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

On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:40:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
I don't get why folks aren't placed on the post-surgery diet long before
they go under the knife.

Ditto. But maybe the answer to that question is self-evident.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It is one of the failings of the allopathic school of medicine that it
favors giving medications and doing surgeries over less invasive
responses.

Exactly.

One reason? *Doug's not an asshole!

In person I do okay with folks thinking I'm nice. I've never been able
to pull that off on-line. On-line you are in the minority. I suggest
it's only in comparison to a few others that has you thinking that.

Well, I've never seen you treat anyone poorly here, so you're not an
asshole, in my opinion.

You've only been here for what, 4 years? So you're too new to have
experienced my arrogance in full. It certainly helped when I entered
two regulars in my kill file who have arrogance levels similar to mine.

I don't usually like arrogant people, so who knows? We may end up
locking horns one day.

But what I dislike even more are ignorant people.

Put arrogance and ignorance together and you get someone like Trader,
i.e., an asshole.

Hell, you may beat your dog

I do have a track record of beating on posters here.

I've never seen it, but...

and root for the Cubs, for all I know.

Being in Chicago metro I happen to know that's the name of a baseball
team. Not sure if that sport is in season at the moment.

It is, and I love baseball. But the Cubs are to baseball what Louis
Farrakhan is to racial harmony.

I would love a pill that works like anabuse. One bite of high carb food
and the vomitting starts.

Heh.

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.

NOT eating fat would be punishment enough for me.

The horror. The horror.

--
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 30, 1:04*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 08:41:40 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

So, once again, since this diet only lasts for a few weeks,
how can you claim that it's a LC diet, not something to do
with the surgical bypass that completely reverses diabetes
forever in these patients. It doesn't get much simpler than
that. Capiche?

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

The mysterious effects are the complete reversal of
diabetes in most bariatric patients. *A reversal that studies
have shown is NOT due to diet alone.

And that study would be found...where?

Can't you find anything for yourself? First you deny that
the effects are mysterious. How could you know if they
are mysterious or not without doing at least a bit of
googling to see what researchers are talking about,
what studies have or haven't been done, wha they
are actually seeing, etc?



I believe in LC too. *But I'm not going to discredit
myself by claiming it's the cure all for everything

If you didn't have so many straw men to play with, you'd be the
lonliest person on the planet.

HIV is a harmless virus

Mostly, yes. *Check!

HIV does not cause AIDS

Check!

AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, lack of sleep, and sanitation.

Among many other things taken together, yes. *Check!

[In fact, this is an experiment you can do on yourself.]

HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer

No, it doesn't. But yesterday you said it caused ovarian cancer, so
what gives? Does HPV cause E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, or not

Well, it doesn't cause either one. *Maybe genital warts.

No virus can cause cancer.

Check!

Prions don't exist

Check! They're just like Leprechauns and Unicorns. They don't exist.

Prions don't cause Mad Cow.

Check!

It's their diet, a diet that starts out low-carb, high-protein, and
basically stays that way, only with more calories.

I've asked for proof now to support your claim that bariatric
patients at 1 , 2, 10 years are eating LC.

More straw men! You've already filled Wembley Stadium with straw men,
and you're still going strong! Amazing!

Now that's a classic. YOU claimed that the reversal
of diabetes in bariatric patients that is present within
days of surgery and documented to still exist 1, 2, 10 years
later is due to LC and not attributable to a portion of
the intestinal tract being removed which is currently
being researched. YOU claim to know the answer
despite the fact that medical researchers do not
and are just starting to look into what causes this reversal.
So, I ask you to just prove that these bariatric patients
are even on a LC diet at 1, 2, 10 years which is crucial
if your claim is going to have any chance of validity
and you claim it's a straw man. Of course that's because
you have no shred of evidence to back up your claims as
ususal.




If they were to
return to their old eating habits, they'd likely regain the weight,
just like people who haven't had gastric-bypass surgery would.

The reversal in diabetes has nothing to do with weight loss.
It occurs immediately following surgery.

Ditto for very low-carb diets.

Unfortunately you have zero proof that the bariatric patients
are on a LC diet at 1, 2, 10 years.





John Mark Purdey (December 25, 1953 November 12, 2006) was a British
organic farmer who came to public attention in the 1980s, when he
began to circulate his own theories regarding the causes of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy

Wsit. Let me stop you here. Mark Purdey is a "loon" and a "moron". Is
that about right? Everyone you don't agree with is a either a "loon"
or a "moron," or both? Check!


Not because he doesn't agree with me. Because he doesn't
have any credentials in the field he's spouting off about. He
doesn't even have a college degree and we're supposed to
believe him about pesticides causing prions? And what he
claims is counter to the scientific community and does not fit
in with events we all have seen.




Now, right off the bat it's interesting that Mr. Purdey, unlike you,
doesn't deny that prions exist and are involved in causing Mad
Cow.

That's probably because he hasn't read all the literature regarding
"prions," which no one has ever seen. It's just another unproven
theory.

Sure it is. According to you. 99.99% of the scientific
community of course disagrees. But it does expose a
big hole in your world and how you think. See if you
can follow this. The chief proponent of the pesticides causes
Mad Cow disease theory, which you brought up, is Mr. Purdy,
who doesn't even have a college degree. Yet Mr. Purdy
says those pesticides are involved in CREATING THE PRIONS.
So, without the prions, which you claim you know not to
exist, Mr. Purdy's purty little speculative theory goes down
the drain. Capiche? But not for you. You cherry-pick and
keep the conclusion even though an essential piece of what
it was based on relies on what you say doesn't exist.
Classic denialist and conspiracy theorist behavior.



I choose to doubt the theory.

No, you proudly told us that prions don't exist period.



You choose to bite down hard on it,
because it's the current conventional wisdom, and you would never do
anything to ever buck the conventional wisdom, even though the
conventional wisdom is almost always wrong.

It's conventional wisdom that the sun will come up tomorrow,
oxygen is necessary for us to live and that the polio virus
causes polio. Following your twisted logic, that all must be
wrong too. It must be grand to be you, the oracle who can
cherry-pick at will, knowing that most of the scientific world is
wrong, but you can pick out the few parts that are right.




By the way, I don't deny that God exists, but I can't prove it. And
neither has anyone been able to prove that "prions" exist, either.

And, no, I don't like you.

Of course not, because

Because you're an uneducated, incurious asshole.

And that's about the first thing you've gotten right here, in weeks.

Second reason? It's already well known that it should only be
undertaken under a doctor's superrvision.

AFAIK, Atkins never placed any such requirement on it.

"Dr. Atkins only recommends a fat fast under strict doctor's
supervision if individuals do not respond to the traditional New
Atkins diet."

http://www.the-healthy-diet-paradise...kins-diet.html

There you go again. *Cherry-picking a random website

I don't have the book handy.

So you can believe it, or not.

From the incredible nonsense that we've all heard you
spout here, everyone should look at anything you say
as highly suspect until it's proven true. And I see the proof
once again isn't there.





I really couldn't care less.

Asshole.

--
Dogman


Apparently you do care, otherwise you wouldn't be here now
would you dear?

On May 30, 11:53*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

So, once again, since this diet only lasts for a few weeks,
how can you claim that it's a LC diet, not something to do
with the surgical bypass that completely reverses diabetes
forever in these patients. *It doesn't get much simpler than
that. *Capiche?

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.


*The
stomach would shrink slowly in the dieters faster in the surgery group.
Maybe.

It's their diet, a diet that starts out low-carb, high-protein, and
basically stays that way, only with more calories. If they were to
return to their old eating habits, they'd likely regain the weight,
just like people who haven't had gastric-bypass surgery would.

Now it may be possible for some of these patients to keep the weight
off, long-term, using diets other than LC, but that's not the point
here.

Some keep it off some don't. *The percentage is better than with diet
alone. *How much of that is because of the "hit bottom" effect of
desparation I don't think anyone can say.

It's not just a better success rate. It's a vastly better
success rate. More like the mirror image of dieting which
is a proven failure in most cases.




The point is, and always has been, that a low-carb diet can affect the
same changes that gastric-bypass surgery sees. And without all the
nasty side effects. And is certainly worth a try.

I don't get why folks aren't placed on the post-surgery diet long before
they go under the knife. *Probably some just don't believe that going
low carb turns off their hunger. *Probably some have tried low carb and
fallen off. *Probably some are so frustrated with being fat they don't
care about the risks. *And the surgery is less expensive than the
confinement that would be needed to force aherence to the diet.

I think you do get it. They have failed at every diet they've
been on. You can't place someone on something that they
just refuse to do. And actually some patients are put on an
extreme diet prior to surgery. I saw a documentary on a
morbidly obese guy who was so fat that he had to lose a
substantial amount of weight before they could do the surgery.
He was confined to the hospital for several months prior to
the surgery. They had to be careful that his family didn't
sneak food in for him. But that is clearly the exceptional case
today.

On May 30, 12:50*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:53:56 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

wrote:
Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

So, once again, since this diet only lasts for a few weeks,
how can you claim that it's a LC diet, not something to do
with the surgical bypass that completely reverses diabetes
forever in these patients. *It doesn't get much simpler than
that. *Capiche?

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.

Many things are possible, but until someone can fully explain how and
why these "mysterious" effects work, I'm not buying it.

No one is asking you to buy anything. James and I acknowledged
from the beginning that research is being done to find out what is
happening and why. It's YOU who is asking
us to buy your bag of crap, which is that the reversal of diabetes
in bariatric patients is due to LC, just because you say so.
And you don't even have any evidence that these patients are
on a LC diet long term, 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when the
diabetes reversal continues. Capiche?





The point is, and always has been, that a low-carb diet can affect the
same changes that gastric-bypass surgery sees. And without all the
nasty side effects. And is certainly worth a try.

I don't get why folks aren't placed on the post-surgery diet long before
they go under the knife.

Ditto. But maybe the answer to that question is self-evident.

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It's for the simple reason that most of those patients
have tried a variety of diets and nothing has worked
to keep the weight off beyond a few months. Surgery
rarely is the first choice. It's the last choice.
In other words, they are no different from most people
on any diet. Studies have shown that for the vast
majority no diet is successful long term.

On May 30, 3:40*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

It's possible that the surgery causes effects not seen in folks put on
the same diet without the surgery.

Many things are possible, but until someone can fully explain how and
why these "mysterious" effects work, I'm not buying it.

Nonetheless I want to see more studies of gherlin levels in people on
the same diet with and without the surgery.


There have been rat studies where the same effect has been
seen in a more controlled environment. Diabetes has been
reversed by surgery.



I don't get why folks aren't placed on the post-surgery diet long before
they go under the knife.

Ditto. But maybe the answer to that question is self-evident.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It is one of the failings of the allopathic school of medicine that it
favors giving medications and doing surgeries over less invasive
responses.

I would think everyone would agree that the long term
success rate of any diet for keeping weight off is poor.
The effects last for a few months, then in a high percentage
of cases, the weight gets put back on as people return
to their old ways again.

On May 30, 3:55*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 19:40:49 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

wrote:

[...]

I don't get why folks aren't placed on the post-surgery diet long before
they go under the knife.

Ditto. But maybe the answer to that question is self-evident.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It is one of the failings of the allopathic school of medicine that it
favors giving medications and doing surgeries over less invasive
responses.

Exactly.

Nonsense. Study after study has shown that for most
people, diets, no matter the type, fail after a few months.
By one or two years in, the majority have put the weight
back on again. Haven't you seen this in your everyday
life?



One reason? *Doug's not an asshole!

In person I do okay with folks thinking I'm nice. *I've never been able
to pull that off on-line. *On-line you are in the minority. *I suggest
it's only in comparison to a few others that has you thinking that.

Well, I've never seen you treat anyone poorly here, so you're not an
asshole, in my opinion.

You've only been here for what, 4 years? *So you're too new to have
experienced my arrogance in full. *It certainly helped when I entered
two regulars in my kill file who have arrogance levels similar to mine.

I don't usually like arrogant people, so who knows? *We may end up
locking horns one day.

But what I dislike even more are ignorant people.

Wow, you hate yourself then.





Put arrogance and ignorance together and you get someone like Trader,
i.e., an asshole.

Yeah, when you have no references for any of your claims,
just resort to insults. You find a reference that says bariatric
patients are even on a LC diet, 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when
the diabetes continues to be reversed?

On Wed, 30 May 2012 14:59:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:
[...]
And that study would be found...where?

Can't you find anything for yourself? First you deny that
the effects are mysterious. How could you know if they
are mysterious or not without doing at least a bit of
googling to see what researchers are talking about,
what studies have or haven't been done, wha they
are actually seeing, etc?

So...in other words, there is no such study.

That's what I thought.

I believe in LC too. *But I'm not going to discredit
myself by claiming it's the cure all for everything

If you didn't have so many straw men to play with, you'd be the
lonliest person on the planet.

HIV is a harmless virus

Mostly, yes. *Check!

HIV does not cause AIDS

Check!

AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, lack of sleep, and sanitation.

Among many other things taken together, yes. *Check!

[In fact, this is an experiment you can do on yourself.]

HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer

No, it doesn't. But yesterday you said it caused ovarian cancer, so
what gives? Does HPV cause E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, or not

Well, it doesn't cause either one. *Maybe genital warts.

No virus can cause cancer.

Check!

Prions don't exist

Check! They're just like Leprechauns and Unicorns. They don't exist.

Prions don't cause Mad Cow.

Check!

It's their diet, a diet that starts out low-carb, high-protein, and
basically stays that way, only with more calories.

I've asked for proof now to support your claim that bariatric
patients at 1 , 2, 10 years are eating LC.

More straw men! You've already filled Wembley Stadium with straw men,
and you're still going strong! Amazing!

Now that's a classic. YOU claimed that the reversal
of diabetes in bariatric patients that is present within
days of surgery and documented to still exist 1, 2, 10 years
later is due to LC and not attributable to a portion of
the intestinal tract being removed which is currently
being researched. YOU claim to know the answer
despite the fact that medical researchers do not
and are just starting to look into what causes this reversal.
So, I ask you to just prove that these bariatric patients
are even on a LC diet at 1, 2, 10 years which is crucial
if your claim is going to have any chance of validity
and you claim it's a straw man. Of course that's because
you have no shred of evidence to back up your claims as
ususal.

Straw Man Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

If they were to
return to their old eating habits, they'd likely regain the weight,
just like people who haven't had gastric-bypass surgery would.

The reversal in diabetes has nothing to do with weight loss.
It occurs immediately following surgery.

Ditto for very low-carb diets.

Unfortunately you have zero proof that the bariatric patients
are on a LC diet at 1, 2, 10 years.

Straw Man Fallacy

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

John Mark Purdey (December 25, 1953 November 12, 2006) was a British
organic farmer who came to public attention in the 1980s, when he
began to circulate his own theories regarding the causes of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy

Wsit. Let me stop you here. Mark Purdey is a "loon" and a "moron". Is
that about right? Everyone you don't agree with is a either a "loon"
or a "moron," or both? Check!

Not because he doesn't agree with me. Because he doesn't
have any credentials in the field he's spouting off about. He
doesn't even have a college degree and we're supposed to
believe him about pesticides causing prions? And what he
claims is counter to the scientific community and does not fit
in with events we all have seen.

What events have you seen that would make you believe in the existance
"prions," and were you drinking whisky or vodka at the time?

Now, right off the bat it's interesting that Mr. Purdey, unlike you,
doesn't deny that prions exist and are involved in causing Mad
Cow.

That's probably because he hasn't read all the literature regarding
"prions," which no one has ever seen. It's just another unproven
theory.

Sure it is. According to you.

Then show me the study that proves the existance of prions.

Take all the time you need!

I choose to doubt the theory.

No, you proudly told us that prions don't exist period.

If I doubt the "prion" theory, it follows that I don't think "prions"
exist.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never seen a prion, or a unicorn,
or a leprechaun.

You choose to bite down hard on it,
because it's the current conventional wisdom, and you would never do
anything to ever buck the conventional wisdom, even though the
conventional wisdom is almost always wrong.

It's conventional wisdom that the sun will come up tomorrow,
oxygen is necessary for us to live and that the polio virus
causes polio. Following your twisted logic, that all must be
wrong too. It must be grand to be you, the oracle who can
cherry-pick at will, knowing that most of the scientific world is
wrong, but you can pick out the few parts that are right.

At various times in our history, the "conventional wisdom" was that
the sun might not come up tomorrow, that if you sailed a ship due
east, you would sail right off the planet, that no vehicle could fly,
that pellagra was caused by eating corn, etc. I could go on
indefinitely.

By the way, I don't deny that God exists, but I can't prove it. And
neither has anyone been able to prove that "prions" exist, either.

And, no, I don't like you.

Of course not, because

Because you're an uneducated, incurious asshole.

And that's about the first thing you've gotten right here, in weeks.

Second reason? It's already well known that it should only be
undertaken under a doctor's superrvision.

AFAIK, Atkins never placed any such requirement on it.

"Dr. Atkins only recommends a fat fast under strict doctor's
supervision if individuals do not respond to the traditional New
Atkins diet."

http://www.the-healthy-diet-paradise...kins-diet.html

There you go again. *Cherry-picking a random website

I don't have the book handy.

So you can believe it, or not.

From the incredible nonsense that we've all heard you
spout here, everyone should look at anything you say
as highly suspect until it's proven true.

Tip: Everyone here should take *everything* anyone here says with a
big grain of salt, particularly if you're the one saying it.

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

On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:13:00 -0700 (PDT), "
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?

Until that day comes, I'm sticking with OR.

*The
stomach would shrink slowly in the dieters faster in the surgery group.
Maybe.

It's their diet, a diet that starts out low-carb, high-protein, and
basically stays that way, only with more calories. If they were to
return to their old eating habits, they'd likely regain the weight,
just like people who haven't had gastric-bypass surgery would.

Now it may be possible for some of these patients to keep the weight
off, long-term, using diets other than LC, but that's not the point
here.

Some keep it off some don't. *The percentage is better than with diet
alone. *How much of that is because of the "hit bottom" effect of
desparation I don't think anyone can say.

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!

http://forums.webmd.com/3/diet-exchange/forum/845

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.







--
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 30, 9:05*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 15:28:53 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]





I don't get why folks aren't placed on the post-surgery diet long before
they go under the knife.

Ditto. But maybe the answer to that question is self-evident.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

It is one of the failings of the allopathic school of medicine that it
favors giving medications and doing surgeries over less invasive
responses.

Exactly.

Nonsense. *Study after study has shown that for most
people, *diets, no matter the type, fail after a few months.
By one or two years in, the majority have put the weight
back on again. * Haven't you seen this in your everyday
life?

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.




So whether a person has gastric bypass surgery or not, if they're not
taught how to eat properly, they're going to regain lost weight. Most
doctors would rather recommend surgery or drugs, rather than try to
tell people how to eat properly (probably because they don't know how
to eat properly themselves).



If you just open your eyes to the facts, you'd realize
that the long term success rate of any diet is abysmal.
That is independent of whether people use a book, listen
to a doctor, attend classes, etc. And that includes LC too.
Most people won't stick with it. And I think most
reasonable people know
that doctors don't recommend drugs or surgery as the
first line in weight loss. In fact, the guidlines for bariatric
surgery are that it's for people that are extremely obese
and where diets have been tried and have not worked.

So, no, I'm not going to deny the facts and lay the whole blame
on doctors and pretend that if only they recommended
dieting, obesity would go away. If the whole world
suddenly agreed and put as much emphasis on LC as
they did low fat in the past, would it help? Yes, I believe
it would help and could make a substantial difference.
But is it going to cure obesity or eliminate bariatric
surgery as a legitimate option for some? No.

In article ,
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?).

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

--
This space unintentionally left blank.