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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Tue, 29 May 2012 01:39:29 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote: Dogman wrote: " wrote: Because the diet of post bariatric patients is NOT a fat fast. For the second time, Doug never said it was. He said a fat fast may be enough to affect certain metabolic changes that would negate the need for bariatric surgery. He didn't say the POST-BARIATRIC DIET IS A FAT FAST. The beginning point of the post-bariatric diet is on the order of 1000 calories so roughly similar to the original fat fast experiment in that sense. It's closer to the 90% protein experimental group than to the 90% fat or 90% carb experimental groups. It does not match any of them. It is similar in number of calories to all three groups. Yeah. There are current studies (I linked to two) that show several diets can make bariatric surgery unnecessary, and all of them should be tried (in my opinion) before even considering surgery. And that includes a fat fast. The sole issue was Doug trying to attribute the mysterious effects seen in these patients to a LC diet. Which is wrong. Doug, being of sound mind, wasn't attributing anything, he was suggesting that there's nothing mysterious about it, that diet alone can produce the same effects in most people, and without undergoing dangerous surgery. But I'll defer to Doug on that. Feed a patient the post-bariatric diet without the surgery and see. I suggest it is very likely the results will be close. I agree. Speculation - The stomach produces ghrelin. The surgery reduces the ghrelin produced by the stomach. Part of obesity is an imbalance in hormones produced. Perhaps the post-surgery effects can't be reporduced with diet alone. But I am unaware of a group fed the poost-surgery diet as a control group. And there's nothing "mysterious" about 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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On May 29, 2:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:16:37 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] We all know that people are going to return to eating what they like, within the limits their surgery permits. And there isn't anything I'm aware of in these patients long term diets that says it has to be LC. Given that whatever is ocurring is still there at 10 years, I don't think the balance of evidence supports that this reversal in diabetes is due to LC. According to the Mayo Clinic site on post-bariatric surgery: "Weight gain or failure to lose weight. If you continue to gain weight or fail to lose weight on the gastric bypass diet, it's possible you could be eating too many calories. Talk to your doctor or dietitian about changes you can make to your diet." That falls into the "No ****, Red Ryder?" category, I think. So even after the operation, patients still need to learn how to eat properly. They can't rely on the "mystery" of the operation itself. I can see how you're so easily confused. Nothing in that cite you posted above in any way supports the conclusion you just stated. And we're all still waiting for the reference that says the bariatric diet is LC a year, two, or 10 years after the surgery. What you just posted justs helps support the argument that something other than LC is responsible for the myserious reversal in diabetes. Maybe if more time had been invested in that approach from the get-go, the patient might have been able to avoid the surgery (and all those adverse side effects) in the first place. Sigh. Might as well just say that if there were no obese people, there would be no obese people. It's been made abundantly clear that the vast majority of people are unable to stay with any diet, including LC for the long term. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On May 29, 2:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 07:37:49 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Yes, they are. ~ 90-100 grams of carbs per day. They are also on a low fat diet. *When you're eating 600 calories a day, it's low everything. *But that is only for the first couple of weeks. So what? 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? The reversal of diabetes continues and has been verified in patients for 10 years plus. *By then it's safe to assume they are no longer eating 600 calories a day. *More like 4X that. *I also haven't seen anything that says that diet is typically LC years after surgery. If it doesn't remain relatively low-carb, they'll likely regain the weight. According to you. Show us that these bariatric patients are on a LC diet at 1 year, 2 years, 10 years. Let's start with that. It's called the scientific method, otherwise known as not just inventing crap. 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. Low-carb explains it. Quite amazing. See the above and provide us with a reference that says the bariatric patients are on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years. Show us where the rats used to produce the same phenomenon were on a LC diet. And for another the complete reversal of diabetes occurs within a couple of days. Diet can do that too. http://drhyman.com/blog/2012/03/28/w...-cure-for-diab.... "A recent study entitled Reversal of type 2 diabetes: normalization of beta cell function in association with decrease pancreas and liver triglycerides proved that diet alone could reverse type 2 diabetes. The bottom line: A dramatic diet change (protein shake, low glycemic load, plant-based low-calorie diet but no exercise) in diabetics reversed most features of diabetes within one week and all features by eight weeks. That’s right; diabetes was reversed in one week." There's nothing "mysterious" about it. Yeah, as usual YOU know the absolute answer that the rest of the medical community is just beginning to research. There are no absolute answers (unless you're an AIDS alarmist!), but the evidence (not that you would recognize it if you saw it) is piling up. [...] You seemed to have left those adverse effects out. I was NOT debating the pros or cons of bariatric surgery. Sure you were. *You were in act of worshipping the medical industry again. "If it's surgery, it must be good!" You're just amazing. Thank you! *I'm told that all the time! You were pushing your typical reliance on the Medical Establishment, also typically ignoring all the many adverse side effects of doing so, and Doug (and I) were offering an alternative approach that appears to garner similar results - curing diabetes, and losing weight, more or less naturally, simply by eating correctly. Again, it was clear to everyone except you, who goes astray so easily, that the discussion was not about the merits or side effects of bariatric surgery. It was about one specific phenomenon, which is the reversal of diabetes. And yes, I rely on the medical establishment. So do you. What is the Mayo Clinic that you just cited? What was the study you just cited? The only difference is that I look, interpret, and make judgements with an open mind and a balanced approach. You obviously have loony preconceived notions and then very selectively cherry pick and discard the mountains of scientific data that doesn't agree with your ideas. Using that method, virtually anything can be proven. F*%K the ADA. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Check! HIV is harmless Mostly. Check! HPV isn't a cause of ovarian cancer What? *You're not content in having HPV causing cervical cancer? Now it causes ovarian cancer too? *What doesn't it cause? How about trying to pin CHD on HPV, too! *It's such a powerful virus that it causes people to lose their freakin' minds, too, apparently. But, no, HPV doesn't cause ovarian cancer. *Check! No virus can cause cancer Check! Maybe genital warts. Maybe. AIDS is the result of poor nutrition, not enough sleep, poor sanitation Along with other things. Check! AIDS is confined to gay men, drug abusers and hemophiliacs In the U.S. (and Europe), that's pretty much true. *Check! http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/ris...realities.html What else would you like to add to your list today? How about Hep C, FeLV, FIV being mostly harmless, too? Check! And let's not forget that "prions" are only a figment of someone's very vivid imagination (Stanley Prusiner), but earned him a Nobel Prize anyway. *Check! OK, we'll add prions to your running list of denialist nonsense. What caused Mad Cow? The cows not getting enough sleep and abusing IV drugs? We need more scientists who don't give a crap about their "reputations," but worship The Scientific Method. You would not know real science if it hit you in the head. Neither was James who brought it up. *So, there was no need to discuss the adverse effects. Of course there is! *Only idiots talk about the merits of bariatric surgery without also mentioning all the many dangerous side effects. We were not listing the merits. *We were discussing one very narrow aspect of bariatric surgery. *I see the fat fast was mentioned. Why don't you condemn and go after Doug for not mentioning the dangers and side effects? One reason? *Doug's not an asshole! Oh, I see. You admit your arguments are not based on applying logical rules, just going after people who you don't like. That list must be very long and I'm happy to be on it. 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. And if a doctor's supervision is now the reqt then thanks for again shooting down your own case. Last time I checked, anyone could do a fat fast without a doctor. Tell us how many people can get bariatric surgery without a doctor..... Yet, I'm supposed to list all the side effects and dangers of bariatric surgery just to discuss whether or not it reverses diabetes. In other words, another fine example of just changing the rules to whatever suits you at the moment. Doug, being of sound mind, wasn't attributing anything, he was suggesting that there's nothing mysterious about it, that diet alone can produce the same effects in most people, and without undergoing dangerous surgery. Which is attributing the mysterious effects to a LC diet. There's nothing mysterious about it! It's simple biochemistry! I think most of us here are content to wait for the research instead of listening to your unfounded opinions given as fact. And how do you explain the studies that showed the same effect in rats? But then you didn't even bother to enter that into the equation before knowing the answer. Your basic problem is that you have vast preconcieved notions that are faulty and you then back yourself into a corner trying to find snippets, cherrypicking, in a desperate attempt to support them. The 99.9% of solid evidence that says you're wrong, you just ignore. Very standard approach with denialists and conspiracy theorists. And it leads to very bad results. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Tue, 29 May 2012 12:45:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] According to the Mayo Clinic site on post-bariatric surgery: "Weight gain or failure to lose weight. If you continue to gain weight or fail to lose weight on the gastric bypass diet, it's possible you could be eating too many calories. Talk to your doctor or dietitian about changes you can make to your diet." That falls into the "No ****, Red Ryder?" category, I think. So even after the operation, patients still need to learn how to eat properly. They can't rely on the "mystery" of the operation itself. I can see how you're so easily confused. Nothing in that cite you posted above in any way supports the conclusion you just stated. Of course it does, but you're too damn stupid to understand me. Like with certain dogs, certain humans need more repetitions before they finally "get it." So I'll repeat it: Even *after* gastric-bypass surgery, many patients not only don't lose any weight, they even gain it! Why? Because they STILL don't know how to eat properly! So PERHAPS these people could have been taught to eat properly in the first place, and maybe they wouldn't have had to undergo dangerous surgery. Got it now? Asshole. It's been made abundantly clear that the vast majority of people are unable to stay with any diet, including LC for the long term. That's poppycock, of course. The vast majority of people aren't obese or overweight. Even in the long-term. But we have a certain percentage of the population who struggle with their weight (and it's a growing percentage, unfortunately), primarily due to the bad (and unscientific) information coming from groups like the ADA, the government, "scientists" who push their low-fat/high carb agenda because that's where the funding is, and food companies looking to maximize their profits, by getting people addicted (more or less) to their crappy food. And most of these people can be helped, and without needing to surgically tamper with their stomachs, by teaching them how to eat properly. Otherwise our species would have died out long ago. And that's the facts, Jack. Or in your case, asshole. 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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] They are also on a low fat diet. *When you're eating 600 calories a day, it's low everything. *But that is only for the first couple of weeks. So what? 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 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. 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. [...] You were pushing your typical reliance on the Medical Establishment, also typically ignoring all the many adverse side effects of doing so, and Doug (and I) were offering an alternative approach that appears to garner similar results - curing diabetes, and losing weight, more or less naturally, simply by eating correctly. Again, it was clear to everyone except you, Do you have any proof of that? No? I didn't think so. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Check! HIV is harmless Mostly. Check! HPV isn't a cause of ovarian cancer What? *You're not content in having HPV causing cervical cancer? Now it causes ovarian cancer too? *What doesn't it cause? How about trying to pin CHD on HPV, too! *It's such a powerful virus that it causes people to lose their freakin' minds, too, apparently. But, no, HPV doesn't cause ovarian cancer. *Check! No virus can cause cancer Check! Maybe genital warts. Maybe. AIDS is the result of poor nutrition, not enough sleep, poor sanitation Along with other things. Check! AIDS is confined to gay men, drug abusers and hemophiliacs In the U.S. (and Europe), that's pretty much true. *Check! http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/ris...realities.html What else would you like to add to your list today? How about Hep C, FeLV, FIV being mostly harmless, too? Check! And let's not forget that "prions" are only a figment of someone's very vivid imagination (Stanley Prusiner), but earned him a Nobel Prize anyway. *Check! OK, we'll add prions to your running list of denialist nonsense. What caused Mad Cow? Organophospates, for one. An insecticide routinely spread along the spines of cows. Of course, there's still time to pin it on HPV, too, so don't give up hope yet! [...] We were not listing the merits. *We were discussing one very narrow aspect of bariatric surgery. *I see the fat fast was mentioned. Why don't you condemn and go after Doug for not mentioning the dangers and side effects? One reason? *Doug's not an asshole! Oh, I see. You admit your arguments are not based on applying logical rules, just going after people who you don't like. No, based on Doug's SOUND argument (not that you would ever recognize one!) that a fat fast was certainly worth a try, AND because you're an asshole. And, no, I don't like you. 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 Apparently there's yet another book you should read. 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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On May 29, 5:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 13:12:21 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] They are also on a low fat diet. *When you're eating 600 calories a day, it's low everything. *But that is only for the first couple of weeks. So what? 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. How they occur is the subject of current medical research. But then we have you who shoots from the hip and claims it's absolutley due to LC without any proof at all that these patients are even on LC long term when the diabetes reversal continues. I believe in LC too. But I'm not going to discredit myself by claiming it's the cure all for everything or the reason for every medical occurence that's positive. Your fundemental problem is you start out with a belief system and then cherry-pick to support it. Everything that agrees is used, often totally out of context, and the mountain of counter evidence is discarded. That's what leads to foolish results like: HIV is a harmless virus HIV does not cause AIDS AIDS is caused by poor nutrition, lack of sleep, and sanitation. HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer. Prions don't exist Prions don't cause Mad Cow. 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. Yet, none has been forthcoming. It would have to be true for your argument to have any merit at all. But that's typical. Also, how do you explain the rat studies where diet is held constant, yet diabetes is reversed in rats that have similar surgery? 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. 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. The point here is that you have no evidence that bariatric patients are even on a LC diet long term. 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. And once again, the researchers who are looking to see what actually happens based on the real data, not your biased opinions, disagree. The research has basicly just started, but yet YOU as the oracle, know the result. [...] You were pushing your typical reliance on the Medical Establishment, also typically ignoring all the many adverse side effects of doing so, and Doug (and I) were offering an alternative approach that appears to garner similar results - curing diabetes, and losing weight, more or less naturally, simply by eating correctly. Again, it was clear to everyone except you, Do you have any proof of that? No? *I didn't think so. Snipped part restored for context: "Again, it was clear to everyone except you, who goes astray so easily, that the discussion was not about the merits or side effects of bariatric surgery. It was about one specific phenomenon, which is the reversal of diabetes. " And yes, I have the proof. You're the only one here that did not get it. You see anyone else arguing the above point? And let's not forget that "prions" are only a figment of someone's very vivid imagination (Stanley Prusiner), but earned him a Nobel Prize anyway. *Check! OK, we'll add prions to your running list of denialist nonsense. What caused Mad Cow? Organophospates, for one. An insecticide routinely spread along the spines of cows. Just to show the folks your true colors, let's look at the source for this claim and the evidence: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mark Purdey 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 He published a number of papers in which he set down his belief that BSE was not an infectious disease, contrary to the mainstream scientific view, but that it had an environmental cause. He suggested this cause might be Phosmet, a systemic organophosphate insecticide that was being spread along the spines of intensively farmed cows to eradicate warble fly.[3] Purdey believed that the chemicals, derived from military nerve gases,[1] disturbed the balance of metals in the animals' brains, giving rise to the misfolded proteins called prions that are regarded as the cause of BSE. 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. He apparently just believes pesticides somehow are involved in the creation of the prions. But then, none of that really matters because this guy is just an organic farmer without even a college degree: "He turned down a place at London University to study zoology and psychology and, according to The Guardian, "embarked on a kind of post- hippie bucolic existence."[9] That is the kind of science you believe in while you condemn the rest of science and medicine as evil. And then we have the rest of the thinking world which says, "Gee, if pesticides are causing Mad Cow, why is it that it stopped, yet pesticides continue to be used? And why did it stop when prions were discovered to be the cause and when steps were taken to eliminate the source of the prions and test for infection were implemented? Wow, kind of like HIV and AIDS..... Go figure. And, no, I don't like you. Of course not, because you've been exposed here and your nonsense smashed with real science. You don't seem to like James much either, for the same reason. 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 of unknown credibility that says what THEY claim the Atkins fat fast is. When you have a page reference to an Atkins book where Atkins actually says the fat fast can only be done under a doctor's supervison, let us know. It's not in the Atkins books I have. I've seen it discussed here over the years and don't recall anyone claiming Atkins put the doctor supervision requirement on it. But it's possible it is in one of his books. So, if you have the page, let's see it. Apparently there's yet another book you should read. Asshole. -- Dogman Still working on impressing the newsgroup with your credibility I see. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
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. 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. 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. 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. "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 Because it's low protein is a risky diet to do without supervision. Also there's the temptation by people with eating disorders to take extreme action when not medically needed. Even without eating disorders it's something many do without bothering to read the qualifications for doing the fat fast. Here's one difference that can not be handled by diet alone - After surgery the patient can not go off their diet. Going off their diet for even a few bites causes severe pain and vomitting. By signing up for the surgery they volunteered to be punished severely and instantly for even the slightest deviation from their prescribed diet. Without the surgery adherence to the prescribed diet is voluntary. Even though hunger is greatly reduced while low carbing a single high carb meal can push many off the low carb plan. Without punishment in place to return immediately to the prescribed diet it is extremely unstable to do it. That's always been the greatest weakness of low carbing. The greatest strength of low carbing to me is that few are hungry while on it unlike most other plans. The greatest weakness of low carbing is that one high carb meal can turn the cravings back on and it often takes the same effort to get back on that it took the first time. I would love a pill that works like anabuse. One bite of high carb food and the vomitting starts. Then I could chose complete adherence and self punishment without needing to go under the knife. But such a pill is a dream not a reality. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
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. 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." 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. Hell, you may beat your dog and root for the Cubs, for all I know. [...] That's always been the greatest weakness of low carbing. The greatest strength of low carbing to me is that few are hungry while on it unlike most other plans. The greatest weakness of low carbing is that one high carb meal can turn the cravings back on and it often takes the same effort to get back on that it took the first time. Tru dat. BTDT. But I've also learned more ways to deal with it, too. So I'm not long off the wagon, maybe a few days. I would love a pill that works like anabuse. One bite of high carb food and the vomitting starts. Heh. -- 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
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? 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! 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. 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! 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. I choose to doubt the theory. 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. 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. I really couldn't care less. 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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
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. 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. 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. Hell, you may beat your dog I do have a track record of beating on posters here. 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. 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. |
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 |