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

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.

Now you show us a study that shows diet success
with similar obese patients keeping it off 8 and 15 years.

Crickets.....



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. So,
it's up to YOU to do the proving. Capiche? And you
could start with one essential piece. And that is to show
us that these bariatric patients are even on LC at 1, 2, 5,
10 years.

Crickets...




[...]

That's why people have to be taught ways to "have their cake and eat
it, too," by using natural sweeteners (more or less), like stevia,
erythritol, xylitol (my personal favorite, when I just have to
absolutely have something sweetened), etc., instead of sugar, HFCS,
etc. And how to cook with non-grain flours, like almond, coconut, etc..
And only a small percentage of the population needs to be concerned
about their salt intake.
Weren't you the guy who claimed a few posts ago that
LC was easy?

I said pretty easy, and along with paleo, it is.

And since I know you're all about accuracy,
and everything pro and con has to be discussed once
anyone brings up anything, let me point this out:

xylitol is not what I would call a natural product:

You wouldn't, of course, because you're stupid. But most everyone else
does, and I know how you love consensus.

And I said it was a natural sweetener (more or less), which it is.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xylitol
Today, using hardwood or maize sources, the largest manufacturer
globally is the Danish company Danisco, with several other suppliers
from China.[8] Xylitol is produced by hydrogenation of xylose, which
converts the sugar (an aldehyde) into a primary alcohol.

Not exactly like a hippie picking it from a tree.

What do you have against birch trees?

And since the xylitol I use is extracted from non-GMO corn, and others
are made from "the fibers of many fruits and vegetables, and can be
extracted from various berries, oats, and mushrooms," it sounds pretty
damn natural to me. Yep, I can almost see the hippies!

That's most likely just another hippie pipe dream in
your smoke filled head.

On May 31, 3:25*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:37:02 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Exactly. *I look forward to reading the results of such studies. *To
what extent is the hormonal damage of being morbidly obese in the first
place is reversed rather than just the weight lost as long as the
punishment of vomitting lasts.

Again, the specific studies being done are regarding the
reversal of diabetes, and so far the results indicate that it
is NOT connected to the weight loss.

No, it's due to the DIET.

And you can see the same effects and get to keep your stomach intact,
if you eat properly.

--
Dogman


There you go again. Everyone else here agrees that
until more studies are done, no one knows what causes
the diabetes reversal. Only you continue to make a
fool out of yourself by claiming to know what we all
know you can't possibly know. Along the way you've
made it clear you don't even know what the researchers
are talking about, looking at, etc.

And here's the essential challenge again for you. If it's a LC
diet, as you insist, then for starters, just show us that these
patients are even on a LC diet at 1, 2, 5, 10 years when
the diabetes continues to be reversed.

Crickets.....

And if it's due to diet, how is it that studies with rats have
shown the same diabetes reversal, where diet is not a factor and
the rats are not overweight?

But what else could we expect from a guy who claims:

HIV doesn't cause AIDS
HIV is harmless'
HPV doesn't cause cervical cancer
No virus can cause cancer
Prions don't exist.
Mad Cow is caused by pesticides

Anything else you'd like to add to your list today?

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?

[...]
I agree. I prefer it plain, grilled or fried.

If you fry it, I hope you don't fry it in vegetable oils? Of course
you do! You're James Warren!

I use olive oil. Is that OK with you?

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).

Coconut oil (organic virgin is best) is better (in my opinion), and is
more stable at high temps.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cocon...#axzz1wUAgsWgn

PS: I take it a couple of steps further, and only eat USDA certified
organic chicken, and only Celtic Sea Salt (the best salt you've
probably never tasted).

If you eat REAL food, GOOD food, you don't need all that unhealthy
crap that KFC has to drench its chicken in to get you to eat it.

Oh I agree we don't need all that crap, but is it harmful?

Yes.

--
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 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?

I can see now why you opt for the drugs and surgery.

[...]
Only a fool would go by this newsgroup, because newsgroup usage in
general is at an all-time low.

Then you must be a fool too, because you're still here.

Look, let me slow that down for you, since you don't seem to
understand context.

What was implied (you can look it up) was that only a fool would go by
this newsgroup as a measure of low-carb's popularity.

See?

You're clueless.

It's absolutely amazing.

--
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

See? You can't read, and even when you can, you don't understand what
you read.

That's the definitition of a doofus, which is exactly what you are.

And an ashhole.

Let us never forget that you are an asshole, first and foremost!

[...]
That's most likely just another hippie pipe dream in
your smoke filled head.

FU.

Asshole.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:26:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 31, 3:25*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:37:02 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Exactly. *I look forward to reading the results of such studies. *To
what extent is the hormonal damage of being morbidly obese in the first
place is reversed rather than just the weight lost as long as the
punishment of vomitting lasts.

Again, the specific studies being done are regarding the
reversal of diabetes, and so far the results indicate that it
is NOT connected to the weight loss.

No, it's due to the DIET.

And you can see the same effects and get to keep your stomach intact,
if you eat properly.

There you go again. Everyone else here agrees that
until more studies are done, no one knows what causes
the diabetes reversal.

Everyone? When did you take take that poll?

On the other hand, until those studies *are* done, I'm going with the
simplist explanation, that it's mostly (or totally) the diet change,
and there's nothing "mysterious" about that.

But you should feel free to believe anything you want.

--
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 Thu, 31 May 2012 21:45:33 +0000 (UTC), 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.

Yeah, paleo plans, too. They call it eating "clean." I'm basically a
low-carb paleo eater.

How much stress they put on switching away from
processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it.
[...]

You bet. It doesn't make sense to lose weight and end up making
yourself even more unhealthy in the process. No, it doesn't happen
overnight, but smoking doesn't give you cancer overnight either.

Eat REAL foods, stay away from fast-food, refined or processed food,
food that comes in boxes or bags, sugar, and HFCS, and generally
restrict your carbs, and you'll likely get real healthy, real quick -
and lose a lot of weight. And keep it off.

--
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

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.

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? That one has to be a fanatical LC fan? I think it
is the way to bet given current knowledge but being a fanatical
disciple is not my style.

How many dogs do you have? I have four large dogs.


[...]
I agree. I prefer it plain, grilled or fried.

If you fry it, I hope you don't fry it in vegetable oils? Of course
you do! You're James Warren!

I use olive oil. Is that OK with you?

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?


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.


http://www.marksdailyapple.com/cocon...#axzz1wUAgsWgn

PS: I take it a couple of steps further, and only eat USDA certified
organic chicken, and only Celtic Sea Salt (the best salt you've
probably never tasted).

If you eat REAL food, GOOD food, you don't need all that unhealthy
crap that KFC has to drench its chicken in to get you to eat it.

Oh I agree we don't need all that crap, but is it harmful?

Yes.

Can you point me to some good evidence showing this?


--
-jw