LMFAO. Really now?Look, the human genome has been decoded, and there is NO genetic basis for race
|
Thread: White rice is good carbs?
-
10-21-2003, 07:58 PM #31
-
10-21-2003, 10:13 PM #32Originally posted by EricS
I'm surprised that people still make this mistake. Look, the human genome has been decoded, and there is NO genetic basis for race. Therefore genetic flaws can NOT be linked to race.
Race is socially constructed.
Originally posted by EricS
What happens when you mix "Races"?
-
-
10-24-2003, 03:34 AM #33
-
10-24-2003, 03:45 AM #34Originally posted by Brinn
First, the human genome hasn't been completely decoded. Mapping the genome and understanding it are two different things. Second, you're arguing that a person's poor response to a certain diet as a "genetic flaw" when it may just be not that person's optimal diet. Third, you're implying that societal forces can be dismissed when in fact it could be argued that they overshadow all other influences on human development over the past few millenia.
Lines blur and differences will fade but pretending those lines don't exist helps no one. I believe we're all equal but that doesn't mean we're all the same.
What makes a race? there is no definatife answer is there? There is ethnicity. That person grew up in a German family. That is there ethnic background. That person's anscestors are from africa.
does a black person with light skin and green eyes qualify as black?
<<<<Second, you're arguing that a person's poor response to a certain diet as a "genetic flaw" when it may just be not that person's optimal diet>>>>
for example? I challenge you to correct the varius studies on "race" and disease realted to disase as result of diet for social class, income, education and health care. It paints a very different picture.
<<<<Third, you're implying that societal forces can be dismissed when in fact it could be argued that they overshadow all other influences on human development over the past few millenia.>>>>
This is my point. Societal, as you put it, forces are overpowering our descions and drive our research when there is no reason to.
Why do we compar the "Black" athlete to the "white" athlete? Why do we think that the "black" athlete dominates this or that sport.
did you know that the Jewish dominated basketball for decades? Could it be that baseball, basketball and football do not require much money to play in the back yard and they have grown up with that sport, practiced it and become very good at it.
Think of all the sports that black people don't play. baseball, basketball and football make up about 15% of all professional sports, it just so happens that these are the main stream ones."Cuts To The Bone"
http://www.muscleoverload.com
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/satter.htm
-
10-24-2003, 03:48 AM #35Originally posted by Zachary
Look, I'm as liberal as they come, but don't jump on me like you're the ACLU's bitch, for crying out loud.
What I'm talking about here is ethnic diversity -- groups from different parts of the world DO have different genetic traits. Just because the GENOME is decoded doesn't mean some people don't have certain genes that are 'on' or 'off' in different patterns/ways than other people.
Absolutely absurd.
My point is that the genome has been decoded and there is no common thread among races. There is nothing that would constitute race between genetic expression. There is no "race" gene or sets of genes.
You can't look at a person genetic expresions and determin if they are a particular race.
Plain and simple. You have to look at the physical person to know what race they are. You have a construct in your head of what a "race" is."Cuts To The Bone"
http://www.muscleoverload.com
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/satter.htm
-
10-24-2003, 03:54 AM #36
-
-
10-24-2003, 09:06 AM #37
lol... from high GI carbs to deep ethnic discussion in a few posts...
"You put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow... or it can crash... Be water my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do." - Bruce Lee
-
10-24-2003, 09:24 AM #38
-
10-24-2003, 01:56 PM #39Originally posted by EricS
Sure they do. But just because we have labeld them as a RACE does not mean that everyone we consider to be apart of that RACE has the same genes on or off, does it?
My point is that the genome has been decoded and there is no common thread among races. There is nothing that would constitute race between genetic expression. There is no "race" gene or sets of genes.
You can't look at a person genetic expresions and determin if they are a particular race.
Plain and simple. You have to look at the physical person to know what race they are. You have a construct in your head of what a "race" is.
Honestly, we label races because there are trends in groups whose ancestry can be traced back (to a degree -- not going back to sub-saharan Africa) to certain parts of the world. In this groups or races, there are genetic tendencies, and, indeed, each 'race' has a few marked signs (i.e. visual) that generally suggest that origin. (Skin color, eye placement, etc. etc.)
Does this mean that everyone can be grouped into one race? No, of course not, that's absurd. Does this even mean that races are clearly defined groups? No, again absurd. Does it mean that we can more or less separate people into groups by sorting them into different groupings with SIMILAR trends in genetic expression? YES.
EDIT: For the record, I'm an ACLU member, consider myself liberal to a great degree, am in favor of affirmative action, am strongly against racism, etc. However, I also object to the idea that everyone is the same. We should celebrate diversity, not try to SILENCE it.Last edited by Zachary; 10-24-2003 at 01:58 PM.
-
10-25-2003, 07:56 PM #40
-
-
10-26-2003, 08:34 AM #41
Nothing wrong with it
I hear people say it's as bad as sugar. That's bull****.
Sugar has no vitamins/minerals, empty calories...
Rice is not as high on the GI as sugar. It's better because it digests slower.
It's the ideal food voor bodybuilders, bulk or diet. You just have to make sure you eat meat with it. Cause meat digests slow and slows the rice down. So the GI will be lower. I know many pro's who eat white rice or potatos, several times a day.
It's ideal for muscle growth. So keep eating it!
-
10-26-2003, 08:35 AM #42
Re: Nothing wrong with it
Originally posted by T.W.
I hear people say it's as bad as sugar. That's bull****.
Sugar has no vitamins/minerals, empty calories...
Rice is not as high on the GI as sugar. It's better because it digests slower.
It's the ideal food voor bodybuilders, bulk or diet. You just have to make sure you eat meat with it. Cause meat digests slow and slows the rice down. So the GI will be lower. I know many pro's who eat white rice or potatos, several times a day.
It's ideal for muscle growth. So keep eating it![URL=http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=8855244]Free Ipods![/URL]
[URL=http://www.projectphysique.com]Project Physique[/URL]
-
10-26-2003, 09:00 AM #43
- Join Date: Apr 2003
- Location: u know that place to the left?well, it aint there
- Posts: 1,448
- Rep Power: 525
many of you people are wrong
Theres hardly any difference of GI between white rice and brown rice.
white rice depending in variations, ranges from 48 to 69 in the GI scale, and brown rice ranges from 50 to 66, and in fact, the most commonly types of white rice and brown rice used have a 45 (white rice) and 50 (brown rice)!!! so brown rice has a higher GI than white rice (and this can be extrapolated to the other ranges of brown and white rice).
I have gotten this information from
http://www.glycemicindex.com/
just in case any smartass tries anything
Its just a misconception that people have, white rice is thought of "sugar" cos its white, and people instantly think of high GI, where as they see brown, think of "healthy" and therefore think "low GI", when this is not true. Not only this, but the difference inamount of fiber is not very wide (about 2 to 3 grams per 100 grams).
The only thing why brown rice is better thanwhite rice is because it contains higher quantities of minerals and vitamins.
-
10-26-2003, 09:04 AM #44
-
-
10-26-2003, 09:14 AM #45
- Join Date: Apr 2003
- Location: u know that place to the left?well, it aint there
- Posts: 1,448
- Rep Power: 525
Originally posted by Zachary
While I, and just about everyone with a decent knowledge of nutrition, tend to agree with you, there is one flaw in that logic.
The problem with 'cultural examples' is that different 'races' tend to have different adaptations genetically. This is why people with genes decending from normally warm climates without a need for bodyfat are more often of the ectomorph type, while those with genes from colder climates (thus needing more bodyfat) gravitate towards the endomorph type. Obviously this isn't always true, but it does tend to be.
For this reason, saying that because asians eat lots of rice and don't get fat, everyone can, is sorta like saying that because ectomorphs can eat absolute crap (especially in childhood) and remain beanpoles, so can endomorphs. Which is patently false. Now, I'm not really sure if asians do in fact have genetic adaptations here, but it wouldn't surprise me. When you're surrounded by white rice for thousands and thousands of years, one would think the body would evolve to deal with that.
Again, this is all speculation, but in general it's wise to be careful with cultural diet comparisons.
Humans have been evolved to be fed on a protein/fat diet, not on rice. In fact, the history of rice is small compared to the existence of humans, and it takes thousands of years for any changes in the genetic code, this is why the introduction of carbohydrates "which are not present in nature" has led to a vast range of diseases, such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovasular diseases, etc.
Your theory of how people in warm areas are ectomorphs and in cold areas they are endomorphs is pure crap. The Eskimo population are quite lean (despite looking fat) and their diet is purely of protein and fat, yet there are hardly no cases of diabetes in their population settlements. Ill tell you the simple reason why people in warm areas are leaner than in cold areas,. because of the weather! Simple, if its warm outside, you are encouraged to be outside, to move around, not only this, but people are less stressed which plays an important factor in obesity, where as in cold areas, people stay at home, they are bored, they eat, they hardly move. IM telling you this because i am from the Canary Islands (south Morocco), where it is very hot,and yes, many people are lean, but i spend most of my life outside, and so do most of the people. Now im living in england, and hell, i hardly go outside cos im freaking freezing, more people are fat here, and you do get lots of people stressed (in fact, many people migrate from england to other countries cos of the weather).
-
10-26-2003, 09:22 AM #46[i]Humans have been evolved to be fed on a protein/fat diet. [/B][URL=http://www.freeiPods.com/default.aspx?referer=8855244]Free Ipods![/URL]
[URL=http://www.projectphysique.com]Project Physique[/URL]
-
10-26-2003, 09:23 AM #47
-
10-26-2003, 09:33 AM #48
- Join Date: Apr 2003
- Location: u know that place to the left?well, it aint there
- Posts: 1,448
- Rep Power: 525
Originally posted by donescobar2000
I have been thinkiing this to be true. As of late at least. But why is it that when you withdraw from carbs you feel like ****? Are you saying that when you want to maintain to increase the fat instead of the carbs?
when you withdraw from carbs, you feel like ****, but this is as your body shifts its fuel metabolism from carbs to fats, after 4 days, you will feel excellent, and more than likely, better than on a carb based diet (even though it was low GI based).
I am no guru here, im just talking from experience and reserach plus all the help i have obtained from better knowdlegable people than me, but yes, if you take away carbs, you should increase fats. Your body needs fuel, and the last resource should be protein, thus you need to feed your body either fats or carbs.
Im not advocating the Atkins diet by any means, because us athletes (athletes as in practising sport activities) need carbs, we just need to find a precise balance.
Me myself, im following a CKD (cyclical ketogenic diet) as is wonderful. Some people are against it because they say they feel **** on it, but it is because they havent done it properly. the only drawback of this diet is when you are outside and get your stinking boliedeggs out of your container LOL
anyway, not trying to hijack the thread, just putting my 2 cents
-
-
10-26-2003, 04:31 PM #49Originally posted by EricS
Sure they do. But just because we have labeld them as a RACE does not mean that everyone we consider to be apart of that RACE has the same genes on or off, does it?
My point is that the genome has been decoded and there is no common thread among races. There is nothing that would constitute race between genetic expression. There is no "race" gene or sets of genes.
You can't look at a person genetic expresions and determin if they are a particular race.
Plain and simple. You have to look at the physical person to know what race they are. You have a construct in your head of what a "race" is.
-
10-26-2003, 04:36 PM #50Originally posted by Zachary
You're playing bloody word games. Fine, don't call it a race. What we're talking about is genetic expression that shows itself as trends in 'groups living in similar regions several thousand years ago and further back', something that we nowadays call RACES.
Honestly, we label races because there are trends in groups whose ancestry can be traced back (to a degree -- not going back to sub-saharan Africa) to certain parts of the world. In this groups or races, there are genetic tendencies, and, indeed, each 'race' has a few marked signs (i.e. visual) that generally suggest that origin. (Skin color, eye placement, etc. etc.)
Does this mean that everyone can be grouped into one race? No, of course not, that's absurd. Does this even mean that races are clearly defined groups? No, again absurd. Does it mean that we can more or less separate people into groups by sorting them into different groupings with SIMILAR trends in genetic expression? YES.
EDIT: , not try to... SNIP SNIP
-
10-26-2003, 05:16 PM #51Originally posted by jkl12345
your missing eric s. point, he's over your head. and believe me i don't what an "ACLU member" is. that doesn't prove anything or justify your opinion.
-
10-27-2003, 07:41 AM #52Originally posted by Zachary
Oh, then enlighten me? Just because we have the same genome doesn't mean that genetic EXPRESSION is the same among all peoples.
most people that fall into the catagory or races that are non-white also suffer from poverty, lack of education, low income, and are unable to care for themselves or feed them selves properly. This is what lead to disases that run in these groups of people.
Most common to these "Genetically linked" diseases are high blood pressure & Type II diabetes, all very preventable with a high quality diet, and exersie and basic medical care. These things have nothing to do with genetics.
That is my point. Saying the this group should eat this because they are of this or that race is a dead end topic.
I think the very fact that you your self said that we can't group ever person into a race should be proof enough that race is not a genetic factor.
Just by looks alone, I could be black, white, latin, spanish or even itallian depending on how much sun I have,
I guess I would be in a heap of trouble if all of those genes decided to express themselves because I was labeld all of those different races.
Diversity is about bringing different cultures together so we can all understand and experince what the world has to offer. It transends beyond physical appearance.
If we brought together in a room a person who we considered to be korean, a person who we thought to be african and one who looked to be native american, would we have a diverse group of people?
No, the could have all grew up next door neigbors in detroit michigan."Cuts To The Bone"
http://www.muscleoverload.com
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/satter.htm
-
-
10-27-2003, 09:21 AM #53Originally posted by Zachary
Oh, then enlighten me? Just because we have the same genome doesn't mean that genetic EXPRESSION is the same among all peoples.
Yeah, all are genes are the same. That is why all the people in Italy have slanted eyes.Hit the Wall, Tear it Down!! - Wildman
Bookmarks