[ExI] Causation, fat oxidation, ketosis, and disqualification

[J. Stanton]

Harvey Newstrom said:
> That study is outdated.  It only found a correlation.  But correlation
> is not causation.  Follow-up experiments to test actual causation showed
> that increased fructose intake does not increase uric acid or cause
> gout. <http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/7/1/16>.

Really?

You're claiming correlation is not causation (true) -- and then claiming 
a second *associative study* as proof of causation?

Really?

You can't possibly have looked at the *title* of that paper ("Lack of 
ASSOCIATION between dietary fructose and hyperuricemia risk in adults"), 
let alone the abstract or the full text, and claimed it as proof of 
*causation* over another associative study.

Frankly, I expect more out of people on this list than making confident 
yet trivially false statements and raising your arms like you just won 
something.

Harvey Newstrom wrote:
 > I have no doubt that you can get plenty of energy from fat.  But you have
to
 > go into ketosis to do it.  And you risk an Atkins-style heart-attack.

Once again, you've made a trivially false statement about human 
metabolism.  Beta-oxidation (fat oxidation) in humans is continuous 
except near peak VO2max.  Look up the respiratory exchange ratio (RER): 
0.7 indicates primarily fat oxidation, 0.85 is a mix of fat and 
carbohydrate oxidation, and 1+ indicates primarily carbohydrate.

A typical resting RER for healthy people is 0.8.  (And higher resting 
RER is predictive of obesity, as one might imagine.)

Also, you're confusing 'ketosis' and 'ketoacidosis'.  Ketosis is a 
natural and reasonable state to be in: your brain and heart actually run 
more efficiently on ketones than they do on glucose.  Ketoacidosis is a 
pathological state, usually created by alcoholism and sometimes by 
uncontrolled diabetes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketoacidosis

I will be frank: between these and your previous trivially false 
statements about glucose metabolism, you've disqualified yourself from 
discussing any topic relating to human diet and metabolism, ancestral or 
modern.

*plonk*

I apologize to the list for the tone of this response, but I'm genuinely 
dumbfounded.  I haven't been on the receiving end of this sort of 
nonsense since my last encounter with a young-earth creationist.

JS
http://www.gnolls.org