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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 31/05/2012 6:45 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Dogman wrote: That's why it's called Frankenchicken in some circles. Some people overreact. All of the popular low carb plans encourage low carbers to eat real natural foods. How much stress they put on switching away from processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it. My question is this: Is this rece3ived wisdom or is their some evidence of harm in not doing it? How successful do you want to be? The authors of these plans put in a decade each of figuring out the parts that are not obvious that work better than the obvious. Avoiding chemcials is not obvious to everyone. Is it optional to avoid chemicals? Sure. Back during the low carb fab around 2000-2001 lots of the fad folks ate all sorts of chemical stuff and then moved on to the next fad. Avoiding chemicals is not at the top of the list of directions on any of the low carb plans but it does appear in all of them. For what reason? -- -jw |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
Lots of LC and Paleo and Wheat Belly activity on Facebook, too.
Dogman wrote: | On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:35:58 -0400, Walter Bushell | wrote: | || In article || , || " wrote: || ||| Sure, like all someone has to do is tell them about LC. ||| Perhaps you've missed it. There was a huge interest in ||| LC around 2000. It was widely covered in the media. ||| It was the time articles by Taubes were coming out ||| and Atkins was all over the news. ||| Lots of people heard the message about LC. This ||| newsgroup was full of them. They were exchanging ||| recipes, asking questions, telling of their stories. ||| A lot of people started doing LC for the first time. ||| Well, what happened? ||| Interest in LC fell just as quickly as it grew. See many ||| folks in the newgroup here these days? The people ||| who tried it just as quickly gave it up. That doesn't ||| make LC bad. It's just that most people have shown ||| that they won't stay on any diet long term. || || In case you didn't notice USENET is dying. Everyone went to blogs, || mail lists etcetera. | | Exactly. | | Visit Jimmy Moore's blog and web site: | http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/ | | ...to get just a flavor for just how many LC and/or Paleo web sites | are out there. | | Here are 47 new Paleo, low-carb and health blogs for just May 2012: | | 1. LOW CARBOHYDRATE REVIEW | 2. N=1: A JOURNEY TO HEALTH | 3. CHUNKY TO CHA-CHA | 4. IT'S THE SATIETY | 5. AGAINST THE GRAIN | 6. BACON & SKINNY JEANS | 7. 30 BANANAS A DAY.SUCKS! | 8. A CHANGE OF LIFE | 9. KOKOPALEO | 10. GOOD FOR YOU GOODIES | 11. PEACE, LOVE, AND LOW CARB | 12. PALEO FOR WOMEN | 13. TRAIN TO WIN, EAT TO LOSE | 14. KARA NANCE MD | 15. SWEDISH DIET | 16. BOOKBODY | 17. THE FOODIE AND THE FAMILY | 18. YOUR HEALTH IS ON YOUR PLATE | 19. SARA GOTTFRIED MD | 20. MRS. PALEO | 21. A WEIGHT WATCHING ANGEL | 22. MY LIFE IN A PYRAMID | 23. CONFESSIONS OF A CROSSFIT COACH | 24. LOW-CARB LIFESTYLE: THE THEORY & PRACTICE | 25. SARAH GETS STRONG: A CROSSFIT/PALEO LOVE AFFAIR | 26. MAKE IT FUN & IT WILL GET DONE | 27. EATHROPOLOGY | 28. THE THINKER | 29. THE UNREFINED KITCHEN | 30. THE CAFE WELLNESS | 31. AUTISM BUSTER | 32. PALEO STYLE | 33. PRINCIPLE INTO PRACTICE | 34. PRIMAL PASTURES | 35. CLAUDIO RIVERA | 36. THE DAWN OF PALEO | 37. YOGI WELLNESS JOURNEY | 38. DR. DEBORAH'S BLOG | 39. FIT TWIN CITIES | 40. THE WILDERNESS CHILDE | 41. HOME WITH PURPOSE | 42. LITTLE DOG LOST | 43. THE REAL NUTRITIONIST | 44. TOM'S UNDERGROUND FITNESS | 45. DIETINGLADY | 46. DIETA LOW-CARB E PALEOLITICA (Portuguese) | 47. SYLPH GOURMAND (Serbian) | | They're popping up like dandelions (which make a great tasting and | very healthy salad!), in fact. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 31/05/2012 9:50 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 21:03:37 -0300, James wrote: On 31/05/2012 6:39 PM, Dogman wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:51:08 -0300, James Warren wrote: Frankly, I don't even know why you're here. I don't either, so we agree. You can do something about that, EH? What are you implying? I'm implying that, if even you don't know why you're here, you probably shouldn't really be here, should you? You seem to know why I'm here even if I don't. That one has to be a fanatical LC fan? Not all all. But, again, if you don't know why you're here, and you're obviously not here to impart knowledge, and you're obviously not here to learn anything, there's no good reason for you to be here, unless it's just to troll, which I still think you're doing. If you have any knowledge to impart, I'm all eyes. How many dogs do you have? I have four large dogs. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable participating in one of the dog newsgroups? You're not a Dogman? It's healthier, but even olive oil (especially extra virgin) has its downside if you heat it to too high a temperature (can produce free radicals). So will I die if I use two tablespoons to cook four chicken thighs? See what I mean? That's a typical troll response. You're a troll. I guess I won't. Coconut oil (organic virgin is best) is better (in my opinion), and is more stable at high temps. I don't remember ever seeing it in the supermarket. Keep looking. Even you can find it. You're very helpful. Yes. Can you point me to some good evidence showing this? I could, if I thought you were serious, but I don't. I think you're a troll. I think you can't and that is a dodge. Period. So back in the Bozo Bin you go. Yeah OK. I guess you can't cope. -- 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 -- -jw |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 31/05/2012 9:50 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:27:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: Coconut oil (organic virgin is best) is better (in my opinion), and is more stable at high temps. Regular coconut oil is available in the Hispanic section of stores that have such a section. Under half the price. That'll do! Not in Canada! -- 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 -- -jw |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On May 31, 8:07*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 31/05/2012 6:45 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Dogman wrote: That's why it's called Frankenchicken in some circles. Some people overreact. All of the popular low carb plans encourage low carbers to eat real natural foods. *How much stress they put on switching away from processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it. My question is this: Is this rece3ived wisdom or is their some evidence of harm in not doing it? I think a lot of things are getting muddled together here as one. I saw a list from Dogman for KFC chicken that included: spices salt soy sauce partially hydrogenated soybean oil onion powder calcium silicate silicon dioxide He asked if anyone here would use any of that to make grilled chicken. Of course, the answer is obviously yes to a lot of it, unless you cook chicken without salt or spices. I would not even be surprised to find calcium silicate or silicon dioxide in home made grilled chicken, as it's an anti-caking agent, so it could easily be in some spices that get used. On the other hand, the partially hydrogenated soybean oil is a good example of something most people agree today should be avoided. Now, how much you actually get must be very small as the nutritional info lists it as trans fat free. I probably would not make the KFC chicken the core of my diet, but if it was available for a convenient lunch, I'd have no problem eating it. With any reasonable LC plan though you're going to be shifting away a lot from the highly processed foods that are a core of the typical diet. These plans don't even need to stress it, it pretty much will happen by itself. You can eat broccoli, eggs and fish. You can't eat corn flakes, dougnuts and pizza. So, most of it will happen automatically. As for eating some other LC stuff like the KFC chicken if it's convenient, I have no problem with that. It's a personal choice. Some people are going to be fanatics and base those ideas on God knows what kind of science. That's up to them. But I think you can't have it both ways. You can't claim LC is easy and then claim you have to cook. You can't claim it's easy and then say if you happen to be somewhere, it's lunch time and KFC grilled chicken is available that you should not eat it. If you take it to that level, then it becomes extremely difficult. For example, I frequently dine at restaurants for lunch or dinner. Most are individual ones, not big chains. Say I order a fajita salad. How would one know that it's not been marinated in some of the same ingredients that are on Dogman's KFC list? How would I know that the spices used don't contain calcium silicate? You would have to demand a complete ingredient list everywhere you went like the one from KFC. Which of course, most of us know is unrealitic. In other words, you'd be extremely limited in your choices of restaurants and the few things you could eat there. The individual ones, per the above, are not going to have the detailed ingredient lists. And the chains, like KFC will have them, but it's very likely everything there is going to have something in it that the fanatics would consider a chemical. How successful do you want to be? *The authors of these plans put in a decade each of figuring out the parts that are not obvious that work better than the obvious. *Avoiding chemcials is not obvious to everyone. Is it optional to avoid chemicals? *Sure. *Back during the low carb fab around 2000-2001 lots of the fad folks ate all sorts of chemical stuff and then moved on to the next fad. *Avoiding chemicals is not at the top of the list of directions on any of the low carb plans but it does appear in all of them. For what reason? -- -jw The last part is certainly not true. Atkins for example even sold his own line of bars and shakes that had ingredient lists loaded with things beyond the KFC list. And we've had the discussion about those many times over the years. My opinion is that they should not be the core of anyone's diet. You probably should avoid them during induction. But if you want to have them occasionally, in moderation, they make it easier for you to do LC, etc then I think it's fine. Another obvious chemical that most plans don't have a problem with is artificial sweetners. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Dogman wrote: Coconut oil (organic virgin is best) is better (in my opinion), and is more stable at high temps. Regular coconut oil is available in the Hispanic section of stores that have such a section. Under half the price. That'll do! Unless you are willing to pay twice as much for the "organic" part and the "virgin" part. I tried the more expensive type once. I'm no longer willing to pay the extra price. I couldn't tell the difference in the resulting food. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On May 31, 5:45*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:54:30 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Once again, what someone can learn or not has never been the issue. * The point is cooking takes effort and it's another hurdle. Awww, we wouldn't want our widdle Trader Boy to have to exert any effort now, would we? Again, the issue was that the long term success rate on any diet, including low carb is poor. Yet you seem to think that your requirement, not mine, that people need to learn to cook in order to do LC, isn't going to make LC harder and less attractive for a lot of people. I can see now why you opt for the drugs and surgery. Which of course is yet another lie. I never said any such thing. This from the guy that says: HIV doesn't cause AIDS HIV is harmless AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, lack of sleep, sanitation HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer Prions don't exist Mad Cow is not caused by prions. What would you like to add to your list of junk science and lunacy today? |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On May 31, 5:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:14 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On May 31, 3:11*pm, Dogman wrote: On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:13:07 -0400, Dogman wrote: [...] Maybe you should tell all these folks. *They apparently didn't get the memo! When you have an actual study that says bariatric surgery doesn't have a vastly higher success rate in the patients that undergo it compared to dieting, let us know. And when you have one that says it does, let us know. Here's one study from the New England Journal of Medicine tracking 4000 obese patients. Look at the graph that shows surgery patients keeping 25% of their initial weight off for 8 and 15 years. *Look at the control group that had no surgery. *They kept off zippo. What study? *I done see no steeeeeenkin' study. I gave you the link to summaries from the two studies. There are news stories covering the studies all over the internet The studies themselves are available at the New England Journal of Medicine. Anything else I can help you with, let me know? Did you type it in invisible ASCII? *What? Put up or shut up! See, again you're confused. *Remeber how all this started? *James brought up the fact that bariatric surgery patients have diabetes reversed. *James and I are perfectly willing to wait for researchers to find out exactly why diabetes is reversed in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. *It appears Doug is too. *YOU on the other hand boldly stated that there is no mystery and it is merely due to LC. Not true! *I said that when they get done studying this "mysterious" phenomemon, get back to me. *Until then I would go by Ockham's Razor. You only came up with that modified weasle position after your intial silly claim that the diabetes remission was due to LC was thoroughly smashed. Smashed by the most basic of facts. And that is that you have ZERO evidence that the bariatric patients are even on a LC diet, 1, 2, 5 , 10 years after surgery, when the diabetes reversal still exists. But it's a good example of how you come up with all kinds of bizarre and totally unsubstantiated crap: HIV is harmless HIV doesn't cause AIDS AIDS is caused by poor diet and lack of sleep HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer Prions don't exist Mad Cow isn't caused by prions Anything new you'd like to add to the list today? |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Dogman wrote: That's why it's called Frankenchicken in some circles. Some people overreact. All of the popular low carb plans encourage low carbers to eat real natural foods. How much stress they put on switching away from processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it. My question is this: Is this rece3ived wisdom or is their some evidence of harm in not doing it? The short answer is that there is evidence that is generalized and that your use of the dismissive term received wisdom confirms yout troll status. I'll offer a longer answer because I like being verbose. There is evidence but it is a more general statement so the evidence is less direct. Also the impact of glucose on the metabolism typical dose for typical dose is larger than the impact of (pick one out of that long list of chemicals). The number of sugars, fatty acids and amino acids are small. They can be combined into chains that have effectively infinite variations but all such fit into a finite numbers of patterns. These macronutrients are widely studied and are the vast majority of the diet. As a result they are the primary target of most dietary plan types. The process can eventually converge even though it's not necessary to ever reach agreement. As a result we have general guidelines about grams of carb, fat and protein. Some plans then give secondary advice about glycemic load, good fats and bad fats, mixes of animo acids. Sure enough low carb plans have their primary focus on the macronutrients with rules about the carb class of macronutrients. The number of chemicals that could be used in foods has a variety that is effectively infinite. They come in patterns but in many cases every single type of chemical must have its own studies. Many studies have shown many chemicals to have long term harmful effects but we can only guess about other chemicals. As a result we have secondary advice that's more general. Eat quality foods. Avoid processed foods when practical. Avoid specific known toxins. Be conservative about those chemicals where so far there are not enough studies of their long term effects. In fact we also have secondary advice about those micronutrients that are known to be beneficial. Some plans encourage supplements other plans do not. It's a less complex topic than with other chemicals because few of the micronutrients are toxic in higher dosages. When discussing supplements caveats about thse ingredients are standard. Being an Atkins fan I'll switch from most low carb plans to Atkins in specific at this point. Dr A observed that some of his patients stalled for no reason he could figure out. He took them off specific chemicals like aspartame and that resolved the stalls of some of his patients. it was enough for him to suggest being cautious about chemicals in general. He never got to the point of the organic/locavore or macrobiotic movements but he ended up clearly favoring gardened and farmed food over factory food. When practical. In spite of the fact that he made money on factory food sold in his name which he endorsed. Part of not going to the extent of the macrobiotic folks. The policies of Dr A aren't greatly different on this topic than the policies of the other popular low carb plans I just know more about him than about some of the others. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 6/1/2012 12:34 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Dogman wrote: That's why it's called Frankenchicken in some circles. Some people overreact. All of the popular low carb plans encourage low carbers to eat real natural foods. How much stress they put on switching away from processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it. My question is this: Is this rece3ived wisdom or is their some evidence of harm in not doing it? The short answer is that there is evidence that is generalized and that your use of the dismissive term received wisdom confirms yout troll status. Troll or not, the question is a valid one. Is the fear over chemicals used in food manufacturing reasonable? I can agree with being cautious when ignorant of harm but is the fear reasonable? These chemicals have been in use for a long time. Is it reasonable to believe that if some of them were harmful that it would go unnoticed for so long? I'll offer a longer answer because I like being verbose. There is evidence but it is a more general statement so the evidence is less direct. Also the impact of glucose on the metabolism typical dose for typical dose is larger than the impact of (pick one out of that long list of chemicals). The number of sugars, fatty acids and amino acids are small. They can be combined into chains that have effectively infinite variations but all such fit into a finite numbers of patterns. These macronutrients are widely studied and are the vast majority of the diet. As a result they are the primary target of most dietary plan types. The process can eventually converge even though it's not necessary to ever reach agreement. As a result we have general guidelines about grams of carb, fat and protein. Some plans then give secondary advice about glycemic load, good fats and bad fats, mixes of animo acids. Sure enough low carb plans have their primary focus on the macronutrients with rules about the carb class of macronutrients. The number of chemicals that could be used in foods has a variety that is effectively infinite. They come in patterns but in many cases every single type of chemical must have its own studies. Many studies have shown many chemicals to have long term harmful effects but we can only guess about other chemicals. As a result we have secondary advice that's more general. Eat quality foods. Avoid processed foods when practical. Avoid specific known toxins. Be conservative about those chemicals where so far there are not enough studies of their long term effects. Being conservative is probably reasonable in the absence of specific knowledge but fanatical avoidance is not reasonable. In fact we also have secondary advice about those micronutrients that are known to be beneficial. Some plans encourage supplements other plans do not. It's a less complex topic than with other chemicals because few of the micronutrients are toxic in higher dosages. When discussing supplements caveats about thse ingredients are standard. Being an Atkins fan I'll switch from most low carb plans to Atkins in specific at this point. Dr A observed that some of his patients stalled for no reason he could figure out. He took them off specific chemicals like aspartame and that resolved the stalls of some of his patients. it was enough for him to suggest being cautious about chemicals in general. He never got to the point of the organic/locavore or macrobiotic movements but he ended up clearly favoring gardened and farmed food over factory food. When practical. In spite of the fact that he made money on factory food sold in his name which he endorsed. Part of not going to the extent of the macrobiotic folks. The policies of Dr A aren't greatly different on this topic than the policies of the other popular low carb plans I just know more about him than about some of the others. I just avoid carbs. I don't follow any plan other than that. Is there a reason why I should follow a plan? |
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 |