Jump to content

Hapless Bills Fan

Global Moderators
  • Content Count

    19,703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,948 Excellent

4 Followers

About Hapless Bills Fan

  • Rank
    mired in the swamp

Recent Profile Visitors

3,688 profile views
  1. They do still have fans here. I even know a couple of them. But overall....let's just say if I were Stan Kroenke, I wouldn't walk down a dark St Louis alley by myself. They won and lost a SB in St Louis. But then they entered a decade of fan-benumbing worsening play that drafting a QB #1 overall couldn't save them from, aggrevated by a bad case of "Head Coach Roulette", and moved to LA just before getting good again. So yeah, there's salt. Hey, we're selective in our selective memories. But we still hate Bill Bidwell and the Cardinals too
  2. Hapless Bills Fan

    Chiefs fire longtime DC Bob Sutton

    I don't think so. The Chiefs smoked Rexy's Bills D for 413 yds in 2015. But I suppose you never know.
  3. Hapless Bills Fan

    Chiefs fire longtime DC Bob Sutton

    Considering the KC D had a pretty damn impotent game plan, color me so surprised!
  4. Hapless Bills Fan

    Nearly a year into it

    We completely agree on that. But honestly, I'm pretty gobsmacked by how misleading the data quoted in that film actually are relative to the actual studies, or to readily available information. They do NOT reasonably support the conclusion that animal protein = bad or that high protein = bad at all. Here's a pdf of a paper on Norwegian diet during WWII. When I look at Table I, I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests that a +200 change in fish consumption and a -110 (combined) consumption of fruit and sugar must be given at least equal consideration as a -60 change in consumption of meat and a -40 change in consumption of dairy. One simply can not look at the data and conclude decreased consumption of animal products is the causal factor for a 6 death per 10,000 population decrease in cardiovascular deaths, which is the conclusion he draws in the film. The Indian group's papers, it's a set of two. Read both. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14326435 It all makes perfect biochemical sense - a low-protein diet inhibits the enzyme that detoxifies aflotoxin results in fewer tumors, but the un-modified aflotoxin is then toxic to the liver.
  5. Hapless Bills Fan

    Nearly a year into it

    Fair enough. But BillsFan, if you look at the two reviews I link, THESE GUYS COMPLETELY MISREPRESENTED THE DATA THEY CITE. That's just not OK, even in a film aimed at a popular audience. Read the reviews I linked. Here, I'll link the more important, more technical one again. Some Specific points: 1) they misrepresent the Indian aflotoxin study as showing a health benefit to a low-casein diet. But in fact, the major conclusion of that study was to show that a low protein diet exacerbated the mortality from aflatoxin! It's right there in the excerpt shown in the film - but they don't mention it. That's not "the weeds of the data", that's misrepresentation of the seminal point: " 10 low-protein rats died prematurely while all the high-protein rats stayed alive.(....) the overall survival rate for the 20% casein group was much better than for the 5% casein group, despite the fact they had liver tumors. The low-protein rats were dying rapidly—just not from liver cancer. (....), the reason the non-dead, low-protein rats didn’t get tumors was partly because their liver cells were committing mass suicide. Who would look at such a disparity in death rate and conclude unreservedly Wooo wooo low protein good? No one who isn't pushing an agenda themselves. 2) Norwegian heart disease data: Here's a table showing dietary changes in Norway during the war. Note that fish consumption increased 200% and both fruit and sugar consumption dropped. One simply can not look at that data and conclude that turning to a vegan (excuse me, plant based) diet was the cause of a drop in cardiac mortality, even if one grants the point that it's valid to look at specific-cause mortality during wartime and compare to peacetime data - because the Norweigans didn't. They weren't turning vegan, they ate 200% more fish! Moreover, the reviewer quotes from an article "Food Conditions In Norway During the War" pointing out that " During the first year [starting in spring of 1940] the rationing included all imported foods, bread, fats, sugar, coffee, cocoa, syrup, and coffee substitute. In the second year [starting in late 1941] all kinds of meat and pork, eggs, milk and dairy products were rationed… ". One simply can not attribute the drop shown in the graph to take place in 1941 to reduction in meat consumption. Bluntly put and risking offense by condemning something you clearly find worthwhile, the Forks Over Knives film, in its zeal to make points about the impact of diet that are well worth making, turns scientifically and intellectually dishonest. And in my opinion, that is neither acceptable nor justifiable in a film aimed at a mass-market audience. That is simply a way to train people to either become fact-dismissive partisans or to more broadly reject science.
  6. Hapless Bills Fan

    Nearly a year into it

    OK, I watched this last night with my spouse, who is an engineer. So a fair amount of scientific education was sitting in the audience. We kept pausing the film and pointing out the problems with the conclusions to each other. Let me say up front that I think any diet which encourages people to avoid sugar and processed foods is 10 thumbs up. Having spent 3 years reading labels in the attempt to help my mom follow a restricted-sodium diet, I know almost all processed foods have totally ridiculous amounts of salt. Even a can of soup labeled "healthy choice" or "reduced sodium" turns out to mean it has ridiculous amounts of salt vs totally ridiculous amounts of salt. Then there's the sweeteners: since food labels are required to list ingredients in the order of quantity in the food, food companies (including companies marketing their products as "healthy" or "natural") have the strategy to add sugar by different names. If the product contains sugar as the 4th ingredient followed by brown rice syrup and organic evaporated cane juice, it 1) probably has enough sugar that it ought to be the 1st or 2nd ingredient 2) is trying very hard to fake you into thinking it's a healthier food than it is. Whether one loses weight or reverses heart disease, I can testify to the health bennies of a couple changes like decrease salt and sugar consumption. OK, what's my review on the film? The diet it recommends is fundamentally the same ultra-low-fat, plant-based diet recommended by a number of people (good summary here). Many people eat vegan or primarily vegan diets for years and find health benefits. So far so good. I thought the film was crap. Propaganda. Over and over and over again they had the scientists/physicians citing data, then drawing a conclusion one simply could not draw from the presented data. Correlation is NOT causation, and Esselstyn and Campbell ought to know that, it's a fundamental principle of science education. Example: they cite data from Norway during WWII showing that deaths from heart attacks and strokes plummeted. This is attributed to German seizure of all animals. The claim is that "the native population subsisted on whole grains, legumes, vegetables and fruit" and the conclusion is made that this data shows eating animal products = bad. Wait 2 minutes here - taking that conclusion about what Norweigians ate 1939-1945 at face value, the change wasn't just removing animal products, it was removing sugars and refined carbohydrates from the diet as well. So which was it? You can't look at multiple changes and attribute to a single cause. Second, a lot of other stuff goes on during war. People are killed by occupying forces. They die of starvation. They are deported to foreign internment camps. They die from pneumonia or other untreated diseases. Maybe Norwegians who would have died from stroke or heart disease were dying first from other causes. Freezing the frame and looking at the death rate shows a decrease of 6 deaths per 10,000 population. A quick "Google" turns up an estimate of 8,200 "civilian deaths due to wartime activity or crimes against humanity" in a Norwegian population of 2.9M during WWII. That comes out to ~6 deaths per 10,000 population per year. Huh. Maybe we can't compare death rates for a specific disease during wartime, with death rates during peace? OK, here and here are a couple of reviews I found that call them on similar hinkey doings. One of my favorite excerpts from the second reviewer: "some of the anecdotes used to support a plant-based diet (such as Norway’s war-time cuisine and the traditional Japanese diet) actually point to marine foods being a great addition to your menu. For some reason, no one in the movie says a gosh darn thing about fish. Are they lumping fish into the same “meat” category as Oscar Mayer Weiners? Have they forgotten that fish exists in the food supply? Are they ignoring the health benefits of marine foods that nearly everyone—even the folks who swear on their momma’s grave that red meat will kill you—agrees on? What’s going on here? I sure don’t know, but it seems awfully… fishy." hrrrr hrrrr hrrrrr. And that is fundamentally my problem with the film. Food consumption since WWII has seen not only fat, but sugar consumption balloon and overall calories increase dramatically. And some of the foods promoted as healthier, such as trans-fat loaded margarine and vegetable oils, are now known to be worse for you. The film recommends an alternative diet on the opposite extreme: very low fat whole-foods diet excluding not just dairy and meat (which they present data against) but also fish and poultry. That this extreme has risks or known problems is conveniently not mentioned (B12 and overall B vitamin deficiency, for example; the evidence that polyunsaturated fats called omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) and the omega-6 fats called arachidonic acid have health benefits; a link between low cholesterol diets and depression. The published study showing reversal of heart disease turns out to involve very small numbers - 11 people - of whom 4 showed reversal of coronary disease. While promising, no pharmaceutical company could license a therapeutic treatment based on such small numbers. There are similar small number studies showing benefits from different dietary advice (eg high fat/low carb) on diabetes etc. I have two major factual problems with the film. One is their statement " But when we consume dietary cholesterol, which is only found in animal foods like meat, eggs, and dairy products, it tends to stay in the bloodstream. This so-called plaque is what collects on the inside of our blood vessels and is the major cause of coronary artery disease." Almost every part of that statement has been refuted by a pretty overwhelming body of evidence. It turns out that in most people, dietary cholesterol has a minimal effect upon human serum cholesterol levels and that for animals evolved to eat meat, there is no significant difference in how dietary vs human-synthesized cholesterol is processed. When serum cholesterol does rise, the ratio of HDL to LDL remains the same. Other factors such as serum triglyceride levels and inflammatory processes are now believed to be more causative for CAD than consumption of dietary cholesterol. The other is promotion of a vegan diet without any caution about Vitamin B12 deficiency. This problem has been observed in studies of vegans and has a association with increased risk of heart disease and stroke - the very problems they are promoting their diet to prevent! That's not to say one can not supplement and obtain adequate B12, but to not mention this as a watch-out and need seems irresponsible. Overall, I've learned to be suspicious of dietary advice which demonizes entire food groups. Historically it's been counter-productive as people and food manufacturers produce "work arounds", leading to aisles full of "fat free" cookies and cakes or sweet-tasting "Atkins" bars and "keto" cheesecakes. As one reviewer quipped, " According to this movie, “plant-based diet” and “Standard American diet” are the only two ways you can possibly eat, and an egg is exactly the same as a bag of Cheetos." I believe I need to change my diet. While vegetarian for years now pescetarian, over the years for convenience (and taste!) our diet has become high in refined and calorically dense foods such as white rice, white flour, cheese, sweets, and nuts. My go-to football watching food is mozzarella cheese sticks. I love a good lasagna and a good cheesecake. But I think I'll start with Pollan's advice from "In Defense of Food": "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
  7. Hapless Bills Fan

    Who hates the Patriots** more than I do

    Some of my best friends are Patriots fans. Hey, we all got flaws.
  8. Hapless Bills Fan

    And just like that, we are all Rams fans.

    Except St Louis is still salty, as SWA found out: https://www.stltoday.com/business/local/st-louisans-still-testy-about-former-nfl-team-southwest-airlines/article_fa2af853-3e01-5918-85bf-5ffab9178270.html?utm_content=buffer2e1c7&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=LEEDCC
  9. Hapless Bills Fan

    Was Baker Mayfield a DOUCHE Yesterday?

    We used to call that a "CLM" "Career limiting move" that is Either it must work in some professions to some extent, or you ain't got much of one (profession) Almost makes me feel sorry for Rosen. If he's hired, scratch the "almost".
  10. Hapless Bills Fan

    GDT: NE**** at KC 6:40 on CBS

    NE was leaning on Michel most of the game. 39 carries for 113 yds, most of it in the 1st half. 3.9 ypc isn't great but it moves the chains and keeps WonderQB seated. Burkhead was on IR much of the season and one wonders if he is 100% healthy, 12 carries and not as effective as Michel. Still gained 41 yds for them. "Run run all game" was essentially the NE strategy to start out. Finally after the half KC decided to sell out and stop the run, and that's when Brady used Edelman and Hogan to dissect them as you described above.
  11. Hapless Bills Fan

    Was Baker Mayfield a DOUCHE Yesterday?

    I think that's pretty much it. Mayfield uses every time he's been 'dissed or 'scorned as motivation. But at some point there has to be a mechanism to let some of it go and move on, or it will eventually interfere with his ability to advance and improve.
  12. Hapless Bills Fan

    GDT: NE**** at KC 6:40 on CBS

    I think this is a fair analysis of the flaws the KC D showed in the entire game. They were eaten alive by Gronk outside and Edelman crossing and never did adjust. Add in, early in the game they were just being gashed consistently against the run. They never managed to put any effective pressure on Brady. I don't know whether KC had anyone on the roster with the hybrid skills to carry out your suggestion on Gronk. The safety play was better earlier in the game but by the end of the 4th/OT was just gassed. NE had greater than 2:1 advantage in TOP. You can't keep any defender on the field 44 out of 60 minutes and not slow him down.
  13. Hapless Bills Fan

    Was Baker Mayfield a DOUCHE Yesterday?

    Just my opinion, at this point it already has. Mayfield is not motivating himself against an upcoming opponent or current criticism of his game. He is carrying around a grudge against a twice-fired dude he will no longer deal with either as a coach or a likely opponent's coach. He needs to read the story about the two monks and the woman and take it to heart.
×