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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
In article ,
Dogman wrote: If you care anything about your health, you'll learn how to cook. Or live with someone who can and will. Restaurant and take out food is designed for the most appeal at the least cost and nutrition is a distant consideration, (as it is for most customers) and if nutrition is taken into consideration it's usually incorrectly applied. -- This space unintentionally left blank. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
In article ,
Doug Freyburger wrote: Few of the chemicals have been in use for decades. There have been chemicals where it took decades to figure out they were harmful. Even chemicals as simple as the element mercury and the mineral asbestos took decades to figure out they were harmful. Oh, yes. They used to spay the street by my families house with used transformer oils, just full of polychlorinated biphenyls . -- This space unintentionally left blank. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 1, 7:00*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:45:31 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: I gave you the link to summaries from the two studies. There were no links. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254 "Original Article Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects Results Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever." In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific" studies conducted today. *It's basically a deceitful advertisement for surgical intervention. Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies are crap. It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like claiming that common food additives are dangerous, but HIV is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS. In other words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the bizarre, kook fringes. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: There were no links. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254 "Original Article Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects Results Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever." In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific" studies conducted today. *It's basically a deceitful advertisement for surgical intervention. Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies are crap. That's because they are! Entire books have been written about the abysmal condition of science today, and the shoddy ways that studies are put together. And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't possibly have read it. It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures." What a maroon. It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like claiming that common food additives are dangerous, That's because many of them are! but HIV is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS. That's because it doesn't. In other words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the bizarre, kook fringes. You wouldn't know valid science if it bit you in the ass, Trader. I asked James why he was here, and he didn't know. I don't know why you're here, either. You don't really seem sold on low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and analyzing a study. You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll. Asshole. -- 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 |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 02/06/2012 12:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: There were no links. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254 "Original Article Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects Results Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever." In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific" studies conducted today. It's basically a deceitful advertisement for surgical intervention. Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies are crap. That's because they are! Entire books have been written about the abysmal condition of science today, and the shoddy ways that studies are put together. And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't possibly have read it. It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures." What a maroon. It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like claiming that common food additives are dangerous, That's because many of them are! but HIV is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS. That's because it doesn't. In other words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the bizarre, kook fringes. You wouldn't know valid science if it bit you in the ass, Trader. I asked James why he was here, and he didn't know. Why are you here? I don't know why you're here, either. You don't really seem sold on low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and analyzing a study. You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll. Asshole. -- -jw |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 2, 11:35*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:43:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: There were no links. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa066254 "Original Article Effects of Bariatric Surgery on Mortality in Swedish Obese Subjects Results Did you notice this statement: "No attempt was made to standardize the conventional treatment, which ranged from sophisticated lifestyle intervention and behavior modification to no treatment whatsoever." In other words, thus study is a piece of crap, like most "scientific" studies conducted today. *It's basically a deceitful advertisement for surgical intervention. Of course you're going to say that most scientific studies are crap. That's because they are! Entire books have been written about the abysmal condition of science today, and the shoddy ways that studies are put together. And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't possibly have read it. It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures." I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet. The study shows exactly that. Now, you're trying to muddle that into the reversal of diabetes that is seen in bariatric patients. James first brought this up. It was discussed. The researchers working on it say they don't know what's causing it, that's why they are doing the research. I was OK with that. So was James. Doug also was in favor of research to find out what's going on. YOU on the other hand told us all that it's simply due to LC period. So, again, it's YOU making the claims. You seem to believe LC is such a holy grail that you can just say it cures anything and we should all just accept it. It doesn't work that way. It's up to YOU to provide the evidence. In this case, you can start with the most critical piece which is essential to your claim having any validity. And that is to show us that these bariatric patients are even on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 10 years after surgery when the diabetes reversal continues. I've asked for this about 6 times now and all we have a crickets..... What a maroon. It's how you get to your bizarre conclusions like claiming that common food additives are dangerous, That's because many of them are! but HIV is just a harmless virus that does not cause AIDS. That's because it doesn't. In other words, you reject valid science and instead focus in on the bizarre, kook fringes. You wouldn't know valid science if it bit you in the ass, Trader. I asked James why he was here, and he didn't know. I don't know why you're here, either. I'm here to help seperate fact from outrageous nonsense presented as fact. Outrageous nonsense like HIV is harmless, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I think people should know the loon science you believe in so that they can fairly evaluate your recommendations and what you say is the truth. I say someone so foolish as to claim that AIDS can be cured with diet isn't to be trusted with any claims regarding science, medicine, LC or anything else. You don't really seem sold on low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and analyzing a study. I believe in LC. It's just that I'm not about to lie and make claims for what it can do without regard for the facts. For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. You can't even show us that these patients are on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years when the reversal is still in effect. And that's because they are typically not. It's unfounded huge leaps leaps like this that result in loony views, like HIV doesn't cause AIDS. You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll. Asshole. -- Dogman Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a troll. Have you seen a single person here agree with your AIDS lunacy? And throwing in the vulgarity doesn't do anything to help with your credibility. Your getting demolished for making up crap, so you switch to cursing. For the record I've been here for over a decade. Long before you ever showed up. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:33:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't possibly have read it. It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures." I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet. That's another straw (not that you'd know a straw man from a snow man). The study shows exactly that. The study shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even compare the treated group to a low-carb diet group! Are you blind, or just really are this stupid? The researchers working on it say they don't know what's causing it, that's why they are doing the research. Then why lie about it?! Do you think your lies are as invisible as the link you supposedly provided? I was OK with that. So was James. But the two of you are BOZOS! Neither of you can read a scientific study and actually understand it. It's "Dumb and Dumber" with you two. Doug also was in favor of research to find out what's going on. Me too, provided it's meaningful research, and not just more PR psychobabble. YOU on the other hand told us all that it's simply due to LC period. I said that's what I *think* it's due to, because no one can explain this so-called "mysterious" effect you keep talking about. And that I would stick with Ockham's Razor in the meantime, because I don't believe in "mysterious" effects. You seem to believe LC is such a holy grail that you can just say it cures anything That's yet another straw man! You now own the world record! I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures "anything." You can't argue with the things I actually say, so you makes **** up and argue against that. How ethical of you! In this case, you can start with the most critical piece which is essential to your claim having any validity. And that is to show us that these bariatric patients are even on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 10 years after surgery when the diabetes reversal continues. I've asked for this about 6 times now and all we have a Straw man! Straw man! Straw man! [...] I don't know why you're here, either. I'm here to help seperate fact from outrageous nonsense presented as fact. Do you have a secret plan to start doing that in the future? Because I haven't seen any of that happen yet. Outrageous nonsense like HIV is harmless, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. They aren't lies, and I've posted links to the many doctors and scientists who back me up. And the science that backs them up. And for you to be taking this so personnally means only one thing to me: you have AIDS. And are probably taking AIDS drugs. You think they're saving your life, but what they're actually doing is killing you slowly. You don't really seem sold on low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and analyzing a study. I believe in LC. It's just that I'm not about to lie and make claims for what it can do without regard for the facts. I don't believe you. For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever said anything like those words. There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't even be explained!), and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said, that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with any of that. You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll. Asshole. -- Dogman Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a troll. Have you seen a single person here agree with your AIDS lunacy? I'm not trying to convince anyone, not even you. It's a very complex subject, and takes a lot of study to fully understand the subject. But if you want to keep bringing it up, ad nauseam, I'm going to rebut you. For someone who can't even make heads or tails of that "study" you provided on gastric bypass surgery, you should probably stick to reading Marvel comic books, otherwise your head might expload. And yeah, I do think you've become, or always were, a troll. And throwing in the vulgarity doesn't do anything to help with your credibility. Feel lucky that I'm not in a position to throw anything else. Your getting demolished for making up crap, I'll let others decide for themselves. so you switch to cursing. I switch to cursing because sometimes it's necessary to call a spade a spade. Asshole. For the record I've been here for over a decade. Long before you ever showed up. BFD. So you're a 10 year old troll. And an asshole. -- 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 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 2, 1:19*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 09:33:13 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] And this one is not only a piece of crap, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your original claim! Amazing! I can understand why you omitted the link to the "study." It's downright embarrassing. And you couldn't possibly have read it. It clearly stated: "Therefore, we cannot determine whether the favorable survival effect of bariatric surgery is explained by weight loss or by other beneficial effects of the surgical procedures." I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet. That's another straw (not that you'd know a straw man from a snow man). It clearly shows that bariatric surgery has an excellent long term success rates in these patients and that dieting does not. Still waiting for your study, reference, anything that says bariatric patients are on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5, 10 years after surgery when the reversal of diabetes is still present. Or an explanation of how the same effect is seen in normal weight diabetic rats. The study shows exactly that. The study shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even compare the treated group to a low-carb diet group! I never said it did. YOU are the one making the claim that the reversal of diabetes in bariatric patients is due to them being on LC. You can't even show that they are on LC at 1, 2, 5, 10 years after surgery. I simply said: A - I don't believe most bariatric patients are on a LC diet 1+ years after surgery. B - You have zero proof that they are C - So therefore, your claim that the reversal of diabetes in these patients is due to LC is totally unfounded. D - The long term success rate for most people on any diet is poor. E - The long term success rate for bariatric surgery for the people who undergo it is high. (study provided) Are you blind, or just really are this stupid? The researchers working on it say they don't know what's causing it, that's why they are doing the research. Then why lie about it?! Do you think your lies are as invisible as the link you supposedly provided? YOU are the one lying. YOU claimed that the reversal of diabetes is due to LC. Without the patients even being on LC at 1, 2 5, 10 years. Now, that's some miracle of LC, eh? I was OK with that. *So was James. But the two of you are BOZOS! Neither of you can read a scientific study and actually understand it. It's "Dumb and Dumber" with you two. Sure. This coming from the guy who says: HIV is a harmless virus Food additives though are dangerous HIV doesn't cause AIDS AIDS is caused by poor diet, poor sanitation, lack of sleep AIDS can be cured by diet. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer Prions don't exist Mad Cow isn't caused by prions. Anything new we can add to the list of your special science today? Doug also was in favor of research to find out what's going on. Me too, provided it's meaningful research, and not just more PR psychobabble. YOU on the other hand told us all that it's simply due to LC period. I said that's what I *think* it's due to, because no one can explain this so-called "mysterious" effect you keep talking about. No, this is what you actually said right from the start: "What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)? They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown to be eating a LC diet, then I would say the effects are indeed mysterious, even if one were to accept the other premise in your argument. Researches think they are mysterious too. Only you, who quickly jumps to conclusions without regard for the facts, says that you know exactly what is going on. Then you quickly added to the nonsense by this exchange: Me: "Nor with the false comparison of a fat fast to the diet of post bariatric surgery patients. " Dogman: "What's "false" about it? " What is false about it is that the bariatric surgery patients are NOT on a fat fast 1, 2, 5, 10 years after surgery when the reversal of diabetes continues. Capiche? And that I would stick with Ockham's Razor in the meantime, because I don't believe in "mysterious" effects. No, you just believe in mysterious junk science and use it at will to try to explain anything you like. But real mysteries that researchers are interested in, those you can just explain away. You seem to believe LC is such a holy grail that you can just say it cures anything That's yet another straw man! You now own the world record! I say when you claim LC is responsible for reversal of diabetes in bariatric patients 1, 2, 5, 10 years after surgery when there is no evidence they are on LC, that's saying LC is a miracle. It would have to be to have such powers. I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures "anything." You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. Even though there is no evidence those patients are on LC. You can't argue with the things I actually say, so you makes **** up and argue against that. How ethical of you! You just can't stand the truth. In this case, you can start with the most critical piece which is essential to your claim having any validity. *And that is to show us that these bariatric patients are even on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 10 years after surgery when the diabetes reversal continues. * I've asked for this about 6 times now and all we have a Straw man! Straw man! Straw man! Sure, because you have NOTHING to back up the above claim. Outrageous nonsense like HIV is harmless, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. They aren't lies, and I've posted links to the many doctors and scientists who back me up. And the science that backs them up. Yes, the many are the .01% kook fringe. And even then, you have to cut and paste, selectively quote from 25 years ago, to try to cobble your denialist case. Take one little piece from one guy, and when that blows up because he has other positions that are 180 degrees from your beliefs and others that are beyond bizarre, then you chuck him by the wayside. And then you claim that someone else brought him up, not you, eg what you did with Montagnier. Meanwhile ignore the 99.99% of the scientific community and mountains of evidence that disagrees. Classic denialist, conspiracy theorist behavior. And for you to be taking this so personnally means only one thing to me: you have AIDS. And are probably taking AIDS drugs. I suppose if a person speaks out the truth about apartheid, they must be black too, right? And if one speaks the truth about the holocaust, it can only be because they are a Jew? But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are. It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it would have no place in the discussion. You don't really seem sold on low-carb, and you are absolutely clueless when it comes to reading and analyzing a study. I believe in LC. *It's just that I'm not about to lie and make claims for what it can do without regard for the facts. I don't believe you. For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever said anything like those words. Dogman in his own words: "What's so "mysterious" about them? "They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. " "There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " "And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Me: "In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain the long term reversal of diabetes. Dogman: "Low-carb explains it. " When can I expect that check? There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't even be explained!), Just another attempt at redirection. The issue was never that LC was mysterious. The mysterious part was the reversal of diabetes in bariatric patients. Patients where there is no evidence that long term they are on LC. and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said, that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with any of that. No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. And you can't show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should not try LC or any other diet first. I'm all in favor of that. You're just a crank, Trader, and perhaps even a troll. Asshole. -- Dogman Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a troll. *Have you seen a single person here agree with your AIDS lunacy? I'm not trying to convince anyone, not even you. Then why do you keep posting here and spewing vulgarity like a volcano? |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 3, 10:44*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:21:45 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] I gave you the study to refute your claim that bariatric surgery doesn't have a vastly higher long term success rate than diet. That's another straw (not that you'd know a straw man from a snow man). It clearly shows that bariatric surgery has an excellent long term success rates in these patients and that dieting does not. It clearly does not, since a large percentage of the non-surgical group wasn't even put on a diet! The study shows exactly that. The study shows nothing of the sort! It doesn't even compare the treated group to a low-carb diet group! I never said it did. But that's what I said! You're arguing against another straw man! I was OK with that. *So was James. But the two of you are BOZOS! Neither of you can read a scientific study and actually understand it. It's "Dumb and Dumber" with you two. Sure. *This coming from the guy who says: HIV is a harmless virus Food additives though are dangerous HIV doesn't cause AIDS AIDS is caused by poor diet, poor sanitation, lack of sleep AIDS can be cured by diet. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer Prions don't exist Mad Cow isn't caused by prions. Anything new we can add to the list of your special science today? Sure, Trader! I think the folks might like to know a few things about you, too! *For example: That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even prions. Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which is consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community. That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios. Never said it. That doctors, scientists and everyone else who wears a white smock, just like the Koran says, speak the word of Allah, and should never be questioned. Never said it. Never mentioned religion. Are you equally bigotted against Muslims? Must be, otherwise why are you going there? What do Muslims have to do with any of this? Tell us more please. That you attended Troll School for almost 10 years, and graduated Minime Cum Laude. That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can "mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want. Never said that or anything even close, liar. That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies. Never said that either. That it's a waste of time to read the list of ingredients on food packages because companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's, General Mills, ADM, Cargill, etc., would never add anything to their foods that was bad for our health. Never said that either. That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb & Dumber," along with James Warren. That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this. First AIDS victims, then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list? If there's anything you felt I left out, Trader, just let me know! [...] YOU on the other hand told us all that it's simply due to LC period. I said that's what I *think* it's due to, because no one can explain this so-called "mysterious" effect you keep talking about. No, this is what you actually said right from the start: "What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)? They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Yes, exactly! So, make up your mind. Either your attribute the mysterious reversal of diabetes in bariatric patients to LC or you don't. First you did. Then you claimed that you didn't. Now here you are clearly claiming it yet again. Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown to be eating a LC diet, And when will *that* study be forthcoming? It's already been done because YOU can't show that these patients were on LC at 1, 2, 5, 10 years and there is no reason to believe the are. So, where is YOUR study. Oh, that's right, you don't have one. Only pure speculation presented as fact. Then you say you didn't say it. Then you claim it yet again. Go figure. And that I would stick with Ockham's Razor in the meantime, because I don't believe in "mysterious" effects. No, you just believe in mysterious junk science and use it at will to try to explain anything you like. * But real mysteries that researchers are interested in, those you can just explain away. By default, I don't believe in anything that's "mysterious." I believe in The Scientific Method. Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words, not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal navel-gazing, not science. The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain anything. They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research to figure out what is going on. YOU, on the other hand, claim you know what's going on and it's LC. That would be pretty amazing, because there is zero evidence these bariatric patients are on LC at 1, 2, 10 years when the reversal of diabetes continues. Capiche? [...] I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures "anything." You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. * Even though there is no evidence those patients are on LC. And there's no evidence they aren't! See, again, this is not how it works. YOU are making the specific claim that LC is responsible. IT's up to YOU to show that those patients are on LC at 1, 2, 10 years. Can you? You can't come up with anything that shows that a bariatric patient is typically on LC in that timeframe because they are not. [...] And for you to be taking this so personnally means only one thing to me: you have AIDS. And are probably taking AIDS drugs. I suppose if a person speaks out the truth about apartheid, they must be black too, right? * And if one speaks the truth about the holocaust, it can only be because they are a Jew? But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it. If I'm obsessed, what about you? You're still here arguing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and God knows what else after telling us 20 posts ago that you were done. Yet, folks are supposed to read something into my participation, but not the same thing into YOUR participation? But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are. It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it would have no place in the discussion. I hold *you* in contempt, whether you have AIDS or not. Period. Not that you'd know the difference. I do know the difference. And the fact that you've dragged Muslims and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. It's been obvious to me for some time. By now it should be obvious to everyone. You're a bigot. For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever said anything like those words. Dogman in his own words: "What's so "mysterious" about them? "They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. " "There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " "And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Me: "In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain the long term reversal of diabetes. Dogman: "Low-carb explains it. " When can I expect that check? As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't! Wow, there's a surprise. But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never "get it." THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK! Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC? No one. The issue was that researchers are trying to find out why bariatric surgery patients have a reversal of diabetes. Capiche? Researchers don't know why. I don't claim to know why. YOU CLAIMED IT WAS DUE TO LC, WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE these patients are even on LC at 1, 5, 10 years after surgery when the diabetes continues to be gone. LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY DOES! Even if that's true, it does not show how gastric surgery patients who are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes. Also, from the diabetics here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not happen with days. There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't even be explained!), Just another attempt at redirection. *The issue was never that LC was mysterious. My point is, why do you beleieve so strongly in something you call "mysterious" when you have something that's not mysterious at all to believe in? I don't believe in something mysterious. I only say that researchers say it's mysterious. And that they are looking into what may cause it. YOU are the one claiming you know what;s causing it and that's LC, without any evidence that the patients are on LC. See the difference? One is open minded. One is a twisted need to try to make the situation fit your own wild assumptions. See: Ockham's Razor. and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said, that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with any of that. No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. *And you can't show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should not try LC or any other diet first. *I'm all in favor of that. Then why are you arguing with Doug and I??? I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche? Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a troll. *Have you seen a single person here agree with your AIDS lunacy? Frankly, I've never seen anyone disagree with it, either. That's a lie. James Warren disagreed with your AIDS denialist nonsense. So did Doug. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even prions. Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which is consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community. The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become infectious. That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios. Never said it. You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al. That doctors, scientists and everyone else who wears a white smock, just like the Koran says, speak the word of Allah, and should never be questioned. Never said it. Never mentioned religion. Are you equally bigotted against Muslims? Must be, otherwise why are you going there? 1. Because I wanted to. 2. It's a good analogy. What do Muslims have to do with any of this? Because the Koran is considered infallible, according to Islam; and to you, doctors, scientists, and drug companies are infallible. a·nal·o·gy 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based Got it now? That you attended Troll School for almost 10 years, and graduated Minime Cum Laude. That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can "mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want. Never said that or anything even close, liar. You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work, too. That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies. Never said that either. You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history. That's the sign of a stupid mind. That it's a waste of time to read the list of ingredients on food packages because companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's, General Mills, ADM, Cargill, etc., would never add anything to their foods that was bad for our health. Never said that either. You've implied that people shouldn't be concerned about the list of ingredients on fast foods like KFC, supposedly because people are living longer today than in the past. That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb & Dumber," along with James Warren. That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this. Why? He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to for guidance on the issues. First AIDS victims, then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list? Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent any actual discussion. [...] "What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)? They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Yes, exactly! So, make up your mind. I just did. And for the umpteenth time. Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown to be eating a LC diet, And when will *that* study be forthcoming? It's already been done Then put up or shut up! Asshole [...] By default, I don't believe in anything that's "mysterious." I believe in The Scientific Method. Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words, not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal navel-gazing, not science. The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain anything. No, you are! They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research to figure out what is going on. Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We promise! I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures "anything." You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. * Even though there is no evidence those patients are on LC. And there's no evidence they aren't! See, again, this is not how it works. The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about it. But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much. It's just too damn "mysterious." But they're still working on it! {...] But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it. If I'm obsessed, what about you? I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings. It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing. Look it up. But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are. It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it would have no place in the discussion. I hold *you* in contempt, whether you have AIDS or not. Period. Not that you'd know the difference. I do know the difference. Put up or shut up! And the fact that you've dragged Muslims and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it. It's been obvious to me for some time. By now it should be obvious to everyone. You're a bigot. Yes! I hate stupid assholes! For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever said anything like those words. Dogman in his own words: "What's so "mysterious" about them? "They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. " "There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " "And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Me: "In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain the long term reversal of diabetes. Dogman: "Low-carb explains it. " When can I expect that check? As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't! Wow, there's a surprise. It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said. But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never "get it." THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK! Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC? That was a simple declarative sentence. I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more difficult that, so... LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY DOES! Even if that's true, It is. it does not show how gastric surgery patients who are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes. Nor are there any studies to prove it. Also, from the diabetics here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not happen with days. It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet. But carb restriction, especially when coupled with calorie restriction, can. Will it do that for everyone? Probably not. There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't even be explained!), Just another attempt at redirection. *The issue was never that LC was mysterious. My point is, why do you beleieve so strongly in something you call "mysterious" when you have something that's not mysterious at all to believe in? I don't believe in something mysterious. Yes you do. You believe in the mysterious effects of gastric bypass surgery, even though no one can explain it. You've probably said it a dozen times by now. See: Ockham's Razor. and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said, that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with any of that. No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. *And you can't show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should not try LC or any other diet first. *I'm all in favor of that. Then why are you arguing with Doug and I??? I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche? Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him whether you know it or not. Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a troll. *Have you seen a single person here agree with your AIDS lunacy? Frankly, I've never seen anyone disagree with it, either. That's a lie. James Warren disagreed with your AIDS denialist nonsense. James doubts it (but then he doubts everything!), but he doesn't know anything about it. So did Doug. Doug appears to be smart enough to hedge his bet, by saying he would try to avoid the risk factors noted by Duesberg. Asshole. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frankenfoods are Winning | Cubit | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | December 12th, 2007 03:49 AM |
Sweetner Court Battle | RRzVRR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 64 | April 15th, 2007 09:20 AM |
Battle Of The Bulge: Why Losing Weight Easier Than Keeping It Off | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 10th, 2006 07:58 PM |
Article; Battle of School Cafeterias | Carol Frilegh | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2005 10:22 PM |
Personal battle inthe kitchen | Qilt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | November 19th, 2003 05:10 AM |