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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:25:30 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] 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 were no links. You know it, and so does everyone else here know it. 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 Correct! Thanks for finally agreeing with me! Eventually word will get out! -- 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 |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:18:20 -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, Learning to cook should be standard fare for any 21st century adult. Learning to cook isn't necessary simply because of low-carb, it's a skill that even Boy Scouts learn when they're teenagers. It's a basic survival skill, and will especially come in handy during the coming zombie apocalypse. If you care anything about your health, you'll learn how to cook. No, you don't have to cook like Gordon Ramsey or Emeril Lagasse, but just learning the basics will allow you to cook fresh, healthy foods. Sauteeing, broiling, boiling, steaming, and knife skills will take you a long way. Anyone can do it, even you. 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. It oozes from your pores. It's a religion to you, and doctors are your gods. 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. Correct! Thank you for finally realizing it! -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:56:52 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
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. Different strokes for different folks. -- 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 |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:32:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] Once people get used to reading the list of ingredients on all their meals and prepared foods, and understand what those ingredients can do to them, they learn how to eat properly. Sure, that's been proven to work. People have been told for years that supersizing at McD's, BurgerKing, etc is bad for you. So those sales are down, right? Not selling many of those big burgers anymore, right? They've been told sugary drinks are bad, so those huge drinks are no longer flying over the counters, right? They've been told fries are bad for you for how many decades now. Fries have virtually disappeared, right? See: Darwinism and natural selection. I like to help the ones who want to be helped, and leave the others to Darwin. Plenty of better chicken places out there but they are mostlylocal places or small chains. *To me it would be an option while I'm travelling and there is no burger place around. *How often is there no burger place around? *;^) Not often. But beware of bad fast-food burgers, too (remember the stories about "pink slime"?). Which is also in the beef you can buy at many supermarkets whether you know it or not. Of course it is! CRAP FOODS are everywhere. That's why it's up to the *consumer* to be aware of it, and to demand change, by taking their business elsewhere. Unless you just want the government and your mommy to take care of you? Yeah, that's what I thought. Sheesh. -- 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 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 6/1/2012 1:30 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:18:20 -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, Learning to cook should be standard fare for any 21st century adult. Learning to cook isn't necessary simply because of low-carb, it's a skill that even Boy Scouts learn when they're teenagers. It's a basic survival skill, and will especially come in handy during the coming zombie apocalypse. Dare I ask? What is the coming zombie apocalypse? If you care anything about your health, you'll learn how to cook. No, you don't have to cook like Gordon Ramsey or Emeril Lagasse, but just learning the basics will allow you to cook fresh, healthy foods. Sauteeing, broiling, boiling, steaming, and knife skills will take you a long way. Anyone can do it, even you. 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. It oozes from your pores. It's a religion to you, and doctors are your gods. 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. Correct! Thank you for finally realizing it! |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: 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? That's not the same question but it is a related less troll worthy one. 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? 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. Where the line of reason is will depend on the person. I'm less cautious about chemicals than Dogman for example. It is known that some chemicals that were in use for years or decades ended up harmful. It is known that at least one chemical got banned incorrectly (cyclamates). It is know that some chemicals will end up harmless. How much effort should be put into eating real food? That's for each of us to judge. Being conservative is probably reasonable in the absence of specific knowledge but fanatical avoidance is not reasonable. Where is the boundary between paranoid and conservative? When fresh veggies are easily available does it even matter if you're paranoid? Fresh broccoli rinsed and steamed with some grilled chicken is a meal that counts as paranoid in this context. it might not matter. I just avoid carbs. I don't follow any plan other than that. Is there a reason why I should follow a plan? If you want better success than you currently have, it makes sense to follow an established plan. If you are happy with your current results don't bother. Each of the popular plans has at least one point where it says to do something not obvious. That's because the author(s) of that plan spent a decade or more experimenting on how to improve past the point you'd get doing the obvious. "Reduce total carbs. You'll lose." If that were it there would be no need for the many books on the topic. Human bodies are not that simple. We are not "calories in equals calories out" mechanical engines. Pick a plan and analyze it. You'll find items that are not obvious. Try them anyways and you'll discover they work. Compare the results against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better. Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book. Expertise matters when it comes to results. Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one of the plans. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 6/1/2012 4:50 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: 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? That's not the same question but it is a related less troll worthy one. 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? 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. Where the line of reason is will depend on the person. I'm less cautious about chemicals than Dogman for example. It is known that some chemicals that were in use for years or decades ended up harmful. It is known that at least one chemical got banned incorrectly (cyclamates). It is know that some chemicals will end up harmless. How much effort should be put into eating real food? That's for each of us to judge. Being conservative is probably reasonable in the absence of specific knowledge but fanatical avoidance is not reasonable. Where is the boundary between paranoid and conservative? When fresh veggies are easily available does it even matter if you're paranoid? Fresh broccoli rinsed and steamed with some grilled chicken is a meal that counts as paranoid in this context. it might not matter. I just avoid carbs. I don't follow any plan other than that. Is there a reason why I should follow a plan? If you want better success than you currently have, it makes sense to follow an established plan. If you are happy with your current results don't bother. Each of the popular plans has at least one point where it says to do something not obvious. That's because the author(s) of that plan spent a decade or more experimenting on how to improve past the point you'd get doing the obvious. "Reduce total carbs. You'll lose." If that were it there would be no need for the many books on the topic. Human bodies are not that simple. We are not "calories in equals calories out" mechanical engines. Pick a plan and analyze it. You'll find items that are not obvious. Try them anyways and you'll discover they work. How was it discovered that they work? By anecdotes? By controlled studies? It matters which. Compare the results against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better. Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book. Expertise matters when it comes to results. Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one of the plans. My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 1, 12:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:25:30 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] 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 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 The average weight change in control subjects was less than ±2% during the period of up to 15 years during which weights were recorded. Maximum weight losses in the surgical subgroups were observed after 1 to 2 years: gastric bypass, 32%; vertical-banded gastroplasty, 25%; and banding, 20%. After 10 years, the weight losses from baseline were stabilized at 25%, 16%, and 14%, respectively. " You know it, and so does everyone else here know it. Hmmm, how could you possibly know what everyone else here knows or does not know? Oh, yes. It's because you know everything. Like: 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 |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 1, 4:15*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 6/1/2012 4:50 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: James Warren wrote: 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? That's not the same question but it is a related less troll worthy one. If many or even some of these food additives are so harmful, it's quite amazing that we're living longer than ever. It's also quite possible that some of them have a positive and beneficial effect that isn't known. And then there is the belief system that because something is natural, say stevia, that it must automatically be safe and not harmful. Me, I think as long as you use moderation and some common sense, there is no need to get carried away to extremes. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 1, 12:41*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:32:31 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Once people get used to reading the list of ingredients on all their meals and prepared foods, and understand what those ingredients can do to them, they learn how to eat properly. Sure, that's been proven to work. *People have been told for years that supersizing at McD's, BurgerKing, etc is bad for you. *So those sales are down, right? *Not selling many of those big burgers anymore, right? * *They've been told sugary drinks are bad, so those huge drinks are no longer flying over the counters, right? *They've been told fries are bad for you for how many decades now. * Fries have virtually disappeared, right? See: Darwinism and natural selection. I like to help the ones who want to be helped, and leave the others to Darwin. That's not surprising. I'd expect as much from you. But that wasn't the point now, was it? You claimed that all you had to do was teach people the correct diet and most people would be successful. Then you modified it to include teaching them to cook. Then you claimed having to learn to cook wasn't something that would make your approach more difficult. Now, finally you are apparently acknowledging that despite efforts to get people to do things in regard to diet have been unsuccessful. Progress at last. Plenty of better chicken places out there but they are mostlylocal places or small chains. *To me it would be an option while I'm travelling and there is no burger place around. *How often is there no burger place around? *;^) Not often. But beware of bad fast-food burgers, too (remember the stories about "pink slime"?). Which is also in the beef you can buy at many supermarkets whether you know it or not. Of course it is! CRAP FOODS are everywhere. So, stop eating. I'll bet your cooking experience makes you quite the expert in crap food. That's why it's up to the *consumer* to be aware of it, and to demand change, by taking their business elsewhere. Unless you just want the government and your mommy to take care of you? Yeah, that's what I thought. Of course there you go again running off with those loony conclusions unsupported by any of the facts. Nothing I've said here comes close to that. |
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 |