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

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

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.