Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
It's not an ad hominem. But then can you find the reference to MTHFR that Regina says she mentioned before in this thread? No, you can't? That's where the ad hominem comes from. If she mentioned it elsewhere, it's not an ad hominem, it's a simple mistake on her part to which she should now admit. Then offer an apology for having implied that I was too stupid to even consider this supposedly important knowledge. If it was so important, she would have made sure of when and where she mentioned it. Now, she just looks less and less honest for it.
|
Perhaps it is you who need apologize?
You see, I didn't say I'd mentioned MTHFR on this thread, I said "Tackling just one, that I've mentioned before, MTHFR gene mutations....this one thing alone offers a view about the nutrient requirement differences between populations and individuals....that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to."
Now granted, it might be considered that your read that and felt it implied that I'd posted here on this thread about MTHFR....however, without specificity, it is your mistake to extrapolate my intent/meaning since my words merely communicated that I'd mentioned it previously without noting where.
That said, I did pause and wonder....hmmm....was Martin really reading and replying in threads where I've mentioned MTHFR as a piece of the puzzle from a genetic pov? Thinking that if you were not, then maybe I do need to apologize, that maybe I was mistaken.
Handy feature of this forum is "search" - and a quick search for MTHFR with my userID quickly gave me the posts in which I'd mentioned MTHFR polymorphisms.
Notable was an exchange that you and I had - very recently - in the thread titled
Severely Restricted Diet Linked To Physical Fitness Into Old Age - in which, on January 3rd (about two weeks ago) you replied to something I posted.
Here is
the exchange:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
It's obvious you have not read the IOM documentation on the hows and whys of DRI recommendations. For one thing, many are established based on diseases of deficiency - at what level is overt symptoms presented? For others, they're established by body weight (ie. protein requirements). And for still others, they're best guesses and admitted as such. Some nutrients are contentious and that contention is indeed discussed in the documentation (ie. vitamin C) and then other things we've learned an excess leads to issues of toxicity (ie. supplemental folic acid - not folate in foods). They're based on population wide estimates though, so they're flawed in some ways, but do hold value since we do know that deficiency and/or excess causes problems. What they do need to still hone in on is the genetic variables we're learning about that take an individual's need for a particular nutrient or set of nutrients outside the norm.....
like someone who has an MTHFR mutation requires much more folate, B12 and B6 along with a steady diet of choline, B2 and betaine too. The DRI's don't address that population and probably won't for decades. [emphasis mine for this post]
Martin replied:
Whether I read it or not makes little difference. Their recommendations are still based on a high carb, low fat calorie restricted diet. In fact, they are based on the national dietary recommendation i.e. the food pyramid in the US. It can't be otherwise. It's established using a single weight and calorie value then extrapolated to other weights and calorie values using various formulas. Anything else is not relevant here. Except perhaps that since it is based on current dietary guidelines and these guidelines are by all accounts erroneous and promote a deficient diet, it follows that any recommendation based on this is also erroneous and promote a deficient diet. In other words, this system works to destroy itself.
How can we claim that the DRI is valid when we can't make it work by following the dietary guidelines on which DRI is based? And in order to make it work, we have to act against the guidelines by cutting carbs. If we act against the guidelines, we act against the DRI.
------------------------
In that thread we also discussed NTD's and went round and round about the role of folate, to which you said that you did not believe that folate was the issue, but that "folate deficiency is probably caused by a high carb, low fat, restricted calorie diet. The folate/NTD is an association. I made another association by hypothesizing that since the SAD causes so many deficiencies, it might as well cause a folate deficiency thus it might as well be associated with NTD too. There is not a single disease that I'm aware of where the SAD is not involved in some way."
Post address for that is here:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...46&postcount=80
-------------------------
And if anyone wonders where my view that you believe an all-meat diet translates to flesh and fat, that organs and other parts rich with nutrients are unnecessary, you'll find that here:
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...17&postcount=97
Martin Posted:
No, let me spell it out better. Muscle meat and fat is enough.
------------------------
Now then, shall we resume, or would you prefer to continue your lessons on maturity and logical fallacies?