Cycling and vegetarianism - Page 82 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

09-02-2004, 10:02 AM

"Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:slrncjek99.dhs.me@serpentor.cobrala
> On 2004-09-02, DRS <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:slrncjegdg.a8u.me@serpentor.cobrala
>>> Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two
>>> from various articles and there's your proof.
>>
>> Bob didn't do that, he was quoting from studies or abstracts of
>> studies. You know, the science you're always on about.
>
> My point is that anyone can find a study somewhere to back them up.

Ah, the old cop-out of someone who knows he doesn't have any evidence of his
own.

> I
> could probably find a study somewhere that says the only healthy diet
> is one where you only eat dogs. That doesn't mean it's scientifically
> accurate. Thus, I don't have the time to wade through a deluge of data
> like that.

Then you're in no position to criticise those who do. Bob cited a number of
telling studies. Unless you have reputable studies to the contrary or you
can specifically refute the studies he cited you cannot legitimately say
he's wrong.

> The bulk of the concensus of scientific study is that diets
> emphasizing good carbs, fruits and vegetables isi the way to go.

Every time you phrase something like that I just know you're misquoting
something you scarcely remember. No-one is telling you to not eat fruits
and veges in general (there are some you should avoid but most are OK).

[...]

>>> And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there
>>> was "glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often
>>> people eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your
>>> blood sugar and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know
>>> this to be true, both based on the science and on personal
>>> experience.
>>
>> Er, no. Whatever you your think your personal experience to be in
>> this matter what you wrote is certainly not supported by the
>> science. Firstly, it's not "poor quality carbs" that "screw with
>> your blood sugar", it's all simple sugars and it's not the
>> hyperglycaemia per se that's the problem, it's the insulin spikes.
>> Secondly, it is not "turned into fat". The
>
> That's what I said, basically. By poor quality carbs I didn't mean low
> cost or poor tasting. What did you think I meant? I was pretty
> certain it was clear from this post (as well as others) that when I
> say poor quality carbs and when I refer to it in the context of the
> glycemic index, what I mean are simple carbs, refined carbs and
> sugars are considered "poor quality".

No. There's nothing inherently "poor quality" about simple carbs. When you
use them properly, such as in the post-workout window, they are excellent
for you (diabetics excluded). The problem is not any lack of quality. The
problem is people not understanding what they are, how the body processes
them and so forth.

>> creation of new fat cells is called de novo lipogenesis and it's
>> actually rare. What normally happens is that excess calories are
>> stored in existing fat cells.
>
> Once again, another example of arguing for the sake of arguing. Why
> do you feel the need to do this? I said it gets turned into fat.

I know you said that. I feel the need to correct you because you are making
claims of fact and you are wrong. You claimed the science backs you up but
the science doesn't. You cannot expect to be so sloppy and get away with it
by saying that what you said didn't actually mean what you said, it meant
something different.

> That
> doesn't mean I literally believe new fat cells are created. I meant
> exactly what you said. Refined carbs more quickly get converted into
> fat (i.e. stored away in fat cells).

"Stored in "is not "turned into". The distinction matters.

> This is like arguing whether the sky is blue. It's ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous at all. If you want to call people "nuts" because they
pay attention to the science then expect to get called out when you say
ridiculous things that have no scientific backing. Your understanding of
nutrition is woeful.

>>> I don't, however, for a minute believe that carbs are
>>> bad. It's just what kind of carbs and how much are you eating in
>>> total, that's the question. I wish I could ask a question like this
>>> without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both sides when it
>>> becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming out and
>>> using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the other.
>>> I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
>>
>> What science do you have to support that supposition?
>
> The entirety of deitary science to this point.

No, that you manifestly do not have. I posted 100k of cites which say
you're wrong.

> Also personal
> experience.

>>> But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
>>> establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right
>>> ahead.
>>
>> What the medical establishment, on the whole, knows about nutrition
>> can be written on the back of a postcard. Doctors don't get taught
>> nutrition and once in practice they're hard pressed just to keep up
>> with their own speciality, let alone researching an entirely
>> different field from scratch. As a result most doctors spout the
>> same old misinformed bull**** as Joe Public does.
>
> I'm not talking about Joe General Practioner. There are nutritionists
> out there. They study this stuff. I tend to think they know what
> they're talking about and if you follow their guidelines generally
> you'll be okay. So I don't see where the mystery is.

There's no mystery (although I'm perplexed as to how anyone could claim that
"the medical establishment" doesn't include Joe General Practioner).
Nutritionists have their biases just like everybody else. If you think
every nutritionist around is arguing your case you are sadly mistaken.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 10:02 AM

"Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:slrncjek99.dhs.me@serpentor.cobrala
> On 2004-09-02, DRS <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:slrncjegdg.a8u.me@serpentor.cobrala
>>> Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two
>>> from various articles and there's your proof.
>>
>> Bob didn't do that, he was quoting from studies or abstracts of
>> studies. You know, the science you're always on about.
>
> My point is that anyone can find a study somewhere to back them up.

Ah, the old cop-out of someone who knows he doesn't have any evidence of his
own.

> I
> could probably find a study somewhere that says the only healthy diet
> is one where you only eat dogs. That doesn't mean it's scientifically
> accurate. Thus, I don't have the time to wade through a deluge of data
> like that.

Then you're in no position to criticise those who do. Bob cited a number of
telling studies. Unless you have reputable studies to the contrary or you
can specifically refute the studies he cited you cannot legitimately say
he's wrong.

> The bulk of the concensus of scientific study is that diets
> emphasizing good carbs, fruits and vegetables isi the way to go.

Every time you phrase something like that I just know you're misquoting
something you scarcely remember. No-one is telling you to not eat fruits
and veges in general (there are some you should avoid but most are OK).

[...]

>>> And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there
>>> was "glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often
>>> people eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your
>>> blood sugar and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know
>>> this to be true, both based on the science and on personal
>>> experience.
>>
>> Er, no. Whatever you your think your personal experience to be in
>> this matter what you wrote is certainly not supported by the
>> science. Firstly, it's not "poor quality carbs" that "screw with
>> your blood sugar", it's all simple sugars and it's not the
>> hyperglycaemia per se that's the problem, it's the insulin spikes.
>> Secondly, it is not "turned into fat". The
>
> That's what I said, basically. By poor quality carbs I didn't mean low
> cost or poor tasting. What did you think I meant? I was pretty
> certain it was clear from this post (as well as others) that when I
> say poor quality carbs and when I refer to it in the context of the
> glycemic index, what I mean are simple carbs, refined carbs and
> sugars are considered "poor quality".

No. There's nothing inherently "poor quality" about simple carbs. When you
use them properly, such as in the post-workout window, they are excellent
for you (diabetics excluded). The problem is not any lack of quality. The
problem is people not understanding what they are, how the body processes
them and so forth.

>> creation of new fat cells is called de novo lipogenesis and it's
>> actually rare. What normally happens is that excess calories are
>> stored in existing fat cells.
>
> Once again, another example of arguing for the sake of arguing. Why
> do you feel the need to do this? I said it gets turned into fat.

I know you said that. I feel the need to correct you because you are making
claims of fact and you are wrong. You claimed the science backs you up but
the science doesn't. You cannot expect to be so sloppy and get away with it
by saying that what you said didn't actually mean what you said, it meant
something different.

> That
> doesn't mean I literally believe new fat cells are created. I meant
> exactly what you said. Refined carbs more quickly get converted into
> fat (i.e. stored away in fat cells).

"Stored in "is not "turned into". The distinction matters.

> This is like arguing whether the sky is blue. It's ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous at all. If you want to call people "nuts" because they
pay attention to the science then expect to get called out when you say
ridiculous things that have no scientific backing. Your understanding of
nutrition is woeful.

>>> I don't, however, for a minute believe that carbs are
>>> bad. It's just what kind of carbs and how much are you eating in
>>> total, that's the question. I wish I could ask a question like this
>>> without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both sides when it
>>> becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming out and
>>> using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the other.
>>> I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
>>
>> What science do you have to support that supposition?
>
> The entirety of deitary science to this point.

No, that you manifestly do not have. I posted 100k of cites which say
you're wrong.

> Also personal
> experience.

>>> But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
>>> establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right
>>> ahead.
>>
>> What the medical establishment, on the whole, knows about nutrition
>> can be written on the back of a postcard. Doctors don't get taught
>> nutrition and once in practice they're hard pressed just to keep up
>> with their own speciality, let alone researching an entirely
>> different field from scratch. As a result most doctors spout the
>> same old misinformed bull**** as Joe Public does.
>
> I'm not talking about Joe General Practioner. There are nutritionists
> out there. They study this stuff. I tend to think they know what
> they're talking about and if you follow their guidelines generally
> you'll be okay. So I don't see where the mystery is.

There's no mystery (although I'm perplexed as to how anyone could claim that
"the medical establishment" doesn't include Joe General Practioner).
Nutritionists have their biases just like everybody else. If you think
every nutritionist around is arguing your case you are sadly mistaken.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 10:02 AM

"Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:slrncjek99.dhs.me@serpentor.cobrala
> On 2004-09-02, DRS <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote:
>> "Preston Crawford" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>> news:slrncjegdg.a8u.me@serpentor.cobrala
>>> Great. Both of you guys can clip like a paragraph or page or two
>>> from various articles and there's your proof.
>>
>> Bob didn't do that, he was quoting from studies or abstracts of
>> studies. You know, the science you're always on about.
>
> My point is that anyone can find a study somewhere to back them up.

Ah, the old cop-out of someone who knows he doesn't have any evidence of his
own.

> I
> could probably find a study somewhere that says the only healthy diet
> is one where you only eat dogs. That doesn't mean it's scientifically
> accurate. Thus, I don't have the time to wade through a deluge of data
> like that.

Then you're in no position to criticise those who do. Bob cited a number of
telling studies. Unless you have reputable studies to the contrary or you
can specifically refute the studies he cited you cannot legitimately say
he's wrong.

> The bulk of the concensus of scientific study is that diets
> emphasizing good carbs, fruits and vegetables isi the way to go.

Every time you phrase something like that I just know you're misquoting
something you scarcely remember. No-one is telling you to not eat fruits
and veges in general (there are some you should avoid but most are OK).

[...]

>>> And for the record, something I caught in a couple articles there
>>> was "glycemic load". This is where I think the science is. Too often
>>> people eating low fat eat poor quality carbs that DO screw with your
>>> blood sugar and DO turn straight into fat. I believe this and know
>>> this to be true, both based on the science and on personal
>>> experience.
>>
>> Er, no. Whatever you your think your personal experience to be in
>> this matter what you wrote is certainly not supported by the
>> science. Firstly, it's not "poor quality carbs" that "screw with
>> your blood sugar", it's all simple sugars and it's not the
>> hyperglycaemia per se that's the problem, it's the insulin spikes.
>> Secondly, it is not "turned into fat". The
>
> That's what I said, basically. By poor quality carbs I didn't mean low
> cost or poor tasting. What did you think I meant? I was pretty
> certain it was clear from this post (as well as others) that when I
> say poor quality carbs and when I refer to it in the context of the
> glycemic index, what I mean are simple carbs, refined carbs and
> sugars are considered "poor quality".

No. There's nothing inherently "poor quality" about simple carbs. When you
use them properly, such as in the post-workout window, they are excellent
for you (diabetics excluded). The problem is not any lack of quality. The
problem is people not understanding what they are, how the body processes
them and so forth.

>> creation of new fat cells is called de novo lipogenesis and it's
>> actually rare. What normally happens is that excess calories are
>> stored in existing fat cells.
>
> Once again, another example of arguing for the sake of arguing. Why
> do you feel the need to do this? I said it gets turned into fat.

I know you said that. I feel the need to correct you because you are making
claims of fact and you are wrong. You claimed the science backs you up but
the science doesn't. You cannot expect to be so sloppy and get away with it
by saying that what you said didn't actually mean what you said, it meant
something different.

> That
> doesn't mean I literally believe new fat cells are created. I meant
> exactly what you said. Refined carbs more quickly get converted into
> fat (i.e. stored away in fat cells).

"Stored in "is not "turned into". The distinction matters.

> This is like arguing whether the sky is blue. It's ridiculous.

It is not ridiculous at all. If you want to call people "nuts" because they
pay attention to the science then expect to get called out when you say
ridiculous things that have no scientific backing. Your understanding of
nutrition is woeful.

>>> I don't, however, for a minute believe that carbs are
>>> bad. It's just what kind of carbs and how much are you eating in
>>> total, that's the question. I wish I could ask a question like this
>>> without nuts (and yes, I'll call you nuts on both sides when it
>>> becomes a pissing match over whose diet is better) coming out and
>>> using my question to argue the virtues of one extreme or the other.
>>> I happen to believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
>>
>> What science do you have to support that supposition?
>
> The entirety of deitary science to this point.

No, that you manifestly do not have. I posted 100k of cites which say
you're wrong.

> Also personal
> experience.

>>> But if it makes you feel good to think you're fooling the medical
>>> establishment (whether you be vegetarian or low-carb) then go right
>>> ahead.
>>
>> What the medical establishment, on the whole, knows about nutrition
>> can be written on the back of a postcard. Doctors don't get taught
>> nutrition and once in practice they're hard pressed just to keep up
>> with their own speciality, let alone researching an entirely
>> different field from scratch. As a result most doctors spout the
>> same old misinformed bull**** as Joe Public does.
>
> I'm not talking about Joe General Practioner. There are nutritionists
> out there. They study this stuff. I tend to think they know what
> they're talking about and if you follow their guidelines generally
> you'll be okay. So I don't see where the mystery is.

There's no mystery (although I'm perplexed as to how anyone could claim that
"the medical establishment" doesn't include Joe General Practioner).
Nutritionists have their biases just like everybody else. If you think
every nutritionist around is arguing your case you are sadly mistaken.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 10:10 AM

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
news

psdplo80b9scufd@news.syix.com
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:47:58 +1000, DRS <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
> wrote:

[...]

>> Are you trying to be an arsehole? Because you're succeeding. Atkins
>> was 72
>> when he died. He slipped on an icy pavement in New York and hit his
>> head.
>> He never came out of the coma.
>>
> I have heard so many conflicting storie about Atkins I don't know if
> anybody can say for sure.

Bull****. The facts are very well known and clear.

> I grew up in Northern Illinois so I know to
> be very careful on ice. Ice skating caused me many bumps although I
> had less to fall as a sub 5' kid.
> Fixx did die while running, so I am just throwing that in. Atkins
> was famous for his diet, so what.

The "so what" is that the liars who call themselves the "Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine" claim Atkins was grossly overweight when
he died and furthermore that his obesity contributed to his death. It's
complete crap. He was not overweight at all, he was very fit and healthy
for a man of 72, and the bloating that occured whilst he was in the coma
(via water retention) is common in cases of that kind.

> There used to be a fad called the
> 'Water diet' in the 1970 time frame and people died from water
> intoxication.
> No exercise, just 2 gallons of water a day. A fad is a fad, but

How many decades does a "fad" have to be around and sucessful before it
stops being a fad?

> exercise is good, no questions there.

Nobody is saying exercise is not good.

> If you start out 50% overweight
> and lose it all by dieting, low carb, low fat, less food, whatever,
> you still need to pay attention to your heart before you try to run a
> marathon.
> Get a heart scan, then go out and do something.
> And quit bitching at me for mentioning some actual facts in a tone you
> don't
> approve of. Too bad!

You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 10:10 AM

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
news

psdplo80b9scufd@news.syix.com
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:47:58 +1000, DRS <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
> wrote:

[...]

>> Are you trying to be an arsehole? Because you're succeeding. Atkins
>> was 72
>> when he died. He slipped on an icy pavement in New York and hit his
>> head.
>> He never came out of the coma.
>>
> I have heard so many conflicting storie about Atkins I don't know if
> anybody can say for sure.

Bull****. The facts are very well known and clear.

> I grew up in Northern Illinois so I know to
> be very careful on ice. Ice skating caused me many bumps although I
> had less to fall as a sub 5' kid.
> Fixx did die while running, so I am just throwing that in. Atkins
> was famous for his diet, so what.

The "so what" is that the liars who call themselves the "Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine" claim Atkins was grossly overweight when
he died and furthermore that his obesity contributed to his death. It's
complete crap. He was not overweight at all, he was very fit and healthy
for a man of 72, and the bloating that occured whilst he was in the coma
(via water retention) is common in cases of that kind.

> There used to be a fad called the
> 'Water diet' in the 1970 time frame and people died from water
> intoxication.
> No exercise, just 2 gallons of water a day. A fad is a fad, but

How many decades does a "fad" have to be around and sucessful before it
stops being a fad?

> exercise is good, no questions there.

Nobody is saying exercise is not good.

> If you start out 50% overweight
> and lose it all by dieting, low carb, low fat, less food, whatever,
> you still need to pay attention to your heart before you try to run a
> marathon.
> Get a heart scan, then go out and do something.
> And quit bitching at me for mentioning some actual facts in a tone you
> don't
> approve of. Too bad!

You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 10:10 AM

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
news

psdplo80b9scufd@news.syix.com
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:47:58 +1000, DRS <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
> wrote:

[...]

>> Are you trying to be an arsehole? Because you're succeeding. Atkins
>> was 72
>> when he died. He slipped on an icy pavement in New York and hit his
>> head.
>> He never came out of the coma.
>>
> I have heard so many conflicting storie about Atkins I don't know if
> anybody can say for sure.

Bull****. The facts are very well known and clear.

> I grew up in Northern Illinois so I know to
> be very careful on ice. Ice skating caused me many bumps although I
> had less to fall as a sub 5' kid.
> Fixx did die while running, so I am just throwing that in. Atkins
> was famous for his diet, so what.

The "so what" is that the liars who call themselves the "Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine" claim Atkins was grossly overweight when
he died and furthermore that his obesity contributed to his death. It's
complete crap. He was not overweight at all, he was very fit and healthy
for a man of 72, and the bloating that occured whilst he was in the coma
(via water retention) is common in cases of that kind.

> There used to be a fad called the
> 'Water diet' in the 1970 time frame and people died from water
> intoxication.
> No exercise, just 2 gallons of water a day. A fad is a fad, but

How many decades does a "fad" have to be around and sucessful before it
stops being a fad?

> exercise is good, no questions there.

Nobody is saying exercise is not good.

> If you start out 50% overweight
> and lose it all by dieting, low carb, low fat, less food, whatever,
> you still need to pay attention to your heart before you try to run a
> marathon.
> Get a heart scan, then go out and do something.
> And quit bitching at me for mentioning some actual facts in a tone you
> don't
> approve of. Too bad!

You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 10:10 AM

"Bill Baka" <bbaka@syix.com> wrote in message
news

psdplo80b9scufd@news.syix.com
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 02:47:58 +1000, DRS <drs@remove.this.ihug.com.au>
> wrote:

[...]

>> Are you trying to be an arsehole? Because you're succeeding. Atkins
>> was 72
>> when he died. He slipped on an icy pavement in New York and hit his
>> head.
>> He never came out of the coma.
>>
> I have heard so many conflicting storie about Atkins I don't know if
> anybody can say for sure.

Bull****. The facts are very well known and clear.

> I grew up in Northern Illinois so I know to
> be very careful on ice. Ice skating caused me many bumps although I
> had less to fall as a sub 5' kid.
> Fixx did die while running, so I am just throwing that in. Atkins
> was famous for his diet, so what.

The "so what" is that the liars who call themselves the "Physicians
Committee for Responsible Medicine" claim Atkins was grossly overweight when
he died and furthermore that his obesity contributed to his death. It's
complete crap. He was not overweight at all, he was very fit and healthy
for a man of 72, and the bloating that occured whilst he was in the coma
(via water retention) is common in cases of that kind.

> There used to be a fad called the
> 'Water diet' in the 1970 time frame and people died from water
> intoxication.
> No exercise, just 2 gallons of water a day. A fad is a fad, but

How many decades does a "fad" have to be around and sucessful before it
stops being a fad?

> exercise is good, no questions there.

Nobody is saying exercise is not good.

> If you start out 50% overweight
> and lose it all by dieting, low carb, low fat, less food, whatever,
> you still need to pay attention to your heart before you try to run a
> marathon.
> Get a heart scan, then go out and do something.
> And quit bitching at me for mentioning some actual facts in a tone you
> don't
> approve of. Too bad!

You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 12:00 PM

On 2004-09-02, DRS <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote:

<< more dogma snipped >>

> You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
> smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

Once again, what's with the anger? Seriously.

Secondly, I don't think he was "smearning a dead man". I think if there
was anything he was smearing it was (A) possibly the diet itself and (B)
the assertion that exercise isn't required to lose weight in a healthy
manner.

Preston

09-02-2004, 12:00 PM

On 2004-09-02, DRS <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote:

<< more dogma snipped >>

> You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
> smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

Once again, what's with the anger? Seriously.

Secondly, I don't think he was "smearning a dead man". I think if there
was anything he was smearing it was (A) possibly the diet itself and (B)
the assertion that exercise isn't required to lose weight in a healthy
manner.

Preston

09-02-2004, 12:00 PM

On 2004-09-02, DRS <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote:

<< more dogma snipped >>

> You brought two utterly unrelated facts together in a futile attempt to
> smear a dead man. Do you feel good now?

Once again, what's with the anger? Seriously.

Secondly, I don't think he was "smearning a dead man". I think if there
was anything he was smearing it was (A) possibly the diet itself and (B)
the assertion that exercise isn't required to lose weight in a healthy
manner.

Preston