Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...id=1&Itemid=17 "You could ask yourself if it really is good to recommend a low-fat diet to patients with diabetes, if despite their weight loss they get neither better lipoproteins nor blood glucose levels." You could ask yourself other questions, too, like why they keep doing it. Ignorance? Arrogance? $$$? Or maybe it's just that they fear people calling them "loons" and "morons"? -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 19/05/2012 4:55 PM, Dogman wrote:
http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...id=1&Itemid=17 "You could ask yourself if it really is good to recommend a low-fat diet to patients with diabetes, if despite their weight loss they get neither better lipoproteins nor blood glucose levels." You could ask yourself other questions, too, like why they keep doing it. Ignorance? Arrogance? $$$? Or maybe it's just that they fear people calling them "loons" and "morons"? It takes strong evidence to overturn an established regime. Once LC is strongly confirmed, if it is, and I think it will, there will be change. -- -jw |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 19/05/2012 11:14 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 21:52:10 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] You could ask yourself other questions, too, like why they keep doing it. Ignorance? Arrogance? $$$? Or maybe it's just that they fear people calling them "loons" and "morons"? It takes strong evidence to overturn an established regime. Once LC is strongly confirmed, if it is, and I think it will, there will be change. LC is already confirmed. All anyone need do is try it. The proof is in the pudding. I.e., you're confirmed it on yourself, if you were smart enough to realize it. But, alas...you're not. Anecdotes will not convince an entrenched regime. It will take a large study with clear, highly significant results to do that. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman -- -jw |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote: http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/ind...id=1&Itemid=17 "You could ask yourself if it really is good to recommend a low-fat diet to patients with diabetes, if despite their weight loss they get neither better lipoproteins nor blood glucose levels." You could ask yourself other questions, too, like why they keep doing it. Ignorance? Arrogance? $$$? Or maybe it's just that they fear people calling them "loons" and "morons"? Or getting charged with malpractice for prescribing a high carb diet to people with a broken carb processing metabolism. It takes strong evidence to overturn an established regime. Once LC is strongly confirmed, if it is, and I think it will, there will be change. "No statistically certain improvements, either of the glycemic controls or the lipoproteins, were seen in the low-fat group, despite the weight loss." That's one of the two reasons Dr Atkins started down the low carb path in the 1960s. He was a cardiologist who prescribed low fat to his patients. The few who could conform to the medical advice saw their numbers get better for a few months then get worse. By 6 months in nearly all of them were worse off for having conformed to the prescribed low fat diet. When he tried to publish his tablular results the paper was declined because it was not double blind. How do you conduct a double blind experiment comparing types of diets? The cost is prohibitive even doing it in prisons. The other reason is that he tried it on himself. He lost weight and as long as he managed to stay low carb he kept it off. He spent decades in his maintenance range near 100 grams per day. |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:39:46 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: [...] You could ask yourself other questions, too, like why they keep doing it. Ignorance? Arrogance? $$$? Or maybe it's just that they fear people calling them "loons" and "morons"? Or getting charged with malpractice for prescribing a high carb diet to people with a broken carb processing metabolism. That would fall into the "$$$" category, and it helps to explain the AIDS (and other scientific, medical and political) mistakes, too. Self-preservation is a powerful force. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Sat, 19 May 2012 23:37:03 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] LC is already confirmed. All anyone need do is try it. The proof is in the pudding. I.e., you're confirmed it on yourself, if you were smart enough to realize it. But, alas...you're not. Anecdotes will not convince an entrenched regime. It will take a large study with clear, highly significant results to do that. IMO, you should worry less about "entrenched regimes" and worry more about yourself. No results could be more "significant" than your own. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 20/05/2012 2:22 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2012 23:37:03 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] LC is already confirmed. All anyone need do is try it. The proof is in the pudding. I.e., you're confirmed it on yourself, if you were smart enough to realize it. But, alas...you're not. Anecdotes will not convince an entrenched regime. It will take a large study with clear, highly significant results to do that. IMO, you should worry less about "entrenched regimes" and worry more about yourself. No results could be more "significant" than your own. That is a very narrow minded position. If LC works as well as it seems to work and is safe, then the world at large needs to know about it. The entrenched regimes needs to change. The best way to do that is to overwhelm them with solid evidence. -- -jw |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On May 20, 1:19*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2012 13:39:46 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote: [...] You could ask yourself other questions, too, like why they keep doing it. Ignorance? Arrogance? $$$? Or maybe it's just that they fear people calling them "loons" and "morons"? Or getting charged with malpractice for prescribing a high carb diet to people with a broken carb processing metabolism. That would fall into the "$$$" category, and it helps to explain the AIDS (and other scientific, medical and political) mistakes, too. Self-preservation is a powerful force. -- Dogman And there you have it again folks. Notice which poster here is starting new threads specifically to flame up the debate again where he's been thoroughly discredited. That is the second post now where you've done it. Was the AIDS comment really, really necessary? We know you're an AIDS denialist. We know you deny that HPV causes cancer in women. We know you deny that any virus can cause cancer period. We know you deny that the whole field of oncoviruses exist. So, why continue to discredit yourself? And I find it curious that you tell James that the case for LC is proven. Now I think the LC approach is right. But it's certainly no where near as proven at this point as the overwhelming proof that HIV causes AIDS. There, since you sought to go there, by bringing this up in yet another thread, here we are. Happy now? |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
James Warren wrote:
That is a very narrow minded position. If LC works as well as it seems to work and is safe, then the world at large needs to know about it. The entrenched regimes needs to change. The best way to do that is to overwhelm them with solid evidence. Solid evidence - Go to the mall and look for fat people. If you see more than the ancient 10% percentage of obesity that's the result of decades of low fat pressure. This is very simple not rocket science. The entrenched regime needs to be attacked on intellectual and organizational levels. Endless low carb studies have been coming out for over a decade and they are a part of the solution, but only a part. |
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On May 21, 11:16*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: That is a very narrow minded position. If LC works as well as it seems to work and is safe, then the world at large needs to know about it. The entrenched regimes needs to change. The best way to do that is to overwhelm them with solid evidence. Solid evidence - Go to the mall and look for fat people. *If you see more than the ancient 10% percentage of obesity that's the result of decades of low fat pressure. *This is very simple not rocket science. Look. I agree, LC appears to work. It works for me. But to claim that because there is more obesity today than in ancient times proves that it's from decades of low fat pressure is just ludicrous. First, a few decades does not equal ancient. We were already getting fatter before the low-fat campaign. In fact, that's part of what prompted the push to low fat.. Second, the obesity could also be due to less exercise, something in our environment, perhaps chemicals in use today, some infectious agent, there are lots of possibilities. I have no problem with more studies of LC and it's long term effects. It's just that this being a complex problem with many components I doubt one more study is going to settle anything. But neither is casual observation at the mall. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
WeightLossBanter