Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?

Ime, they are ineffective because they miss the boat by failing to
educate people to "watch *how much* they are eating" and instead have
people "watch what they are eating."

That is not correct.

Is it your claim that you are more familiar with my experiences?

Weigh****chers count every calorie, still their
drop-out rate is high.

Points and calories are not the same.

Our local version simply replaced points with calories (kilojoules in fact).
Weight everything, count everything, compute calories.

Still they experience same results... I have seen it around many times.
People do it for several months, are successful, then get bored with
counting/weighting everything and regain all back.

Weight-loss is not the problem. Problem is maintainance. Sure, if you have
found a way how to force people into weighting their food for the rest of
life, you have found the solution. But I have not seen anything in 2PD that
would do that. Perhaps being seriously ill can make people stick with it and
perhaps this is what makes your experience.

Mirek

It is not clear that Clinton was doing anything more specific than
"low-carbing," which in his case probably was hamburgers with the buns
removed.

Is he really THAT stupid?

Mirek

MU wrote:
|| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:51:05 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
||
||||| No, "it" is a compilation of research this man has put together
||||| for
||||| yor edification. Since you are Mr. Research, follow the trail.
|||
||| A 1977 paper? No.
||
|| Your choice. Can't judge the critique unless you folow the research
|| trail.

I read what parts of it you posted....it's the standard party line of that
era.

||
||||| Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?
|||||
||||| See the ? It's there for a reason. You blew right over it as I
||||| knew
||||| you would, Point made. you can't even determine authorship much
||||| less
||||| research.
|||
||| No, you wrote that to suggest your involvement.
||
|| Incorrect. You missed the ? and *assumed* my involvement. Next time
|| ask
|| first, assume never.

I never missed anything. You're an idiot for assuming I did. However,
anyone of any crediability would not have posted as you did.

||
||| If, on the other hand, you
||| had simply given the cite, there would have been no question.
||| You're just
||| simply a moron. You're really too stupid to be allowed to stay in
||| your skin, mu. Monkey suit for you.
||
|| Who is the bigger moron, the one who is or the one who carries on
|| conversation with one, eh?

Well, you've got me there. You're a complete waste of time to exchanges
posts with.

||
|| Zoulfool, personal slights aimed at me aside, you know, or should
|| know, Mu
|| is no moron. How could a moron, for instance, have set a trap that
|| you, a
|| highly intelligent, sophisticated "lay research scientist", would
|| have
|| fallen for. No way. Not a chance. I am certainly no match for you so
|| how
|| could a moron/monkeyman have done this to you? Nope, no moron here.

It was no trap.

||
||| And I most certainly can determine authorship. But when
||| one is dealing with the insane, namely you, there is no telling
||| what will
||| come by.
||
|| An insane moron? What? An insane moron has pulled the rug right out
|| from
|| under you?

You pulled no rug from under me, Mu. You posted BS on usenet and expect it
to be treated like some serious research. Big ****ing deal. You're so
stupid it's funny.

||
|| It doesn't seem right, nope, not right at all. You must be severely
|| mistaken or severely impaired, one of the two.
||
|| Back to the point.
||
|| I picked on you for a several reasons.
||
|| 1) I knew you would bite.
|| 2) You have Usenet credibility lol
|| 3) You are well read which means that even people who have Mu
|| killfiled
|| will see this.
|| 4) Most importantly, it brings to the light the absurdity of folks
|| on these
|| Xposted newsgroups to discuss science, research, citations and the
|| like. It
|| is disingenuous, it is misinformation in a serious way and it is ego
|| driven
|| malfeasance (excuse to those very few who *are* qualified to
|| interpret
|| research). It is borderline lying. You wouldn't know a properly
|| performed
|| study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
|| documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is bad
|| or
|| worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons. You
|| wouldn't know
|| a control group from a drug controlled groupie. Then, to make
|| matters even
|| more ridiculous, you want to argue with scientists (like Chung) who
|| have
|| the qualifications. Why do you do this? Because you are filled with
|| hate,
|| envy, pride and God Does Know what else. Maybe being openly
|| Christian
|| really spins your head.

Wow. You're just locked in your own delusions with Chung, and so
desperately trying to prove something that you'll sink to any level you deem
necessary. You're dangerously close to being in serious trouble, Mu.


||
|| Stick to what you do know, especially your own experiences. Offer
|| proper
|| advice based on your knowledge set, tuck your ego back into your
|| britches.
||
|| Leave the science to scientists.
||
|| With all the time you have to post voluminously to Usenet, you ought
|| to
|| take a chunk of that time and spend it more wisely.
||
|| Gotta go. Meeting a real researcher who is going to inform Mu of his
|| real
|| opinions. Mu will listen and learn.

Right I doubt you can learn anything about what a "real researcher" will
say to you. Your own arguments prove this point.

||
|| Christ loves you, Roger,
||

And you'll have to account for your actions before him, Mu.

|| MU

MU wrote:
|| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:51:05 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
||
||||| No, "it" is a compilation of research this man has put together
||||| for
||||| yor edification. Since you are Mr. Research, follow the trail.
|||
||| A 1977 paper? No.
||
|| Your choice. Can't judge the critique unless you folow the research
|| trail.

I read what parts of it you posted....it's the standard party line of that
era.

||
||||| Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?
|||||
||||| See the ? It's there for a reason. You blew right over it as I
||||| knew
||||| you would, Point made. you can't even determine authorship much
||||| less
||||| research.
|||
||| No, you wrote that to suggest your involvement.
||
|| Incorrect. You missed the ? and *assumed* my involvement. Next time
|| ask
|| first, assume never.

I never missed anything. You're an idiot for assuming I did. However,
anyone of any crediability would not have posted as you did.

||
||| If, on the other hand, you
||| had simply given the cite, there would have been no question.
||| You're just
||| simply a moron. You're really too stupid to be allowed to stay in
||| your skin, mu. Monkey suit for you.
||
|| Who is the bigger moron, the one who is or the one who carries on
|| conversation with one, eh?

Well, you've got me there. You're a complete waste of time to exchanges
posts with.

||
|| Zoulfool, personal slights aimed at me aside, you know, or should
|| know, Mu
|| is no moron. How could a moron, for instance, have set a trap that
|| you, a
|| highly intelligent, sophisticated "lay research scientist", would
|| have
|| fallen for. No way. Not a chance. I am certainly no match for you so
|| how
|| could a moron/monkeyman have done this to you? Nope, no moron here.

It was no trap.

||
||| And I most certainly can determine authorship. But when
||| one is dealing with the insane, namely you, there is no telling
||| what will
||| come by.
||
|| An insane moron? What? An insane moron has pulled the rug right out
|| from
|| under you?

You pulled no rug from under me, Mu. You posted BS on usenet and expect it
to be treated like some serious research. Big ****ing deal. You're so
stupid it's funny.

||
|| It doesn't seem right, nope, not right at all. You must be severely
|| mistaken or severely impaired, one of the two.
||
|| Back to the point.
||
|| I picked on you for a several reasons.
||
|| 1) I knew you would bite.
|| 2) You have Usenet credibility lol
|| 3) You are well read which means that even people who have Mu
|| killfiled
|| will see this.
|| 4) Most importantly, it brings to the light the absurdity of folks
|| on these
|| Xposted newsgroups to discuss science, research, citations and the
|| like. It
|| is disingenuous, it is misinformation in a serious way and it is ego
|| driven
|| malfeasance (excuse to those very few who *are* qualified to
|| interpret
|| research). It is borderline lying. You wouldn't know a properly
|| performed
|| study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
|| documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is bad
|| or
|| worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons. You
|| wouldn't know
|| a control group from a drug controlled groupie. Then, to make
|| matters even
|| more ridiculous, you want to argue with scientists (like Chung) who
|| have
|| the qualifications. Why do you do this? Because you are filled with
|| hate,
|| envy, pride and God Does Know what else. Maybe being openly
|| Christian
|| really spins your head.

Wow. You're just locked in your own delusions with Chung, and so
desperately trying to prove something that you'll sink to any level you deem
necessary. You're dangerously close to being in serious trouble, Mu.


||
|| Stick to what you do know, especially your own experiences. Offer
|| proper
|| advice based on your knowledge set, tuck your ego back into your
|| britches.
||
|| Leave the science to scientists.
||
|| With all the time you have to post voluminously to Usenet, you ought
|| to
|| take a chunk of that time and spend it more wisely.
||
|| Gotta go. Meeting a real researcher who is going to inform Mu of his
|| real
|| opinions. Mu will listen and learn.

Right I doubt you can learn anything about what a "real researcher" will
say to you. Your own arguments prove this point.

||
|| Christ loves you, Roger,
||

And you'll have to account for your actions before him, Mu.

|| MU

Bob Mauri wrote:
|| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna
|| wrote:
||
||| In article ,
||| MU wrote:
|||
|||| You wouldn't know a properly performed
|||| study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
|||| documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is
|||| bad or worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons.
|||| You wouldn't know
|||| a control group from a drug controlled groupie.
|||
||| Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed
||| here, the
||| things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many
||| people on
||| this group look further into the studies, question how they were
||| done, and
||| report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest
||| of the group.
|||
||| There are some things about the average person on the low-carb
||| group that make us a bit different from the average person on the
||| street, and those things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss
||| scientific research than you
||| might think.
|||
||| First, the fact that we know about usenet at all sets us apart.
||| Also, usenet is a text-only medium, which means people here are
||| comfortable with
||| reading. It's shocking and sad how many people never read in their
||| day-to-day lives, not even a newspaper.
|||
||| Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets.
||| That means
||| we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed
||| to eat to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we
||| view research. So what if we're self-taught? If anything that
||| makes us more motivated to
||| get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a
||| job, we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and
||| for some of
||| us it's even a matter of life and death.
|||
||| Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the
||| responses are along the lines of "who did this study? how many
||| participants? where did their funding come from? how was it
||| controlled? were the dieters self-reporting? where is the full
||| research report, not the abstract?" etc.
|||
||| Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the
||| results
||| of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit
||| from over
||| there, we can collectively ferret out the truth.
||
|| But, honestly, how hard could it be to interpret a study? I have a
|| BSEE, MSEE (in signal processing, which is all math), and JD. If I
|| can get through those, I can certainly read a study and determine
|| what is or isn't wrong with it, at least at some level. If I don't
|| know what some term is, I can look it up. For crying out loud, it's
|| not rocket science (and I'm loathe to call it "science" at all --
|| it's more like pseudo-science).
||
||| I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a
||| trained scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way.
||| It means that we
||| don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and
||| then question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world
||| (testing diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we
||| question causation vs.
||| correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding
||| science is more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know.
||| Facts can be learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay
||| person. The qualifications for understanding what you learn are
||| skepticism and logical
||| thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree.
|||
||
|| Mu just wants us to all be lemmings and believe whatever studies say.

Mu wants us to believe whatever he says.

||
|| --
|| Bob in CT

Bob Mauri wrote:
|| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna
|| wrote:
||
||| In article ,
||| MU wrote:
|||
|||| You wouldn't know a properly performed
|||| study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
|||| documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is
|||| bad or worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons.
|||| You wouldn't know
|||| a control group from a drug controlled groupie.
|||
||| Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed
||| here, the
||| things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many
||| people on
||| this group look further into the studies, question how they were
||| done, and
||| report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest
||| of the group.
|||
||| There are some things about the average person on the low-carb
||| group that make us a bit different from the average person on the
||| street, and those things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss
||| scientific research than you
||| might think.
|||
||| First, the fact that we know about usenet at all sets us apart.
||| Also, usenet is a text-only medium, which means people here are
||| comfortable with
||| reading. It's shocking and sad how many people never read in their
||| day-to-day lives, not even a newspaper.
|||
||| Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets.
||| That means
||| we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed
||| to eat to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we
||| view research. So what if we're self-taught? If anything that
||| makes us more motivated to
||| get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a
||| job, we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and
||| for some of
||| us it's even a matter of life and death.
|||
||| Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the
||| responses are along the lines of "who did this study? how many
||| participants? where did their funding come from? how was it
||| controlled? were the dieters self-reporting? where is the full
||| research report, not the abstract?" etc.
|||
||| Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the
||| results
||| of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit
||| from over
||| there, we can collectively ferret out the truth.
||
|| But, honestly, how hard could it be to interpret a study? I have a
|| BSEE, MSEE (in signal processing, which is all math), and JD. If I
|| can get through those, I can certainly read a study and determine
|| what is or isn't wrong with it, at least at some level. If I don't
|| know what some term is, I can look it up. For crying out loud, it's
|| not rocket science (and I'm loathe to call it "science" at all --
|| it's more like pseudo-science).
||
||| I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a
||| trained scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way.
||| It means that we
||| don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and
||| then question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world
||| (testing diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we
||| question causation vs.
||| correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding
||| science is more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know.
||| Facts can be learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay
||| person. The qualifications for understanding what you learn are
||| skepticism and logical
||| thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree.
|||
||
|| Mu just wants us to all be lemmings and believe whatever studies say.

Mu wants us to believe whatever he says.

||
|| --
|| Bob in CT

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
|| Bob Mauri wrote:
|||
||| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:35:48 GMT, Luna
||| wrote:
|||
|||| In article ,
|||| MU wrote:
||||
||||| On 10 Dec 2004 02:05:28 GMT, jamie wrote:
|||||
|||||| Plagiarize.
|||||
||||| Nope, never took ownership of it. You missed the ? too. Hate
||||| blinds the truth.
|||||
||||
||||
|||| Posting something to usenet that was not authored by you, without
|||| attributing the source, is plagiarizing. You published it to an
|||| electronic
|||| medium without giving credit to the author.
||||
|||
||| Not only that, but it could be considered a copyright violation.
|||
||
|| It is my understanding that it is legally impossible for someone to
|| anonymously (i.e. under a pseudonym) steal credit for anything.

Perhaps so. But anyone with any credibility would not do such a thing.
It's dishonest and you should be ashamed of your association with Mu because
of it.

Bob Mauri wrote:
|| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna
|| wrote:
||
||| In article ,
||| MU wrote:
|||
|||| You wouldn't know a properly performed
|||| study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
|||| documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is
|||| bad or worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons.
|||| You wouldn't know
|||| a control group from a drug controlled groupie.
|||
||| Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed
||| here, the
||| things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many
||| people on
||| this group look further into the studies, question how they were
||| done, and
||| report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest
||| of the group.
|||
||| There are some things about the average person on the low-carb
||| group that make us a bit different from the average person on the
||| street, and those things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss
||| scientific research than you
||| might think.
|||
||| First, the fact that we know about usenet at all sets us apart.
||| Also, usenet is a text-only medium, which means people here are
||| comfortable with
||| reading. It's shocking and sad how many people never read in their
||| day-to-day lives, not even a newspaper.
|||
||| Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets.
||| That means
||| we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed
||| to eat to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we
||| view research. So what if we're self-taught? If anything that
||| makes us more motivated to
||| get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a
||| job, we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and
||| for some of
||| us it's even a matter of life and death.
|||
||| Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the
||| responses are along the lines of "who did this study? how many
||| participants? where did their funding come from? how was it
||| controlled? were the dieters self-reporting? where is the full
||| research report, not the abstract?" etc.
|||
||| Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the
||| results
||| of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit
||| from over
||| there, we can collectively ferret out the truth.
||
|| But, honestly, how hard could it be to interpret a study?

In a writeup of a properly done study the author will provide what is need
to interpret the results. It's the reason for the write up and why research
contributions are peer review.

|| I have a
|| BSEE, MSEE (in signal processing, which is all math), and JD. If I
|| can get through those, I can certainly read a study and determine
|| what is or isn't wrong with it, at least at some level.
|| If I don't
|| know what some term is, I can look it up. For crying out loud, it's
|| not rocket science (and I'm loathe to call it "science" at all --
|| it's more like pseudo-science).

Funny how in areas of medical science and nutritional matters, there is a
lot of things that have been published only to later be refuted. What does
that suggest?


||
||| I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a
||| trained scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way.
||| It means that we
||| don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and
||| then question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world
||| (testing diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we
||| question causation vs.
||| correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding
||| science is more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know.
||| Facts can be learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay
||| person. The qualifications for understanding what you learn are
||| skepticism and logical
||| thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree.
|||
||
|| Mu just wants us to all be lemmings and believe whatever studies say.
||
|| --
|| Bob in CT

Roger Zoul wrote:

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
|| Bob Mauri wrote:
|||
||| On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:35:48 GMT, Luna
||| wrote:
|||
|||| In article ,
|||| MU wrote:
||||
||||| On 10 Dec 2004 02:05:28 GMT, jamie wrote:
|||||
|||||| Plagiarize.
|||||
||||| Nope, never took ownership of it. You missed the ? too. Hate
||||| blinds the truth.
|||||
||||
||||
|||| Posting something to usenet that was not authored by you, without
|||| attributing the source, is plagiarizing. You published it to an
|||| electronic
|||| medium without giving credit to the author.
||||
|||
||| Not only that, but it could be considered a copyright violation.
|||
||
|| It is my understanding that it is legally impossible for someone to
|| anonymously (i.e. under a pseudonym) steal credit for anything.

Perhaps so.

It is so.

But anyone with any credibility would not do such a thing.

Your judgment.

It's dishonest

More judgment.

and you should be ashamed of your association with Mu because
of it.

There is no shame in being part of the body of Christ.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

"Mirek Fídler" wrote:

It is not clear that Clinton was doing anything more specific than
"low-carbing," which in his case probably was hamburgers with the buns
removed.

Is he really THAT stupid?

Mirek


It remains my choice not to judge others.


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867