genejockey 

Right! Do like the rest of us do - get your nutrition and medical information from strangers on internet forums.

genejockey 

Ad Hominem: "Your argument is bad because you're an idiot."

Not Ad Hominem: "You're an idiot because your argument is bad."

RH Clark

There is a huge debate going on right now between accredited experts as to the role of LDL cholesterol. While it is found in arterial build up, the debate is whether it is acting as an arsonist, or as a fireman.

Iride01 

There is almost always debate going on among the experts. It's when there isn't any debate by the experts that we have to fear something has been overlooked.

ZHVelo

I guess you also support Dr. Berg whose own kid talks about what a lunatic and charlatan he is.

ZHVelo

I wouldn't call people grifting online a debate.

RH Clark

If your intention was a debate, you would post some evidence that refutes the studies Berry is citing rather than going for the personal attack.

ZHVelo

What personal attack? Is calling a grifter a grifter a "personal attack"? Is that all you can do? You've accused pretty much everyone in this thread of this and have been refuted thoroughly.

My intention was not a debate though, because as I said, this isn't a debate.

RH Clark

Yes, you attacked Berry, then added slight toward me that I might also endorse someone else you personally attacked as being despicable. What you haven't done is to speak to any studies we might try to glean some information from and then discuss the different points of who is right and why. That would be a discussion. You didn't want to do that either because the whole idea that saturated fat may not be bad for you seems preposterous to you, or you despise at least 2 internet personalities so thoroughly that you can't even discuss the research that they are introducing to the conversation.

But as you said you never wanted a debate in the first place. You chose insults and personal attacks instead.

Carbonfiberboy 

Seems like rather than argue about a person, we might do better to discuss studies and their pluses and minuses. After some online fooling around, I found what seems to me like a decent start at trying to figure out what all the noise is about. Some time ago, I noticed the change from saying, "drink skim milk" to "drink whole milk" and I switched, not that it means anything, just that I noticed a change in the message. Anyway, this seemed to me like a good entry point into the science involved, although it's now a whole year out of date and a year in science is now a long time:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...-saturated-fat

ZHVelo

Again, is calling a grifter a grifter a "personal attack"? Why can you not answer a simple question?

Dr. Berg is a quack, even his own child has come out to say this, you are free to research that. That is not ad hominem. Yes, I implied you are the kind of human being that falls for conspiracies. Am I wrong? Do you not tend to side with YouTube quacks that make money off of people like you? Where is the attack here? It's just stating facts.

The same way I don't need to debate theists I don't need to debate two online grifters. Yes. You got that right.

As to saturated fats, I eat eggs and dairy. They have saturated fats. I believe meat and especially processed meat is the real culprit. Doesn't change anything about the two YouTube 'doctors' being hacks and grifters and not worthy of being taken seriously.

terrymorse 

Why do nutrition threads tend to produce heated arguments, while training threads not so much?

I can call San Milan's zone 2 advice stupid and get barely a harumph in reply.

RChung

I think it's cuz we are what we eat so criticizing how or what one eats is pretty personal.

Years ago on their first trip to a foreign country I warned my kids that they'd see many wondrous, beautiful, and appalling things, chief among them the food. I said they needn't eat everything offered to them but, under no circumstances were they allowed to make faces or hold their noses or feign gagging. Then, because I'm a practical parent, I added, "when others can see you."

ZHVelo

Because one is about health the other about training.

50PlusCycling

It saturated fat dangerous? Who knows? Pretty much every study on diet going back 60 years has been at least partially debunked. From what I can gather in my experience with different diets and fitness routines, the foods most toxic to my health are sugar, and wheat/rice based food products. I eat lots of meat and fish, lots of vegetables, a little fruit, and an occasional beer. These keep me lean, reasonably sharp, and give me enough energy to get through long rides.

I have no idea who Berry is, but even a stopped clock is right twice per day.

Iride01 

Maybe because nutrition needs while cycling seem to get morphed into overall nutrition needs. Some seem to think that nutrition used on that 1 - 3 hour ride will destroy the nutrition plan for overall health.

goose70

But besides that, will he take my Blue Choice HMO? (:

genejockey 

Hermes

RH Clark

Well, it might, or it might not. It would if that sugar caused higher sustained triglycerides levels, or a higher fasted insulin level and glucose levels. That can happen even if you are skinny as a pro rider.