"Gluconeogenesis is demand driven."

First, who is doing the demanding? If we define demand as "need" rather than want, which makes a little more sense if we're taking the "who" out of the equation, the assumption here is that the glucose that is produced is the glucose that is needed. Is this true? We know that we can run on way less glucose than we can produce through gluconeogenesis in a day.


"There are conditions under which increasing glucogenic substrates doesn't increase gluconeogenesis" seems more correct to me--and removes the assumption that there aren't conditions where gluconeogenesis is substrate driven. Fasting studies gave the assumption that it was substrate driven.

Is substrate-driven saturable? Fed people have more substrate than fasting people, even at 14 hours fasted more than 24 etc. At some point, this may become saturated. A more deeply ketogenic diet approaches the fasted state. At some point do "fasted" substrate levels reach a point where increasing substrate has no obvious effect on levels of gluconeogenesis?

Drowning is substrate-driven, but at some point, making the pool deeper doesn't make it any more dangerous.

"Tomatoes are really a fruit, and peanuts are really a legume."


Who cares? What matters is the carb count. And they taste just like vegetables and nuts.

Okay, I'll respond to these copy-n-paste talking points, but that's it, since I don't want to thread jack this any further.



This is more about paranoia and conspiracy than anything else. Worries that some big corporate entity is taking over the world is nothing new, and it's really rooted in fear rather than reality.

Do large corporations work in agriculture and food production? Absolutely. If you think that the stuff you get at the local grocery store is made by little independent farmers, you're fooling yourself. The market naturally incentivizes the production and business efficiencies that larger corporations are able to provide. This is what commercial businesses do. Profit is a great motivator, and it's a cornerstone of the American culture. It should be no surprise that businesses are always looking at way to increase production and improve margins.

If you see this as an evil cabal of corporate greed, or if you just want to have food items that are locally produced (and arguably fresher) you can always go to your local farmers market or food cooperative. Freedom of the consumer to make a choice like this is also a cornerstone of the free market system.




I'm not sure how to address this broad of a claim, but I will say that on the limited amount of products that are produced via direct genetic modification, it can be argued that there is some tangible benefit, or the economic reality of it would end the process.




In reality, crops that have insect resistance (Bt traits) built into them actually require LESS treatment than the crops that are used in more traditional production. That's part of the point of building the resistance into the plant to begin with. And while the glyphosate (Roundup) resistant traits do allow the farmer to apply higher levels of glyphosate, that isn't unexpected, since the goal is to eradicate unwanted weeds without harming the desired crop. They build in resistance so they can more efficiently kill off the competing plants.

What isn't mentioned is that other farming methods - organic among them - use pesticides that have a higher toxicity, and are required to use higher application levels to achieve their intended benefit.




Cross contamination - or more accurately, cross pollination - of crops has always been a concern, even before the advent of direct genetic modification. Organic farmers worry that they will lose their ability to label their crops "organic" if the winds blow in from the GMO produced crops. and the reverse is also true - the unwanted traits of non-GMO crops can actually invade the GMO crops. This type of cross pollination has always been known, and while it can be problematic, there is no logical reason to think that both farming methods can't coexist.

One thing that bugs me is that "GMO" has become an inaccurately demonized buzzword. Like, "Ewww...I got some GMO on me!" It's not a disease that spreads, and it's not some nasty, evil compound that can spread. It's a production method similar to what has been done for eons (hybridization), and it's methods are arguably more accurate and useful.




Like with any other industry, anti tech forces claim that the pro tech research is biased because they are funded by the tech companies. Of course many of them are. Why wouldn't they be? Does it mean that the research is less scientifically valid, especially if it is properly done and properly peer reviewed? No.

When all logic fails, throw out the shill card and attempt to impugn the source rather than argue the merits of the information.

Anyway, I do think it's wise to keep an eye on the topic, but I also believe that there is rampant, illogical paranoia being pushed by a variety of social media "experts," and sometimes it requires thinking people to take a step back and analyze the information from all points.

So...back to the original thread...

Susky2 you are like my brother from another mother.

"IF it fits your macros" when used as synonymous with "quality doesn't matter."

"Just eat real food." I could take "Only eat real food," but "Just" sort of implies that sticking to "real" food is enough. There are lots of foods that I consider real that don't seem to work for me.

Also the idea that "quality" is more important than consideration of things like macronutrients. Macronutrient ratio is a quality of the diet.

AGreed!

I will add two- "muscle weighs more than fat." It's amazing how few people seem to remember high school level phsyics.

"BMI is useless. Such and such NBA star is obese on that scale." Well yes, BMI has its limitations, the reason 2 /3 of Americans are classified as overweight or obese isn't because we are so jacked. We are fat.

Yes. When my bmi says I'm overweight, I generally am.

There's another one--"but you don't need to lose weight" when I did.

"I'm in it for my health, not the weight loss." There's nothing wrong with being in it for the weight loss, when appropriate, and very often the weight loss is what needs to happen for health to improve.

LOL...I hear ya!

Well, colour me happy, I finally found the answer!

Uh, I care. And probably so do other people who would actually like to acquire some basic facts regarding what they put in their mouth.

We've often heard LC eating poo-pooed by MDs, RDs, etc because it eliminates entire "food groups", with wheat and sugary fruit being food groups, apparently. Well, here's a list of the fruits that even someone on Atkins induction is allowed to have: tomatoes, avocados, peppers, olives, cucumbers, pumpkin, spaghetti squash and zucchini. I'm sure many people have been scared away from LC eating because they think they're facing significant nutritional deficiency without apples and bananas.

And you know who cares about peanuts being legumes? Someone realizing that their auto-immune problems are related to diet. Someone trying to sort out a stall. Someone who wants to actually follow the rules for a plan like Atkins.

Y'know, a whole lot of this thread is significantly mean-spirited. A lot of the "things you wish people would stop saying" are said by other members on the forum. "(x) pounds gone forever" and "Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" are common motivational phrases. If it's motivating someone, what do you care? It bugs you enough that you'd post about it? Guys.

I've had the same reaction to this thread, that it is mean spirited. People often say things I disagree with or that irritate me. That doesn't necessarily mean I am right and they are wrong or that they should stop saying it. If what they say is factually incorrect, depending on the circumstance, I may try to tactfully correct their factual mistake, but beyond factual contradiction I just try to work on lessening my tendency to get irritated rather than correct the world of people out there who irritate me. I bet I irritate some of them too. And, as an aside, I can't eat any legumes so knowing that peanuts are a legume is important to me.