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.