Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

Dogman wrote:
James Warren wrote:

Actually, I do have a clue. You seem to be a cultist rather than
a scientist.

Okay. I plead guilty. I am a life-long member of The Cult of The
Scientific Method. We have our headquarters in Pasadena. I can send
you an application if you like, but be forewarned, we don't allow
useful idiots to join ...

Chortle! The Caltech admissions forms must be what you mean. The ones
I filled out were the Undergraduate edition not the Graduate edition.
Also be forewarned that there are several times as many qualified
applicants as there are positions in each entering class. The
experience of going to college there is cult-like in many aspects when
it comes to pressure and culture. Not with respect to the faith parts.
Too busy challenging the universe and its laws to fuss with that part.
Quantum mechanics through a fire hose. All other topics as well.

and imposters are routinely beheaded.

The imposters aren't actually beheaded. Mostly flunked out. Some
suicide attempts but the frequency does not appear to be higher than at
other colleges and the survival rate is pretty high. Survival in life
that is as the ones who survive suicide attempts end up going to less
stressful state universities.

James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Medicine is an immature science. Nutrition is a part of medicine. Thus
the predictions of nutrition keep changing. It's part of the deal of
how science works. Folks on this newsgroup have paid attention to the
fact that low carb works for a lot of people. Some scientists have
noticed some have not. Part of the process.

Well said. Medicine is, indeed, an immature science. I have often
lamented that there is precious little science in nutrition science.
The soft sciences like medicine and the social sciences have a long
way to go to reach maturity.

Doesn't make low carb problematic in any way other than like all forms
of dieting the results are unstable. Go off any diet and you regain by
simple cause and effect.

Also doesn't make the studies on low carb insufficient except to people
who insist they aren't going to accept the results.

On 5/23/2012 2:51 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Medicine is an immature science. Nutrition is a part of medicine. Thus
the predictions of nutrition keep changing. It's part of the deal of
how science works. Folks on this newsgroup have paid attention to the
fact that low carb works for a lot of people. Some scientists have
noticed some have not. Part of the process.

Well said. Medicine is, indeed, an immature science. I have often
lamented that there is precious little science in nutrition science.
The soft sciences like medicine and the social sciences have a long
way to go to reach maturity.

Doesn't make low carb problematic in any way other than like all forms
of dieting the results are unstable. Go off any diet and you regain by
simple cause and effect.

Also doesn't make the studies on low carb insufficient except to people
who insist they aren't going to accept the results.

Well there will always be those who will accept no evidence whatsoever.

Most will be convinced by good enough evidence that LC works but they
will still be worried about violating all the warnings about fat and
cholesterol out there. One needs to allay these fears. This can only
be done by good studies that clearly delineate the effects on carbs,
proteins and fats on the so-called risk factors. We also need to
clarify that the risk factors are, or are not, really risk factors.

This has not been done. I know of no studies that start from a
naive position to thoroughly and systematically examine all these
factors. They all seem to start out with the position of confirming
the fat hypothesis or the cholesterol hypothesis without seriously
considering opposing alternatives.

James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Also doesn't make the studies on low carb insufficient except to people
who insist they aren't going to accept the results.

Well there will always be those who will accept no evidence whatsoever.

Kuhn again. The followers of the old paradigm eventually go away by
dying of old age.

Most will be convinced by good enough evidence that LC works but they
will still be worried about violating all the warnings about fat and
cholesterol out there. One needs to allay these fears.

Those fears were always lies in the first place. The big fat lie.

This can only
be done by good studies that clearly delineate the effects on carbs,
proteins and fats on the so-called risk factors.

Not true. Demonstrating that the claims were based on lies in the first
place also works. That has been completed so what's needed now is to
let the world know. Posting here is preaching to the choir.

We also need to
clarify that the risk factors are, or are not, really risk factors.

That remains a field where more study is needed.

This has not been done. I know of no studies that start from a
naive position to thoroughly and systematically examine all these
factors. They all seem to start out with the position of confirming
the fat hypothesis or the cholesterol hypothesis without seriously
considering opposing alternatives.

Exactly - The big fat lie.

On 5/23/2012 5:02 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Also doesn't make the studies on low carb insufficient except to people
who insist they aren't going to accept the results.

Well there will always be those who will accept no evidence whatsoever.

Kuhn again. The followers of the old paradigm eventually go away by
dying of old age.

Most will be convinced by good enough evidence that LC works but they
will still be worried about violating all the warnings about fat and
cholesterol out there. One needs to allay these fears.

Those fears were always lies in the first place. The big fat lie.

This can only
be done by good studies that clearly delineate the effects on carbs,
proteins and fats on the so-called risk factors.

Not true. Demonstrating that the claims were based on lies in the first
place also works. That has been completed so what's needed now is to
let the world know. Posting here is preaching to the choir.

We also need to
clarify that the risk factors are, or are not, really risk factors.

That remains a field where more study is needed.

This has not been done. I know of no studies that start from a
naive position to thoroughly and systematically examine all these
factors. They all seem to start out with the position of confirming
the fat hypothesis or the cholesterol hypothesis without seriously
considering opposing alternatives.

Exactly - The big fat lie.

It might merely be a mistake. It is harsh to claim a lie when simple
human error is a sufficient explanation. Fat causes fat seems like a
sensible enough proposition. It is just common sense, right? But even
common sense notions need verification. We easily fool ourselves by
what seems like common sense.

James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Exactly - The big fat lie.

It might merely be a mistake.

Early on it would have been a mistake. Then the evidence started piling
up and the entrenchment progresssed.

It is harsh to claim a lie when simple
human error is a sufficient explanation.

Harsh described the behavior of the low fat drum beaters.

Fat causes fat seems like a
sensible enough proposition. It is just common sense, right?

It is not just common sense. Obvious does *not* equal true. That's one
of the basic tenants of science - Go ahead and try the obvious but it
often ends up false. Humans are not evolved to understand the way the
world really is at the levels that science works on.

But even
common sense notions need verification. We easily fool ourselves by
what seems like common sense.

And so the big fat lie has been doctors fooling themselves and then
steam roller overing anyone who studies low carb. it still comes out a
big fat lie.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:49:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
and imposters are routinely beheaded.

The imposters aren't actually beheaded. Mostly flunked out.

That's why there's an MIT.

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

On Wed, 23 May 2012 20:02:36 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
Kuhn again. The followers of the old paradigm eventually go away by
dying of old age.

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.p...nge-is-coming/

"I’ve said many times that I believe we will eventually move away from
the failed dietary paradigm promoted by the USDA and other government
“experts,” but the change will come from the ground up. It will
happen because people like Tom Nikkola insist the dietitians in his
organization look at the actual science instead of parroting what they
were taught in school. I talked to a few of the dietitians before and
after dinner and was encouraged by what they had to say. More than
one said that something about the low-fat, healthywholegrains dietary
advice never felt quite right, especially when it was being espoused
by instructors who were clearly not healthy."

I think he has a good point. We can hasten the change from the ground
up, but it will still be a slow process. It takes an aircraft carrier
about 3-4 miles to do a 180, so...


--
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 23/05/2012 6:44 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Exactly - The big fat lie.

It might merely be a mistake.

Early on it would have been a mistake. Then the evidence started piling
up and the entrenchment progresssed.

It is harsh to claim a lie when simple
human error is a sufficient explanation.

Harsh described the behavior of the low fat drum beaters.

Fat causes fat seems like a
sensible enough proposition. It is just common sense, right?

It is not just common sense. Obvious does *not* equal true. That's one
of the basic tenants of science - Go ahead and try the obvious but it
often ends up false. Humans are not evolved to understand the way the
world really is at the levels that science works on.

But even
common sense notions need verification. We easily fool ourselves by
what seems like common sense.

And so the big fat lie has been doctors fooling themselves and then
steam roller overing anyone who studies low carb. it still comes out a
big fat lie.

Or a big fat goof up.

--
-jw

On Wed, 23 May 2012 06:38:04 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Let's see...why would someone always need to misrepresent his
opponent's position? Hmmmm.
Haven't misrepresented a thing. *It's all there for
everyone to read in your own words.

These were my actual words:

Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories.

Then you intentionally changed my word "theories" to your word
"conspiracies."

What a devious little scumbag you are.

[...]

What a liar you are. You've chosen to now take
your words without the context of the preceeding
line that you were responding to. One more time
for everyone to see, here is the context:

James:
You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories.

Dogman:
Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied
from asshole to elbow.

Clearly you said that you subscribe to certain unscientific
theories. It couldn't be any clearer. And it explains
a lot.

Are you suffering from AIDS dementia?

You changed my word "theories," to your word "conspiracies."

And you just proved it there! In your own words!

And what it explains, is that you're really, really stupid.

Jeez.

--
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