collard greens, mustard greens, apples, brown rice, oatmeal, skim milk, black beans, kidney beans, whole grain pasta, cottage cheese, tinned tomatoes, frozen chicken breasts, canned tuna, olive oil, carrots, yellow squash and garlic don't cost a lot. I like to splurge on broccoli, coconut milk, extra fruit and various spices and sweeteners, and I still make it under 180-200 each month, and i constantly feed other people. If i didn't buy berries and mangoes out of season along with the organic coconut milk/blue agave syrup/cumin/tumeric/ect. crap, the bill would be a lot closer to 120 or, probably, much lower than that. Eating only at McDonald's for a month costs more for one person.Mayanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-39965572315966675762012-01-12T20:41:08.881-08:002012-01-12T20:41:08.881-08:00Kylie,
You said:
"You're projecting be...Kylie,<br /><br />You said: <br /><br />"You're projecting because you don't have the savvy to figure out how to put a tilda over "Señor"."<br /><br />Savvy means to know, understand, or to have the practical know how. So you're saying I don't know how/have the savvy to... No assumption on my part to state you said I didn't know how.<br /><br />Kudos to Steve for posting my comments; didn't think he would.<br /><br />BTW, sorry if I came off as patronizing, I am an utter failure in all facets in life, and things are only going downhill from here, so I have a tendency to overcompensate.<br /><br />Calling my family tree full of asses is uncalled for and a textbook example of using cheap ad hominems when lacking valid arguments. I am fairly well versed in my family tree and none stood out as asses, mostly noble people, perhaps I am the first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1071909445777828232012-01-12T20:13:18.056-08:002012-01-12T20:13:18.056-08:00I forgot to mention that carbohydrates were origin...I forgot to mention that carbohydrates were originally consumed by our species only in season. One of their effects is to make a person feel hungry, precisely because they tell the pancreas to produce more insulin. The result is the carbs turn to fat, and the fat will not burn so long as the carbs keep coming in. <br /><br />This is why you see the reviled and scapegoatastic figure of the 300-pound welfare mother gorging on sugared crap. She's eating stuff that is telling her body that winter is coming. It's why you see morbidly obese people who will stuff themselves...and also who will starve themselves and exercise, and never lose a pound. So long as they eat carbs, their bodies will not burn fat. Start feeding the poor the old 1960s and 1970s surplus foods of eggs, cheese, lard, and tinned meat, and a lot of these problems would just go away. <br /><br />Remember, food stamps/WIC/etc. are not welfare for poor people. They are welfare for the large agricultural concerns that have used Americans as guinea pigs for since 1980, making vast profits while basically poisoning everyone with high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated fats that pass through the body without being digested, and so on. And that profit regime didn't come from liberals. It came from Land Grant colleges of agriculture, and from the "green revolution" that caused the global population explosion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-48113302053527154472012-01-12T20:07:22.684-08:002012-01-12T20:07:22.684-08:00Carbohydrates consumed out of season and beyond se...Carbohydrates consumed out of season and beyond seasonally needed moderation are poison. <br /><br />The ancient Near Eastern food pyramid resting on plant sugars causes people to get fat, crazy, and stupid. Read Gary Taubes for the science and Mark Sisson for the praxis. <br /><br />A diet rich in protein and fat, with very low carbs, is all that's needed to fight back the tides of juvenile obesity and diabetes caused by insulin resistance, which itself is caused by the grotesque increases in sugars in the industrial food system's products. <br /><br />We have a global surplus of poor people for only two reasons. 1) The global food system revolves around creating cheap carbohydrates that sustain survival at very low functionality. 2) Contraception, abortion, and sterilization were restricted for too long in Europe and the Americas, mostly, I believe, under the influence of Mediterranean and tropical/equatorial cultures. <br /><br />Importing that ridiculous "go forth and multiply uber alles" natalism religion from the Near East will cause the same kinds of downfall that Sumeria, Babylon, and Egypt went through: gorging on carbohydrates, carb-related health problems, increase in population, lack of gumption, eventual exhaustion of the soil, destruction of environments that can sustain hunting or very limited and well adapted animal agriculture. <br /><br />My view is still that of all the environmental causes that can support or degrade the expression of IQ, food is probably pretty low on the list: Palaeolithic humans survived extremes of hunger and gorging (our insulin system evolved as an adaptation to that), and still were selected for survival. This likely was in part due to sheer cussedness, but surely also intelligence. If IQ were so fragile in the face of hunger, I doubt our species would ever have figured out how to bang rocks together to make them sharper.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-52832969569311649112012-01-12T11:51:23.735-08:002012-01-12T11:51:23.735-08:00"Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Kylie ...<i>"Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Kylie inhibits her snipe pretty well. You don't. Leave her alone."</i><br /><br />Thanks. Much appreciated, though not necessary.<br /><br />It was just another punk with too much college in him.Kylienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66549566355140124472012-01-12T11:36:33.316-08:002012-01-12T11:36:33.316-08:00"You're ASSuming I don't know how, wh...<i>"You're ASSuming I don't know how, when I don't care to use one."</i><br /><br />No, you're ASSuming that I ASSumed that. You really didn't get that I was deliberately throwing your crap back in your face. <br /><br />You also ASSumed we didn't "get the joke", ASSumed we would benefit from your patronizing lecture and ASSumed that I found your reference to Steve insulting. <br /><br />Apparently what passes* for your mind is, like your family tree, full of ASSes. <br /><br />*Or pASSesKylienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6952507885886090792012-01-11T23:49:07.472-08:002012-01-11T23:49:07.472-08:00"Projecting in which way? For the reason I do..."Projecting in which way? For the reason I don't know how to use an enye? "<br /><br />Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Kylie inhibits her snipe pretty well. You don't. Leave her alone.Enyanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-65046414472744824162012-01-11T23:45:13.259-08:002012-01-11T23:45:13.259-08:00"Auf Englisch, bitte."
Mmmmm. Der fishs..."Auf Englisch, bitte."<br /><br />Mmmmm. Der fishschticks und der tater tots wit der catsup.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-73310897967073516222012-01-11T21:41:13.998-08:002012-01-11T21:41:13.998-08:00It's typical on this particular HBD forum to a...<i>It's typical on this particular HBD forum to attribute great losses due to being surprised by the technology/imperialism of another group solely to low IQ while failing to recognize that some high IQ groups aren't necessarily achieving scores/grades in a comparable manner to the population used as the standard of achievement.</i><br /><br />Auf Englisch, bitte.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80565225968719885742012-01-11T21:35:13.652-08:002012-01-11T21:35:13.652-08:00It's mostly food industry propaganda. The stuf...<i>It's mostly food industry propaganda. The stuff about n-3 fatty acids boosting IQ is a recent example; the fish oil industry is quite large now.</i><br /><br />Eating omega-3 fatty acids works. In fact, it works so well that really smart people can figure it out on their own without reading anything about omega-3's or nutrition in general. In law school, at exam time, I was impelled to buy and consume lots and lots of fish sticks.ben tillmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-36398745146289936472012-01-11T21:07:36.731-08:002012-01-11T21:07:36.731-08:00Kylie,
Projecting in which way? For the reason I ...Kylie,<br /><br />Projecting in which way? For the reason I don't know how to use an enye? Everyone with access to Google can figure it out. I have access to Google. You're ASSuming I don't know how, when I don't care to use one. Retake that intro to psych class you took while at community college, if in fact you did, and figure out what it means to project. While you're at it take a critical thinking class, if you haven’t, it may just help eliminate your fallacious reasoning and your weak attempts at ad hominems.<br /><br /> BTW, calling Steve a half Mexican is no more an insult than calling Barack O half white or half black. If Steve or you take being called a half Mexican insulting that's your problem.<br /><br />The joke is the absurd contortions people are disposed to in order to salvage their ideology, ego, or whatever is esteemed by them. This absurdity can be either pitiful in a sympathetic character or risible when the individual is not worthy of pity. Is that clear enough? In your case I won’t ASSume to know you but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and think you pathetic *.<br /><br />*causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiableAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61211692643679202472012-01-11T19:59:54.015-08:002012-01-11T19:59:54.015-08:00North America still lags behind the Dutch in heigh...<i> North America still lags behind the Dutch in height.</i><br /><br />No shit! <br /><br />We aren't all Dutch!<br /><br />Compare Dutch folks in the US to the Dutch in their homeland. You know, apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4257011830014762802012-01-11T19:01:06.541-08:002012-01-11T19:01:06.541-08:00I can appreciate not wanting to pretend you can ma...I can appreciate not wanting to pretend you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear; however, you IQ absolutists eternally go too far with your hierarchical assessment of the various population groups. It's typical on this particular HBD forum to attribute great losses due to being surprised by the technology/imperialism of another group solely to low IQ while failing to recognize that some high IQ groups aren't necessarily achieving scores/grades in a comparable manner to the population used as the standard of achievement. Most ISteve-ers follow a heuristic that makes government enabling of equal outcomes unacceptable while private sector tricksters get credit for figuring out how to use indirect means that get the same results as raw brainpower. I, on the other hand, tend to favor the underdog at least when they are honestly not excelling at something important in a Euro-centric worldview.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-90059718966740085292012-01-11T10:04:24.799-08:002012-01-11T10:04:24.799-08:00Krugman is just trying to stay ahead of the race/I...Krugman is just trying to stay ahead of the race/IQ/achievement argument. There are several facts of life liberals do their best to shout down: IQ greatly affects achievement (in groups of people if not in every single individual); IQ is partly (but not completely) inherited; study after study shows that some racial groups have higher mean IQs than others; these groups tend to differ in various types of ability and life achievement in proportions eerily similar to their mean IQ differences. The more we learn about genetics and find the gene patterns for various attributes, the harder it's going to be for liberals to keep people convinced that brain power is the *only* thing on which genes (and thus racial inheritance) have no effect whatsoever.<br /><br />So the liberal with a brain, if he risks looking at the reality for a moment, realizes he'd better start coming up with an alternative answer. Since IQ isn't *entirely* genetic, there's his loophole: find something else that affects it, and blame that for the entire thing. We know that nutrition, especially in the womb and the early years, has some effect on it, so it's a prime candidate. That he gets to blame Republicans for it -- as if cutting some welfare program a couple decades ago is the *only* reason that all races aren't scoring exactly the same on the SAT today -- is just a huge bonus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80767229061316540322012-01-11T09:08:47.236-08:002012-01-11T09:08:47.236-08:00"Apparently you don't get the joke."...<i>"Apparently you don't get the joke."</i><br /><br />We get that it's a joke. We just don't think it's funny.<br /><br /><i>"Really Senor[sic] Estevan, I’d think a smart half Mexican/castizo like you had the savvy to figure it out."</i><br /><br />You're projecting because you don't have the savvy to figure out how to put a tilda over "Señor".Kylienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78371671119877121842012-01-11T07:03:34.561-08:002012-01-11T07:03:34.561-08:00"San Fernando Curt said...
Better to putter ..."San Fernando Curt said...<br /><br />Better to putter around the periphery. Yeah - nutrition. Next year: clean socks!"<br /><br />That was funny. Clean socks! That's the ticket. How can we expect "our" children to learn without clean socks. We must remediate the shameful clean-sock gap in this country. Please donate generously to the United Negro Hosiery Fund.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87705077332344061852012-01-11T05:41:01.689-08:002012-01-11T05:41:01.689-08:00Steve: The anti-poverty lobby has run out of excus...Steve: The anti-poverty lobby has run out of excuses. Expensive Federal programs haven't worked in the 50 years since LBJ declared War on Poverty. So let's blame something else other than identify the real problem.DCShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03125613995070496696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-75933317263551625342012-01-10T21:53:38.330-08:002012-01-10T21:53:38.330-08:00So maybe what blacks should devour more of is not ...<i>So maybe what blacks should devour more of is not food but books.</i> --Zhivago of All Trades<br /><br /><i>They won't do that unless the books are heavily salted and fried in Crisco.</i> --Kylie<br /><br /><br />...and the Crisco doesn't come in already-opened cans from the Castro District.Reg Cæsarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-86076105136487440832012-01-10T20:19:35.776-08:002012-01-10T20:19:35.776-08:00Apparently you don't get the joke. There is in...Apparently you don't get the joke. There is inequality in attainment in the children of “low-income mothers” (code for NAMs), even at earliest measurable age. Organic biological differences are eliminated as a likely cause of these differences because it conflicts with the ideology of lies of Krugman et al. All other explanations exhausted for these average group differences. The remaining solution du jour is differences in nutritional alimentation pre, during, and post gestation for the mother, lower rates of breastfeeding, and poor nutrition for the child. All caused by the intractable legacy of slavery, racism, sexism, flawed immigration system, bad teachers, etc; and never due to poor upbringing, deficient morals, and poor decisions and ability to plan. <br />This can only be remedied with more of the hard working public’s money, because after all the sperm donor of these “low-income mothers-to-be and young children” cannot possibly expect the sperm donor to provide for them. The sperm donor is not irresponsible for not being able or willing to provide as men should, he is merely another victim of the intractable legacy of slavery, racism, sexism, flawed immigration system, bad teachers, ect; and never due to poor upbringing, deficient morals, and poor decisions and ability to plan.<br /><br />All krugman et al need now to complete the hypothesis for the discrepancy in attainment is to incorporate a system of epicycles. Epicycles are the missing key in their explanation of how things work. Really Senor Estevan, I’d think a smart half Mexican/castizo like you had the savvy to figure it out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com