40 Comments

  3. I think I'm the only one who thinks Stephen is obviously more qualified and prepared to educate. I don't understand what's condescending about him. He's literally giving the data, complete with sources.

  4. I found Stephen unconvincing in this first part because:
    1. Physics analogies sound like an appeal to simplicity, when the biology of our bodies certainly does not seem simple to me and people are clearly fucked with simplistic unhelpful talking points that have been floating around for decades.
    2. He seems like the kinda guy who is biased towards his own focus / area of study that he has looked at, in this case the brain the brain and the brain. So does the brain produce the hunger hormone ghrelin, or is produced in the body, or is it pointless to make such an arbitrary distinction like the brain and body are not one system that evolved together? Gary strikes me as the more disciplined and broader thinker, Stephan a guy who is pretentious about the thing he's overly focused on like so many scientists typically are.
    3. Some things he said I don't think Gary would disagree with, yet I didn't get to hear Gary's response in this clip. Annoying so now I have to go look it up elsewhere. Not Stephan's fault but still.
    4. He was overly defensive like a little bitch when Gary asked a simple question. His fight or flight response was keyed up there which does not suggest confidence. I was wondering the same thing as Gary when he asked "what's the model" because he was just waffling on and on. Why can't this be a conversation rather than a speech? Chill out. If you are going to speechify avoid making jabs at Gary that he can't respond to during your 20 minute filibuster.
    5. I don't care about pointing towards prescription drugs as a solution for obesity, yet he used that as some kinda evidence. I'm interested in avoiding obesity NATURALLY. You could bake someone in radiation and that one would make them thinner as well probably, but I don't care and it's not actionable information for me. From this 20 minute speech I have no idea how Stephan thinks I should avoid obesity besides for taking drugs and avoiding junkfood. He says there is a mismatch between "our ancient brains and modern food environment" which is blatantly obvious to everyone and still is not useful information. There's still an obesity epidemic and I still find Gary's model more convincing on how to effectively address it because it's not just repeating the same old same old which has been around since before the Eisenhower Presidency (which seems to be the gist of Stephan's position).
    6. "Junkfood bad and there is lots of it in our environment". Yes but why is it bad according to your model? Gary already agrees with you it's bad, you are debating why from a nutritional perspective.
    7. "Sugar/carb only cannot cause the same amount of obesity". This talking point just sounds stupid, as I don't think it is Gary's position that energy in / energy out does not matter at all and it's only carb in some kind of straightforward pure sense. In one of Gary's books I remember him explaining that CICO is just pointlessly and unhelpfully simplistic similar to saying a plane crashed due to an imbalance of lift and gravity (which just begs the question why). There are also things like the Randle cycle which explain why carb and fat combined have a more obesity-promoting effect than just carb, but that combo does not mean that a fat-based diet isn't still healthier than a carb-based one. Does Stephen even know about the Randle cycle? Based on this clip I'd assume not. I don't think Gary's position relies on denying that carb+fat can be more fattening than just carb?

    I strongly suspect when I move onto the debate clip that Gary will address some of the misunderstanding/strawmanning of his position.

Leave a Reply

© 2024 FYTube Online - FYTube.Com

Partners: Omenirea.Ro , masini in rate