4 ms·
That level of antagonism requires evidence to support your point. Otherwise your words just come off as unacceptably rude.
by carbocation 13y ago
That level of antagonism requires evidence to support your point. Otherwise your words just come off as unacceptably rude.
- crusso 13y agoAnother user already posted this link. Here's tons of evidence and someone wondering why we've ignored that evidence for so long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4
- carbocation 13y agoNot even Gary Taubes denies thermodynamics, and a link to a youtube video does not justify vitriol.
- crusso 13y agoI didn't say that I or Taubes denied thermodynamics. You're spinning. I said that the caloric intake explanation of weight gain is "noise" in this discussion. It's useless. Taube even covers why it's a useless statement in the provided link. Secondly, I disagree with your assessment of anything I said as "vitriol". If it's vitriol to call someone's statement ignorant or point out that they're committing the very act they're complaining about through that ignorance, then I would claim that you're confusing "vitriol" with "directness".
- MDS100 13y agoIt is NOT useless. There are a plethora of factors influencing energy intake. Which you can work on. His unsubstantiated pet theory that carbs are to blame lacks evidence.