3 ms·

> I don't really care what it is exactly; You've made that perfectly clear, but your personal standards for food safety are entirely arbitrary and not reflecti

by bryans 5y ago

> I don't really care what it is exactly; You've made that perfectly clear, but your personal standards for food safety are entirely arbitrary and not reflective of reality. If you tried applying those same standards to medicine, for example, you'd find that simple injuries all of a sudden become deadly and for no legitimate reason. Also, gums (particularly locust bean gums) have been used in food for hundreds of years, and in other uses for thousands of years. They're nothing new, and your concerns are imagined.

blindmute 5y ago
With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. So far, my health is superb and I'm one of the few remaining people to not be overweight; I'm actually extremely fit and active. The point is not that I'm right because it works for me; the point is that if you follow recommended diets from various governments, you'll end up on average worse than my entirely arbitrary made up diet I do to feel rustic. Government can be wrong about HFCS and seed oils being safe, and so instead of trusting them, I will just eat what is proven to be safe and wholesome across human history: meat, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fry in tallow, drink bone broth. Your appeal to science is precisely what I'm avoiding.
- bryans 5y ago
  > With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. You were just told that gums are a simple and naturally occurring ingredient and have been used for thousands of years, and your rebuttal was to refuse them because you don't eat compound ingredients recently invented in a lab. I think that says everything about the mental gymnastics you're doing to convince yourself that you've got it all figured out. If you eat nuts, or the skins of many fruits, or any root vegetables, then you are consuming gums (aka polysaccharides (aka sugar)). You just don't call it that, because it's one ingredient among many in a larger product -- like say, a potato.
  - blindmute 5y ago
    I do not care if my arbitrary diet happens to exclude some perfectly safe and fine ingredients. I literally could not care less about that; I am limiting myself to some relatively known subset of foods. Xantham gum has not been used for any long length of time. If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it. You seem to think that I'm arguing that I have the optimal diet, or that if you can prove something I don't eat is safe, then I'm wrong. Obviously, trivially, there is something invented in the past 2000 years that is safe and fine to eat. I just choose not to eat that. I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. When you call my diet irrational or unscientific, you fail to understand that I explicitly distrust and ignore nutrition science. Yes, it's naturalistic and unscientific; that is intentional.
    - bryans 5y ago
      > I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. Except that all you've done is repeatedly try to convince everyone that gums are "nasty" and "invented" and "unsafe" within the personal anecdote of "I don't eat gums and look at me, I'm the definition of perfect health, and that means you shouldn't trust any science!" Despite your insistence that you've "literally" made no claims at all, here is a shortened list of the false and disinformative claims you managed to make within the span of five brief comments: 1. Seeds and gums are "unsafe" because "reasons." 2. Gums were "invented in a lab." 3. Gums are "unnaturally and chemically produced." 4. You can "taste the gum" in "cheap" cream cheese products. 5. Cream cheese contains "other unsafe and lab-invented ingredients." 6. Food science is "arbitrary" and "isn't even science." 7. A naturally occurring process "doesn't exist until it's observed," at which point it becomes an "invented manmade process." 8. Anecdotes can "prove" safety, but scientific research can't. 9. You are "one of the few remaining people" in the world to not be overweight. That's a whole bunch of completely untrue claims for "literally only stating what my diet is," and the last claim is easily one of the most arrogant and ignorant statements I've ever heard, given that only 39% of the global population is considered "overweight or obese." It's very telling that you consider yourself to be so uniquely special despite being in the same classification as 4.75 billion other humans, which explains why you're so overly (and mistakenly) confident about your anti-science views. > If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it. It has been explained to you multiple times now that locust bean gum -- the gum used in nearly every cream cheese brand -- is a milled seed that has existed and been used for thousands of years. It is completely natural in every conceivable way, it meets all of your arbitrary pre-science and pre-modern requirements, and is chemically the same as a "traditional fruit skin gum." So if you're willing to eat fruit skins, you shouldn't have an aversion to locust bean gum. Yet, you're still here trying to convince people that it's "unsafe" and "invented recently," and that your anti-science philosophy is something to be applauded. Quite the contrary. Your intentional dedication to irrationality and disinformation is quite disturbing, and that you think irrationality is a characteristic that makes you better than other people is even more troubling. Nobody is trying to convince you to eat bean gums, but you're decidedly trying to convince everyone not to.

by bryans 5y ago

blindmute 5y ago

With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. So far, my health is superb and I'm one of the few remaining people to not be overweight; I'm actually extremely fit and active. The point is not that I'm right because it works for me; the point is that if you follow recommended diets from various governments, you'll end up on average worse than my entirely arbitrary made up diet I do to feel rustic. Government can be wrong about HFCS and seed oils being safe, and so instead of trusting them, I will just eat what is proven to be safe and wholesome across human history: meat, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fry in tallow, drink bone broth. Your appeal to science is precisely what I'm avoiding.

bryans 5y ago
> With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. You were just told that gums are a simple and naturally occurring ingredient and have been used for thousands of years, and your rebuttal was to refuse them because you don't eat compound ingredients recently invented in a lab. I think that says everything about the mental gymnastics you're doing to convince yourself that you've got it all figured out. If you eat nuts, or the skins of many fruits, or any root vegetables, then you are consuming gums (aka polysaccharides (aka sugar)). You just don't call it that, because it's one ingredient among many in a larger product -- like say, a potato.
- blindmute 5y ago
  I do not care if my arbitrary diet happens to exclude some perfectly safe and fine ingredients. I literally could not care less about that; I am limiting myself to some relatively known subset of foods. Xantham gum has not been used for any long length of time. If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it. You seem to think that I'm arguing that I have the optimal diet, or that if you can prove something I don't eat is safe, then I'm wrong. Obviously, trivially, there is something invented in the past 2000 years that is safe and fine to eat. I just choose not to eat that. I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. When you call my diet irrational or unscientific, you fail to understand that I explicitly distrust and ignore nutrition science. Yes, it's naturalistic and unscientific; that is intentional.
  - bryans 5y ago
    > I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. Except that all you've done is repeatedly try to convince everyone that gums are "nasty" and "invented" and "unsafe" within the personal anecdote of "I don't eat gums and look at me, I'm the definition of perfect health, and that means you shouldn't trust any science!" Despite your insistence that you've "literally" made no claims at all, here is a shortened list of the false and disinformative claims you managed to make within the span of five brief comments: 1. Seeds and gums are "unsafe" because "reasons." 2. Gums were "invented in a lab." 3. Gums are "unnaturally and chemically produced." 4. You can "taste the gum" in "cheap" cream cheese products. 5. Cream cheese contains "other unsafe and lab-invented ingredients." 6. Food science is "arbitrary" and "isn't even science." 7. A naturally occurring process "doesn't exist until it's observed," at which point it becomes an "invented manmade process." 8. Anecdotes can "prove" safety, but scientific research can't. 9. You are "one of the few remaining people" in the world to not be overweight. That's a whole bunch of completely untrue claims for "literally only stating what my diet is," and the last claim is easily one of the most arrogant and ignorant statements I've ever heard, given that only 39% of the global population is considered "overweight or obese." It's very telling that you consider yourself to be so uniquely special despite being in the same classification as 4.75 billion other humans, which explains why you're so overly (and mistakenly) confident about your anti-science views. > If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it. It has been explained to you multiple times now that locust bean gum -- the gum used in nearly every cream cheese brand -- is a milled seed that has existed and been used for thousands of years. It is completely natural in every conceivable way, it meets all of your arbitrary pre-science and pre-modern requirements, and is chemically the same as a "traditional fruit skin gum." So if you're willing to eat fruit skins, you shouldn't have an aversion to locust bean gum. Yet, you're still here trying to convince people that it's "unsafe" and "invented recently," and that your anti-science philosophy is something to be applauded. Quite the contrary. Your intentional dedication to irrationality and disinformation is quite disturbing, and that you think irrationality is a characteristic that makes you better than other people is even more troubling. Nobody is trying to convince you to eat bean gums, but you're decidedly trying to convince everyone not to.