If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 6:02 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:44:47 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] The case for low-carb diets couldn't be more solid. Yes it could actually. I would like to see it. The Internet is a wonderful place! And there was far more more evidence that Atkins was right than there was that a low-fat diet was the way to go. Going back to Banting's great book, "Letters on Corpulence," in the mid 19th century. These days we require higher standards of evidence. The randomized clinical trial is today's gold standard. If it actually was, we wouldn't be in this mess. Ditto for the idea that cholesterol causes CHD, or that diabetics should eat a high-carb, low-fat diet. These studies were correlational and, as I recall, not especially well done. They did not consider the possibility that the truth could be opposite to their expectations. Of they did! But correlational or not, they're essentially today's perceived conventional wisdom. Very few studies today are especially well done, unfortunately. [...] You bet. And that's what a lot of us are trying to do regarding diet and health. Me too. But I would like to see strong evidence. So would I. But I'm not going to risk my life waiting around for one. I'm going to settle for what I consider to be the strongest case for or against something. That is reasonable and sensible. But good solid evidence is still desirable. Why not remove as much doubt as possible? [...] It would be a difficult job to blame death from obesity on artificial sweeteners. Why? If it makes you want to eat more than you should, and you eventually acquire diabetes or metabolic syndrome, and die of a stroke or heart attack, why couldn't it be the root cause of your death? Who is to say that artificial sweeteners are the cause? As I said previously, there are scientific studies pointing to artificial sweeteners as even more addictive than sugar, and that cause people to overeat. Look 'em up. I'm partial to well controlled studies published in reputable journals. I still have yet to see a good study in a reputable journal showing harm in humans from expected levels of consumption of aspartame. Then drink up! I drink 2-3 diet drinks per week and will continue to do so until I see evidence of harm. It's just a hunch, but I don't think any kind of evidence would be good enough for you, because you're probably already addicted. Addicted to what? Surely not artificial sweeteners. Exactly. You can look that up, too. Your claim. Show me the evidence. Eat REAL food, and stay away from refined, processed, or artificial foods. You'll be glad you did. Probably. But good evidence would be even more convincing. Got any? No! I'm not making it any easier for the Grim Reaper than I have to. I hope you are right. I'm betting my life that I am. I am too but I would like to see the issue resolved in a good scientific definitive study. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 6:09 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:47:52 -0300, James Warren wrote: On 5/4/2012 5:35 PM, Dogman wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:03:54 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't come until fairly recently. The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years. The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine. Find me the randomized, double-blind clinical trial that proves that statin drugs prevent heart attacks. I could but not right now. No, you couldn't. Take all the time you want. [...] I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled. However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote. No, you are a clinical trial consisting of n=1. And it has obviously worked for you. So it's not an anecdote. Yes it is. A trial with n=1 has no statistical power. It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually), got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want? A good study. It might all be due to something else I did that coincided with the diet. Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad effects that I don't know about. A good study would go a long way to clearing up these doubts. I would like to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the entrenched establishment. Yet you still eat a low-carb diet! What are you, some kind of quack? No. The evidence is strong enough to give it a try but it is not nearly as strong as I would like to see and not nearly strong enough to influence the medical establishment. Only $$$$ influences the medical establishment. That's why they have so little interest in disease PREVENTION. The $$$$ is in TREATMENT, not prevention. I agree that the elephant is hard to move. But it will move if the evidence is very strong. The more entrenched a bad idea is, the stronger the evidence against it must be to create a change. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 6:11 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote: James wrote: Dogman wrote: What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Any doctor who defies the mainstream of the medical community is a quack, at first whether they are right or wrong. Working within the system is thus incremental. Atkins was right in many/most of his stances but he was regularly labelled a quack because he defied the mainstream of the medical community. As a general rule defying mainstream medicine is a strong sign of quackery. But sometimes it is not. That is when mistakes are made. Don't I recall Mercola pushing a radical low fat vegan diet plan for a lot of years? He's since come partially over the the light side of the force but he sure took his time of it.. Dean Ornish pushed, and still pushes, such a diet. Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't come until fairly recently. Atkins used studies that came before the rush to push low fat. His evidence was pretty good at the time. The original fat fast study, his tables of long term results of prescribing low fat to heart patients and so on. The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years. Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon. Actually an obesity rate of around 10% has been with us for centuries maybe even millennia. Somewhere after the invention of argiculture 10K plus years ago it was probably worse but selective evolutionary pressure has been working on us ever since to make us okay with non-refined grains as a part of our diet. The process never did run to completion before the invention of refined grain and refined sugar other than honey. The difference is today's obesity rate is far over 10%. And the number who are morbidly obese is vastly greater. Set your mental wayback machine to 1970 and remember walking in the mall. People weighing 300+ pounds were so rare people stared at them. Hardly anyone not a viking or amazon giant was that heavy and few of those were very fat. Now at the mall it takes 400+ to draw stares. The folks 300+ pounds are so common there's danger of walking into them because you're watching for the bigger folks. To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet. That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer. If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA. Exactly. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 6:46 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 4 May 2012 21:11:43 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: James wrote: Dogman wrote: What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Any doctor who defies the mainstream of the medical community is a quack, at first whether they are right or wrong. That's pretty much true, Doug. And it applies to all of science, not just the medical community. Even so, the percentage of those who defy mainstream science, and turn out to have been right, is very low. Defying the mainstream may be romantic but is not a sure sign of correctness. Which reminds me of an old saying, “The pioneers take the arrows, the settlers take the land.” [...] |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 8:44 PM, Susan wrote:
x-no-arachive: yes On 5/4/2012 3:07 PM, James Warren wrote: I don't recall seeing Atkins on his list. Atkins was vindicated but at the time he didn't have a lot of evidence for his ideas. That's not so. It's been out there in the literature for many more years than Atkins was advocating LC. Susan There may have been evidence from many decades before but that evidence was of a fairly low quality by the standards of the 70s and 80s. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 9:47 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In , James wrote: On 5/4/2012 4:33 PM, Dogman wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 16:09:05 -0300, James Warren wrote: On 5/4/2012 3:59 PM, Dogman wrote: On Fri, 04 May 2012 15:33:44 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] He might well be overzealous and have strict evidence requirements for claims. But isn't this a good thing? What "strict evidence requirement" did he have to cause him to imply that Dr. Robert Atkins was a quack? Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't come until fairly recently. The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years. The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine. Obesity is a relatively new phenomenon. To this day, the American Diabetes Association recommends that diabetics eat a high-carb/low-fat diet. They do. It is what I was taught in diabetes school 18 years ago. That's like telling alcoholics to drink more beer. If any organization belongs on Quackwatch, it's the ADA. Maybe someday they will be! I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled. However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote. I would like to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the entrenched establishment. If the low carb diet has not been tested, then necessarily the high carb diet has not been tested either, but the establishment has no qualms about recommending this untested diet. That is because it has not been definitively overthrown. A large clinical trial could do that. There have been several small clinical trials that were not especially well controlled that show that LC and Meditarian diets are better than HC diets. But they are not good enough to be definitive. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 10:30 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:15:31 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] I'm going to settle for what I consider to be the strongest case for or against something. That is reasonable and sensible. But good solid evidence is still desirable. Why not remove as much doubt as possible? Because it's usually not possible to remove all the doubt, that's why I'm usually comfortable going with the *strongest* case (in my opinion). Of course, what may be the strongest case today may not be the stongest case tomorrow, so I try to keep up with the literature. I call this evidence based belief. I subscribe to that. But when the best evidence is not as good as it could be, it is desirable to improve it or submit it to a strenuous testing to clarify the matter. [...] As I said previously, there are scientific studies pointing to artificial sweeteners as even more addictive than sugar, and that cause people to overeat. Look 'em up. I'm partial to well controlled studies published in reputable journals.ies may Me too, but what some of them consider to be well-controlled studies may not be what I consider to be well-controlled studies. You need to be critical for sure. Peer review isn't what it used to be. Can we do better? See: "global warming" [...] Addicted to what? Surely not artificial sweeteners. Exactly. You can look that up, too. Your claim. Show me the evidence. Google: artificial sweeteners and addiction. No doubt I will get a lot of bull****. Since you made the claim how about show me the good stuff. Eat REAL food, and stay away from refined, processed, or artificial foods. You'll be glad you did. Probably. But good evidence would be even more convincing. Evidence that settles the unresolved issues and passes critical scrutiny. Define "good." Got any? No! I'm not making it any easier for the Grim Reaper than I have to. I hope you are right. I'm betting my life that I am. I am too but I would like to see the issue resolved in a good scientific definitive study. I can't speak to how "good" the evidence must be to meet your high standard, but if you'll google what I asked you to google, you'll find enough "good" evidence for me. Your mileage may vary. And it is your life, not mine. It is. Tat is why one should be very critical. A true claim with good evidence will survive even the most withering of attacks. -- Dogman |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually), got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want? A good study. You've got one. Yours. Not good enough. I am just an anecdote. It might all be due to something else I did that coincided with the diet. What else did you do? I don't know. Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad effects that I don't know about. For example? LC implies high fat. There might actually be long term bad effects from a high fat diet. I have my doubt about this but I would rather have solid scientific evidence. A good study would go a long way to clearing up these doubts. [...] It would probably only create more questions. It usually does. So what do we do? Refuse to do studies? There comes a point where you have to go with what makes the most sense to YOU. Period. I agree. But better information almost always leads to better more informed decisions. -- Dogman |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 10:38 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:26:46 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] As a general rule defying mainstream medicine is a strong sign of quackery. But sometimes it is not. That is when mistakes are made. If you truly believe that, compare the Physician's Desk Reference (the standard of care) from, say, 1950 to the current one. So Medicine has improved since 1950. That is to be expected. Going with the best evidence in 1950 was the best bet for the time even if it subsequently turned out to have been wrong. One can never use future knowledge today. You can only do what looks best today. Don't I recall Mercola pushing a radical low fat vegan diet plan for a lot of years? He's since come partially over the the light side of the force but he sure took his time of it.. Dean Ornish pushed, and still pushes, such a diet. Yes, and he may have had a hand in the death of Steve Jobs. How is one to know. Jobs died from cancer. How did Ornish affect the outcome. Jobs refused surgery for fear of invasion of his body if I read it correctly. -- Dogman |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks
On 04/05/2012 10:45 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:29:23 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] Even so, the percentage of those who defy mainstream science, and turn out to have been right, is very low. Actually it's pretty high. Actually it is pretty low. That's what the scientific method is all about, in fact. Questioning conventional wisdom. Trying to falsify a theory or hypothesis. Correct. A good theory will survive attacks. If a hypothesis can't be falsified, it's not a scientific hypothesis. Correct. When you hear scientists saying that there's a "consensus," it's a clue that they aren't really scientists. False. Scientist often are in majority agreement about their theories exactly because they have been well tested and survived many falsifying attempts. What else would you expect them to do in such a case? -- Dogman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Supplemental Natural Diet Support | Meeks | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | May 28th, 2008 01:44 PM |
Looking for a few friendly faces | justme | General Discussion | 4 | August 12th, 2006 05:46 PM |
Chicken recipes that are WW friendly AND kid friendly | Julia | Weightwatchers | 32 | March 10th, 2006 02:08 PM |
Friendly Server who really tried.... | Pat | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 3 | October 5th, 2004 08:12 PM |
Induction-friendly gum? | Mo Geffer | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 6 | September 8th, 2004 09:39 PM |