The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

Until you can explain to me what these "mysterious" effects are, and
how they work, etc., I'm going with Ockham's Razor.

It's possible that the surgery causes effects not seen in folks put on
the same diet without the surgery. *I would like to see studies that do
that. *If there's a difference other than adherence it would probably be
a change in gherlin levels driven by idling much of the stomach.

Thank you. That is exactly what researchers are working on.

Hey, when they get done "working on it," be sure to let us know how it
turns out, 'kay?

Exactly. I look forward to reading the results of such studies. To
what extent is the hormonal damage of being morbidly obese in the first
place is reversed rather than just the weight lost as long as the
punishment of vomitting lasts.

It's not just a better success rate. It's a vastly better
success rate.

Maybe you should tell all these folks. They apparently didn't get the
memo!

Given that even the best diet plans have an 85% drop out rate, surgery
can fail more than half the time and still be vastly better than any of
the diet options.

Sounds like the same old problems to me, they still don't know how to
eat, they fall off the wagon, etc.

Nope, nothing "mysterious" there.

No change from any diet.

Humans instinctively crave sweet and/or greasy and/or salty foods.
Companies market products that trigger those cravings. it is never
going to be easy to resist that. Figure out how to make it easy to
resist that and you'll be a trillionaire.

But greasy foods are satiating if not eaten with carbs or too much
protein. You do need to keep a lid on protein, because an excess will
be transformed to glucose.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article ,
Dogman wrote:

Well, first thing, I don't think drop-out rate necessarily equates to
long-term failure. People drop out, sure, but most people drop back in
eventually. They get back on the wagon. At least that's been what I've
observed. Plus, for the vast majority of people (those who aren't
already morbidly obese), I don't think surgery is any more successful
long-term than from diet, and comes with serious dangers and
side-effects.

Yes, the risk goes up for the very obese and morbidly obese.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

In article
,
" wrote:

Sure, like all someone has to do is tell them about LC.
Perhaps you've missed it. There was a huge interest in
LC around 2000. It was widely covered in the media.
It was the time articles by Taubes were coming out
and Atkins was all over the news.
Lots of people heard the message about LC. This
newsgroup was full of them. They were exchanging
recipes, asking questions, telling of their stories.
A lot of people started doing LC for the first time.
Well, what happened?
Interest in LC fell just as quickly as it grew. See many
folks in the newgroup here these days? The people
who tried it just as quickly gave it up. That doesn't
make LC bad. It's just that most people have shown
that they won't stay on any diet long term.

In case you didn't notice USENET is dying. Everyone went to blogs,
mail lists etcetera.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:13:07 -0400, Dogman wrote:

[...]
Maybe you should tell all these folks. *They apparently didn't get the
memo!

When you have an actual study that says bariatric surgery
doesn't have a vastly higher success rate in the patients
that undergo it compared to dieting, let us know.

And when you have one that says it does, let us know.

Given that even the best diet plans have an 85% drop out rate, surgery
can fail more than half the time and still be vastly better than any of
the diet options.

Well, first thing, I don't think drop-out rate necessarily equates to
long-term failure. People drop out, sure, but most people drop back in
eventually. They get back on the wagon. At least that's been what I've
observed.

Sure, we should trust your personal observations rather than
all the other data that says diets of any type don't have a high
long term success rate.

You don't have to trust mine, just

Plus, for the vast majority of people (those who aren't
already morbidly obese), I don't think surgery is any more successful
long-term than from diet, and comes with serious dangers and
side-effects.

What you think does not count. What you have proof
for does.

The same thing goes for you, asshole.

Put up or shut up!

[...]
That's why people have to be taught ways to "have their cake and eat
it, too," by using natural sweeteners (more or less), like stevia,
erythritol, xylitol (my personal favorite, when I just have to
absolutely have something sweetened), etc., instead of sugar, HFCS,
etc. And how to cook with non-grain flours, like almond, coconut, etc.
And only a small percentage of the population needs to be concerned
about their salt intake.

Weren't you the guy who claimed a few posts ago that
LC was easy?

I said pretty easy, and along with paleo, it is.

And since I know you're all about accuracy,
and everything pro and con has to be discussed once
anyone brings up anything, let me point this out:

xylitol is not what I would call a natural product:

You wouldn't, of course, because you're stupid. But most everyone else
does, and I know how you love consensus.

And I said it was a natural sweetener (more or less), which it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol
Today, using hardwood or maize sources, the largest manufacturer
globally is the Danish company Danisco, with several other suppliers
from China.[8] Xylitol is produced by hydrogenation of xylose, which
converts the sugar (an aldehyde) into a primary alcohol.

Not exactly like a hippie picking it from a tree.

What do you have against birch trees?

And since the xylitol I use is extracted from non-GMO corn, and others
are made from "the fibers of many fruits and vegetables, and can be
extracted from various berries, oats, and mushrooms," it sounds pretty
damn natural to me. Yep, I can almost see the hippies!

Not to mention how it is good for people with metabolic syndrome and
diabetes, helps prevent cavities, has virtually no effect on blood
sugar, is low in calories, and tastes great.

"Where Xylitol Comes From

Xylitol is found widely in nature. In addition to a variety of fruits
and vegetables, Xylitol is also commonly extracted from birch bark. It
is important to remember, however, that Xylitol is a specific
molecule. The Xylitol extracted from one source is exactly the same as
Xylitol from any other source – just as the sugar (sucrose) extracted
from beets is exactly the same as the sugar we get from sugar cane."
http://www.xylitol.org/about-xylitol

And like I mentioned, I don't generally use sweeteners (I'm pretty
much weaned off of needing any), I like xylitol because it is natural
(more or less), is about 1/3 less sweet than sugar, and has additional
benefits, like prevention of tooth decay (which is why it's found in
some gums), and beneficial for fungal or bacterial dysbiosis.

But feel free to cram your face with sugar and HFCS, though!

Anything else I can help you out with, just let me know.

Okay, how 'bout taking your right foot and shoving it up your ass?

How 'bout 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

On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 31, 11:01*am, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Going on diets and learning how to eat properly are two different
things. People who learn how to eat properly are usually able to
maintain a healthy weight.

That's like saying people who aren't fat aren't fat.

It's nothing like that, of course.

A diet is what we eat. * And again I'd like to see a reference
that says most people who are given instruction in what to eat
whether in the form of a book, lecture, class, doctor, etc
are successful in the long term. *Everything I've seen
says they are not. * And it doesn't matter if it's low fat, low
calorie, LC, etc. *The long term success rate isn't good.

Of course, it matters. Some diets are extremely hard to maintain, like
low-calorie diets, vegan diets, just to name two.

Then per my previous request show us studies that
show diets that have a long term success record for
most people. The failure rate for all diets, is very high.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Low-carb and paleo diets are pretty easy. Humans existed on paleo
diets for most of our existence, and they didn't get fat. They didn't
have trouble doing it because they were eating REAL food, not refined,
processed food, sugar, grains, etc.

A lot of people would disagree that LC is easy. If you don't
cook for example,

Anyone can learn to cook, even you. Or marry some one who can. But
eating out in restaurants all the time will only make the job tougher
(and unhealthier) than it need be.

And while everyone is different, most of us who are taught how to eat
properly can maintain a healthy weight without much effort, and still
get to eat delicious meats, fish, veggies and fruits. And even enjoy
certain "desserts," provided they're the right kind. There are entire
cookbooks devoted to showing people how to prepare delicious low-carb
and paleo meals. But very few people are aimed in that direction by
doctors, preferring instead to recommend low-fat, high-carb meals,
essentially making them part of the problem, not the solution.

Sure, like all someone has to do is tell them about LC.
Perhaps you've missed it. There was a huge interest in
LC around 2000. It was widely covered in the media.

It's still very popular, along with paleo. And getting more popular,
especially in Scandinavian countries, where they continually have
shortages of butter.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/heres-swed...ne-number-four

It was the time articles by Taubes were coming out
and Atkins was all over the news.
Lots of people heard the message about LC. This
newsgroup was full of them.

Only a fool would go by this newsgroup, because newsgroup usage in
general is at an all-time low.

On web sites, Facebook, Twitter, podcasts, etc., the message is
probably more popular than ever.

But you're too stupid to realize it.

{more of the same ol' same ol' snipped, because the repitition is
getting...boring]

--
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

On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:37:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Exactly. *I look forward to reading the results of such studies. *To
what extent is the hormonal damage of being morbidly obese in the first
place is reversed rather than just the weight lost as long as the
punishment of vomitting lasts.

Again, the specific studies being done are regarding the
reversal of diabetes, and so far the results indicate that it
is NOT connected to the weight loss.

No, it's due to the DIET.

And you can see the same effects and get to keep your stomach intact,
if you eat properly.


--
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

On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:35:58 -0400, Walter Bushell
wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

Sure, like all someone has to do is tell them about LC.
Perhaps you've missed it. There was a huge interest in
LC around 2000. It was widely covered in the media.
It was the time articles by Taubes were coming out
and Atkins was all over the news.
Lots of people heard the message about LC. This
newsgroup was full of them. They were exchanging
recipes, asking questions, telling of their stories.
A lot of people started doing LC for the first time.
Well, what happened?
Interest in LC fell just as quickly as it grew. See many
folks in the newgroup here these days? The people
who tried it just as quickly gave it up. That doesn't
make LC bad. It's just that most people have shown
that they won't stay on any diet long term.

In case you didn't notice USENET is dying. Everyone went to blogs,
mail lists etcetera.

Exactly.

Visit Jimmy Moore's blog and web site:
http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/

....to get just a flavor for just how many LC and/or Paleo web sites
are out there.

Here are 47 new Paleo, low-carb and health blogs for just May 2012:

1. LOW CARBOHYDRATE REVIEW
2. N=1: A JOURNEY TO HEALTH
3. CHUNKY TO CHA-CHA
4. IT’S THE SATIETY
5. AGAINST THE GRAIN
6. BACON & SKINNY JEANS
7. 30 BANANAS A DAY…SUCKS!
8. A CHANGE OF LIFE
9. KOKOPALEO
10. GOOD FOR YOU GOODIES
11. PEACE, LOVE, AND LOW CARB
12. PALEO FOR WOMEN
13. TRAIN TO WIN, EAT TO LOSE
14. KARA NANCE MD
15. SWEDISH DIET
16. BOOKBODY
17. THE FOODIE AND THE FAMILY
18. YOUR HEALTH IS ON YOUR PLATE
19. SARA GOTTFRIED MD
20. MRS. PALEO
21. A WEIGHT WATCHING ANGEL
22. MY LIFE IN A PYRAMID
23. CONFESSIONS OF A CROSSFIT COACH
24. LOW-CARB LIFESTYLE: THE THEORY & PRACTICE
25. SARAH GETS STRONG: A CROSSFIT/PALEO LOVE AFFAIR
26. MAKE IT FUN & IT WILL GET DONE
27. EATHROPOLOGY
28. THE THINKER
29. THE UNREFINED KITCHEN
30. THE CAFE WELLNESS
31. AUTISM BUSTER
32. PALEO STYLE
33. PRINCIPLE INTO PRACTICE
34. PRIMAL PASTURES
35. CLAUDIO RIVERA
36. THE DAWN OF PALEO
37. YOGI WELLNESS JOURNEY
38. DR. DEBORAH’S BLOG
39. FIT TWIN CITIES
40. THE WILDERNESS CHILDE
41. HOME WITH PURPOSE
42. LITTLE DOG LOST
43. THE REAL NUTRITIONIST
44. TOM’S UNDERGROUND FITNESS
45. DIETINGLADY
46. DIETA LOW-CARB E PALEOLITICA (Portuguese)
47. SYLPH GOURMAND (Serbian)

They're popping up like dandelions (which make a great tasting and
very healthy salad!), in fact.

--
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

On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:01:20 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
"KFC ® Grilled Chicken

"Fresh Chicken Marinated with: Salt, Sodium Phosphate, and Monosodium
Glutamate Seasoned with: Maltodextrin, Salt, Bleached Wheat lour,
Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and Cottonseed Oil, Monosodium
Glutamate, Spices, Palm Oil, Natural Flavor, Garlic Powder, Soy Sauce
(Soybean, Wheat, Salt), Chicken Fat, Chicken Broth, Autolyzed Yeast,
Beef Powder, Rendered Beef Fat, Extractives of Turmeric, Dehydrated
Carrot, Onion Powder, and mot more than 2% Each of Calcium Silicate
and Silicon Dioxide Added as Anticaking Agents.

"Contains Wheat and Soy"

Does anyone make grilled chicken at home using any of those
ingredients?

It still looks like low carb to me, but not zero carb.

It's not the carbs that should concern you, James, but the list of
ingredients.

Why so concerned with the additives and flavor enhancers?

The question should be, why aren't you concerned? Why should REAL food
need so many additives and flavor enhancers? And what exactly is
"natural flavor"? I think it's probably HFCS. Why would you want
"bleached wheat flour" in your chicken? Or partially hydrogenated
soybean and cottonseed oils"? Why should you need "beef powder" or
"rendered beef fat" on your CHICKEN? Etc.

I think it is reasonable to be concerned with things that are actually
harmful. What things on your list are actually harmful? I agree they
are not necessary but are they harmful?


That's why it's called Frankenchicken in some circles.

Some people overreact.

And some people never learn.

Many books have been written describing the extremely UNHEALTHY
aspects of many of those items on that list of ingredients, so if you
want to keep eating them and think you're not eventually going to pay
a price for it, keep on keeping on.

Are those books credible?

James, you've proven by now that no book, no study, etc., is credible
enough for you, so why should I waste me time trying to convince you
otherwise?

So I'm only going to tell you about soy, and why you shouldn't eat it,
unless it's fermented.

http://www.foodrenegade.com/dangers-of-soy/

And if you don't believe that, I really couldn't care less at this
point.

Frankly, I don't even know why you're here.

Most such books are just conspiracy theory
and junk science.

And that's precisely why I don't bother anymore.

I doubt it.

Hey, it's your life.

Here's my list of ingredients for the grilled chicken I make at home.

Chicken
Salt
Pepper

Sounds yummy.

It is.

Because good chicken doesn't need more than that to taste yummy.

I agree. I prefer it plain, grilled or fried.

If you fry it, I hope you don't fry it in vegetable oils? Of course
you do! You're James Warren!

PS: I take it a couple of steps further, and only eat USDA certified
organic chicken, and only Celtic Sea Salt (the best salt you've
probably never tasted).

If you eat REAL food, GOOD food, you don't need all that unhealthy
crap that KFC has to drench its chicken in to get you to eat it.

Yep, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.


--
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

On 5/31/2012 5:34 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:01:20 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
"KFC ® Grilled Chicken

"Fresh Chicken Marinated with: Salt, Sodium Phosphate, and Monosodium
Glutamate Seasoned with: Maltodextrin, Salt, Bleached Wheat lour,
Partially Hydrogenated Soybean and Cottonseed Oil, Monosodium
Glutamate, Spices, Palm Oil, Natural Flavor, Garlic Powder, Soy Sauce
(Soybean, Wheat, Salt), Chicken Fat, Chicken Broth, Autolyzed Yeast,
Beef Powder, Rendered Beef Fat, Extractives of Turmeric, Dehydrated
Carrot, Onion Powder, and mot more than 2% Each of Calcium Silicate
and Silicon Dioxide Added as Anticaking Agents.

"Contains Wheat and Soy"

Does anyone make grilled chicken at home using any of those
ingredients?

It still looks like low carb to me, but not zero carb.

It's not the carbs that should concern you, James, but the list of
ingredients.

Why so concerned with the additives and flavor enhancers?

The question should be, why aren't you concerned? Why should REAL food
need so many additives and flavor enhancers? And what exactly is
"natural flavor"? I think it's probably HFCS. Why would you want
"bleached wheat flour" in your chicken? Or partially hydrogenated
soybean and cottonseed oils"? Why should you need "beef powder" or
"rendered beef fat" on your CHICKEN? Etc.

I think it is reasonable to be concerned with things that are actually
harmful. What things on your list are actually harmful? I agree they
are not necessary but are they harmful?


That's why it's called Frankenchicken in some circles.

Some people overreact.

And some people never learn.

Many books have been written describing the extremely UNHEALTHY
aspects of many of those items on that list of ingredients, so if you
want to keep eating them and think you're not eventually going to pay
a price for it, keep on keeping on.

Are those books credible?

James, you've proven by now that no book, no study, etc., is credible
enough for you, so why should I waste me time trying to convince you
otherwise?

So I'm only going to tell you about soy, and why you shouldn't eat it,
unless it's fermented.

http://www.foodrenegade.com/dangers-of-soy/

And if you don't believe that, I really couldn't care less at this
point.

Frankly, I don't even know why you're here.

I don't either, so we agree.


Most such books are just conspiracy theory
and junk science.

And that's precisely why I don't bother anymore.

I doubt it.

Hey, it's your life.

Here's my list of ingredients for the grilled chicken I make at home.

Chicken
Salt
Pepper

Sounds yummy.

It is.

Because good chicken doesn't need more than that to taste yummy.

I agree. I prefer it plain, grilled or fried.

If you fry it, I hope you don't fry it in vegetable oils? Of course
you do! You're James Warren!

I use olive oil. Is that OK with you?


PS: I take it a couple of steps further, and only eat USDA certified
organic chicken, and only Celtic Sea Salt (the best salt you've
probably never tasted).

If you eat REAL food, GOOD food, you don't need all that unhealthy
crap that KFC has to drench its chicken in to get you to eat it.

Oh I agree we don't need all that crap, but is it harmful?


Yep, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Of that there is no doubt.

On May 31, 3:22*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:25:33 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On May 31, 11:01*am, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 07:06:48 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Going on diets and learning how to eat properly are two different
things. People who learn how to eat properly are usually able to
maintain a healthy weight.

That's like saying people who aren't fat aren't fat.

It's nothing like that, of course.

A diet is what we eat. * And again I'd like to see a reference
that says most people who are given instruction in what to eat
whether in the form of a book, lecture, class, doctor, etc
are successful in the long term. *Everything I've seen
says they are not. * And it doesn't matter if it's low fat, low
calorie, LC, etc. *The long term success rate isn't good.

Of course, it matters. Some diets are extremely hard to maintain, like
low-calorie diets, vegan diets, just to name two.

Then per my previous request show us studies that
show diets that have a long term success record for
most people. * The failure rate for all diets, is very high.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

Thank God for that.




Low-carb and paleo diets are pretty easy. Humans existed on paleo
diets for most of our existence, and they didn't get fat. They didn't
have trouble doing it because they were eating REAL food, not refined,
processed food, sugar, grains, etc.

A lot of people would disagree that LC is easy. *If you don't
cook for example,

Anyone can learn to cook, even you. Or marry some one who can. But
eating out in restaurants all the time will only make the job tougher
(and unhealthier) than it need be.

Once again, what someone can learn or not has never
been the issue. The point is cooking takes effort and
it's another hurdle. People in study after study have been
shown to be incapable of staying on any diet. But you
expect to teach them to cook as part of the process
and have them actually do it. Go figure. Why don't
you start a diet company on that principle. Tell them
"You can lose weight but first we have to teach you how to
cook your own food." See how many customers you
get.





And while everyone is different, most of us who are taught how to eat
properly can maintain a healthy weight without much effort, and still
get to eat delicious meats, fish, veggies and fruits. And even enjoy
certain "desserts," provided they're the right kind. There are entire
cookbooks devoted to showing people how to prepare delicious low-carb
and paleo meals. But very few people are aimed in that direction by
doctors, preferring instead to recommend low-fat, high-carb meals,
essentially making them part of the problem, not the solution.

Sure, like all someone has to do is tell them about LC.
Perhaps you've missed it. There was a huge interest in
LC around 2000. *It was widely covered in the media.

It's still very popular, along with paleo. And getting more popular,
especially in Scandinavian countries, where they continually have
shortages of butter.

http://www.dietdoctor.com/heres-swed...umber-four?utm...

It was the time articles by Taubes were coming out
and Atkins was all over the news.
Lots of people heard the message about LC. * This
newsgroup was full of them.

Only a fool would go by this newsgroup, because newsgroup usage in
general is at an all-time low.

Then you must be a fool too, because you're still here.
I particpate in other newsgroups that are as active as
they ever were. I suppose all those companies making
everything from pickles to salad dressing also stopped
making most of it because LC remains really, really
popular too. I can't even find Hood LC milk here
anymore or LC flax wraps.

I'm not the only one that says LC isn't as popular as
it was in 2000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet

"During the late 1990s and early 2000s low-carbohydrate diets became
some of the most popular diets in the U.S. (by some accounts as much
as 18% of the population was using a low-carbohydrate diet at its
peak[31]) and spread to many countries. These were noted by some food
manufacturers and restaurant chains as substantially affecting their
businesses (notably Krispy Kreme[32]).

The popularity of the low-carb diet trend waned somewhat in the late
2000s.[citation needed] In spite of the decline in popularity this
diet trend has continued to quietly garner attention in the medical
and nutritional science communities, and also inspired a number of
hybrid diets which include traditional calorie-counting and exercise
regimens.[6][7][41][42]"

That fits with history as I remember it.





On web sites, Facebook, Twitter, podcasts, etc., the message is
probably more popular than ever.

Sure it is. When you actually have some survey data that
shows the number of people that are on it, the long term
success rate for people who try it, let us know. Until then,
I say it's been shown over and over that most people don't keep
weight off after a year or two with any diet.