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

In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote:

There is a low fat equivalent. One high fat meal and you start leaking
grease out the worng end. Now there's a punishment system.

It gets compliance! You bet.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

On 5/31/2012 9:11 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In articleUc6dncKO0pWSJF_SnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews. com,
James wrote:


A lot of food is consumed out of the home or brought in in the form
of fast food. Carbs are so prevalent in the West that is is nearly
impossible to avoid them. Everything comes with a potato of some kind
and bread or rolls or buns. It takes considerable effort to eat
LC. When I am in a situation when the best thing available is a
hamburger, I buy the largest one and throw away the bun. If LC ever
catches on there will be more choice (fries with that?).

It's distressing to have to throw away the bun and to avoid
restaurants where fries come with the burger.

They will all, in my experience, substitute a salad for the fries
in restaurants. Throwing away the bun seems wasteful but can easily
be done if you can avoid the sauces that come with burgers. I just
take onions and pickles.

On May 31, 9:34*am, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:44:24 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...] Yes, but that's because most medical professionals know next to zip
about diet and nutrition. Take the ADA for example. *They encourage
diabetics and those with metabolic syndrome to eat more carbs, not
less. Especially "healthy whole grains," which are anything but.

No it's not. *The long term success rate of ALL diets
is poor. *And sorry to burst your bubble, but that includes
LC too. *People lose weight on pretty much any diet. *Sure,
LC has been shown to lead to somewhat more weight loss,
faster weight loss, etc. *But then people start going back to
their old ways. *Within a couple years most have put the
weight back on again.

[...]

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.
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.




For example, people who think that fat
makes them fat, or that eating more carbs will help diabetics, will
never be able to eat properly, and that's the kind of "advice" most
people will get from their doctor.

I agree that following the wrong advice can make it harder
and can make the problem worse.
But regardless I have not seen anything that suggests most
people can keep weight off long term period.
As for most diabetics being told to eat more carbs
by their doctors, I believe that is simply not true.
Doctors and diabetes groups are not telling them
to go strict LC, but they have
been telling them to watch the amount of carbs
they eat, limit sweets, etc. They have not told them
to increase them. I'd say it's more of a moderate
carb, balanced diet approach.



Your relentless adoration of people who wear white smocks, prohibits
you from seeing where so much of the problem lies - at the feet of the
medical establishment.

And, of course, because you're an asshole

--
Dogman

Of course you have no problem citing those white smocks
youself when you can cherry-pick something that agrees with your
ill conceived ideas. Why then it's peachy keen. But if 99.999%
of the entire medical community agrees that HIV causes AIDS,
prions exist, and that some viruses cause cancer, why then
it's just nonsense, because it doesn't fit your little world.

James Warren wrote:

A lot of food is consumed out of the home or brought in in the form
of fast food. Carbs are so prevalent in the West that is is nearly
impossible to avoid them. Everything comes with a potato of some kind
and bread or rolls or buns. It takes considerable effort to eat
LC. When I am in a situation when the best thing available is a
hamburger, I buy the largest one and throw away the bun. If LC ever
catches on there will be more choice (fries with that?).

Bun? That redundant wrapper thing, right? It's to keep your fingers
clean when you eat the burger not to be eaten itself. Hardees and
In-N-Out offer lettuce wraps and I think plenty of other chains do as
well.

Fries? It works to get the double burger without a side. Wendys offers
chose a side and in the list are two types of salad, a chilli that's not
bad as long as you keep your expectations low and yuor carb quota can
handle some beans and a fruit option that looks like it includes bananas
so I have not tried it. Plus other potato options.

Even KFC now carries grilled chicken not breaded.

Subway seems to be the original low carb fast food option. They have
had "any six inch sub as a salad for a dollar extra" since long before I
started low carbing in 1999.

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.

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.

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.

For example, people who think that fat
makes them fat, or that eating more carbs will help diabetics, will
never be able to eat properly, and that's the kind of "advice" most
people will get from their doctor.

I agree that following the wrong advice can make it harder
and can make the problem worse.

And that's precisely what I'm saying.

You claim it doesn't make much difference in the long term, and I say
it can.

BFD.

Hell, every single time you agree with me on something, it makes me
want to reconsider my position.

Your relentless adoration of people who wear white smocks, prohibits
you from seeing where so much of the problem lies - at the feet of the
medical establishment.

Of course you have no problem citing those white smocks
youself

But I don't WORSHIP the white-frock-wearing-tribe, like you do. I'm
able to differentiate between the good doctors and scientists and the
bad ones. For some strange reason, you seem to think that a white
smock imparts some kind of godliness upon the wearer.

I don't.

You're a perfect example of a "useful idiot."

--
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

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.

On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:13:16 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway, 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 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.





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, it's definitely more difficult than low fat
where there are many convenience foods readily available.
The store shelves are full of low fat products across the
food spectrum that you can take home, heat up and eat, etc.
But easy or not, isn't the issue. The long term track record
of most people staying on any diet is poor.




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 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.





For example, people who think that fat
makes them fat, or that eating more carbs will help diabetics, will
never be able to eat properly, and that's the kind of "advice" most
people will get from their doctor.

I agree that following the wrong advice can make it harder
and can make the problem worse.

And that's precisely what I'm saying.

No, you're claiming all kinds of things that are unfounded.
Like bariatric bypass can just be replaced by LC. That all you
have to do is teach people a proper diet and then they
will follow it long term and be successful with it. And that you
know that the reversal of diabetes seen in gastric bypass patients,
is attributable solely to LC. Yet, when asked to show that these
patients are even on LC 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when
the diabetes reversal still exists, which would be essential
to your argument having any validity, as usual, you have nothing.

In other words, you jump to all kinds of unsupported conclusions.




You claim it doesn't make much difference in the long term, and I say
it can.

BFD.

Yes, it is a BFD. Because unless it's shown to work long
term, claiming it does, pretending it does, doesn't solve
the obesity epidemic.




Hell, every single time you agree with me on something, it makes me
want to reconsider my position.

Your relentless adoration of people who wear white smocks, prohibits
you from seeing where so much of the problem lies - at the feet of the
medical establishment.
Of course you have no problem citing those white smocks
youself

But I don't WORSHIP the white-frock-wearing-tribe, like you do. *I'm
able to differentiate between the good doctors and scientists and the
bad ones. For some strange reason, you seem to think that a white
smock imparts some kind of godliness upon the wearer.

I don't.

You're a perfect example of a "useful idiot."

--
Dogman



Yes, the good doctors and scientists are the ones that
agree with snippets of your bizarre world, even though
those same people completely disagree with other
key parts of your world's bizarre science. Cherry-pick
here and there. And ignore the other 99.99% of the
science that says:

HIV causes AIDS
You can't cure AIDS with diet
HPV causes cervical cancer
Viruses can cause cancer
Prions exist

They're all simply wrong because you say so with
your cherry-picking nonsense.

On May 31, 11:13*am, 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.

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. Also, they have duplicated
the effect in rats where they had normal weight.



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.

Exactly my point.

On May 31, 11:31*am, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:13:16 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

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. Until
then, annoymous anecdotal reports on the internet
don't prove anything. No one is claiming that surgery is
100% successful. Just that it has a much higher success
rate than dieting.





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.



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.





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.

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? 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:

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.

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