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

On 31/05/2012 6:45 PM, 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. How much stress they put on switching away from
processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it.

My question is this: Is this rece3ived wisdom or is their some evidence
of harm in not doing 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.

For what reason?

--
-jw

Lots of LC and Paleo and Wheat Belly activity on Facebook, too.

Dogman wrote:
| On Thu, 31 May 2012 13:35:58 -0400, Walter Bushell
| wrote:
|
|| In article
|| ,
|| " wrote:
||
||| Sure, like all someone has to do is tell them about LC.
||| Perhaps you've missed it. There was a huge interest in
||| LC around 2000. It was widely covered in the media.
||| It was the time articles by Taubes were coming out
||| and Atkins was all over the news.
||| Lots of people heard the message about LC. This
||| newsgroup was full of them. They were exchanging
||| recipes, asking questions, telling of their stories.
||| A lot of people started doing LC for the first time.
||| Well, what happened?
||| Interest in LC fell just as quickly as it grew. See many
||| folks in the newgroup here these days? The people
||| who tried it just as quickly gave it up. That doesn't
||| make LC bad. It's just that most people have shown
||| that they won't stay on any diet long term.
||
|| In case you didn't notice USENET is dying. Everyone went to blogs,
|| mail lists etcetera.
|
| Exactly.
|
| Visit Jimmy Moore's blog and web site:
| http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/
|
| ...to get just a flavor for just how many LC and/or Paleo web sites
| are out there.
|
| Here are 47 new Paleo, low-carb and health blogs for just May 2012:
|
| 1. LOW CARBOHYDRATE REVIEW
| 2. N=1: A JOURNEY TO HEALTH
| 3. CHUNKY TO CHA-CHA
| 4. IT'S THE SATIETY
| 5. AGAINST THE GRAIN
| 6. BACON & SKINNY JEANS
| 7. 30 BANANAS A DAY.SUCKS!
| 8. A CHANGE OF LIFE
| 9. KOKOPALEO
| 10. GOOD FOR YOU GOODIES
| 11. PEACE, LOVE, AND LOW CARB
| 12. PALEO FOR WOMEN
| 13. TRAIN TO WIN, EAT TO LOSE
| 14. KARA NANCE MD
| 15. SWEDISH DIET
| 16. BOOKBODY
| 17. THE FOODIE AND THE FAMILY
| 18. YOUR HEALTH IS ON YOUR PLATE
| 19. SARA GOTTFRIED MD
| 20. MRS. PALEO
| 21. A WEIGHT WATCHING ANGEL
| 22. MY LIFE IN A PYRAMID
| 23. CONFESSIONS OF A CROSSFIT COACH
| 24. LOW-CARB LIFESTYLE: THE THEORY & PRACTICE
| 25. SARAH GETS STRONG: A CROSSFIT/PALEO LOVE AFFAIR
| 26. MAKE IT FUN & IT WILL GET DONE
| 27. EATHROPOLOGY
| 28. THE THINKER
| 29. THE UNREFINED KITCHEN
| 30. THE CAFE WELLNESS
| 31. AUTISM BUSTER
| 32. PALEO STYLE
| 33. PRINCIPLE INTO PRACTICE
| 34. PRIMAL PASTURES
| 35. CLAUDIO RIVERA
| 36. THE DAWN OF PALEO
| 37. YOGI WELLNESS JOURNEY
| 38. DR. DEBORAH'S BLOG
| 39. FIT TWIN CITIES
| 40. THE WILDERNESS CHILDE
| 41. HOME WITH PURPOSE
| 42. LITTLE DOG LOST
| 43. THE REAL NUTRITIONIST
| 44. TOM'S UNDERGROUND FITNESS
| 45. DIETINGLADY
| 46. DIETA LOW-CARB E PALEOLITICA (Portuguese)
| 47. SYLPH GOURMAND (Serbian)
|
| They're popping up like dandelions (which make a great tasting and
| very healthy salad!), in fact.

On 31/05/2012 9:50 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 21:03:37 -0300, James
wrote:

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?

I'm implying that, if even you don't know why you're here, you
probably shouldn't really be here, should you?

You seem to know why I'm here even if I don't.


That one has to be a fanatical LC fan?

Not all all. But, again, if you don't know why you're here, and
you're obviously not here to impart knowledge, and you're obviously
not here to learn anything, there's no good reason for you to be here,
unless it's just to troll, which I still think you're doing.

If you have any knowledge to impart, I'm all eyes.


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

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable participating in one of the dog
newsgroups?

You're not a Dogman?


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?

See what I mean? That's a typical troll response. You're a troll.

I guess I won't.


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.

Keep looking. Even you can find it.

You're very helpful.


Yes.

Can you point me to some good evidence showing this?

I could, if I thought you were serious, but I don't.

I think you're a troll.

I think you can't and that is a dodge.


Period.

So back in the Bozo Bin you go.

Yeah OK. I guess you can't cope.


--
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


--
-jw

On 31/05/2012 9:50 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:27:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

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.

That'll do!

Not in Canada!


--
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


--
-jw

On May 31, 8:07*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 31/05/2012 6:45 PM, 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. *How much stress they put on switching away from
processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it.

My question is this: Is this rece3ived wisdom or is their some evidence
of harm in not doing it?

I think a lot of things are getting muddled together here as one.
I saw a list from Dogman for KFC chicken that included:

spices
salt
soy sauce
partially hydrogenated soybean oil
onion powder
calcium silicate
silicon dioxide

He asked if anyone here would use any of that to make
grilled chicken. Of course, the answer is obviously yes to a lot
of it, unless you cook chicken without salt or spices.
I would not even be surprised to find calcium silicate or
silicon dioxide in home made grilled chicken, as it's an
anti-caking agent, so it could easily be in some spices
that get used.

On the other hand, the partially hydrogenated soybean
oil is a good example of something most people agree
today should be avoided. Now, how much you actually
get must be very small as the nutritional info lists it as
trans fat free. I probably would not make the KFC
chicken the core of my diet, but if it was available for
a convenient lunch, I'd have no problem eating it.

With any reasonable LC plan though you're going to be
shifting away a lot from the highly processed foods
that are a core of the typical diet. These plans don't
even need to stress it, it pretty much will happen by
itself. You can eat broccoli, eggs and fish. You can't
eat corn flakes, dougnuts and pizza. So, most of it
will happen automatically.

As for eating some other LC stuff like the KFC chicken
if it's convenient, I have no problem with that. It's
a personal choice. Some people are going to be
fanatics and base those ideas on God knows what
kind of science.
That's up to them. But I think you can't have it both
ways. You can't claim LC is easy and then claim you
have to cook. You can't claim it's easy and then
say if you happen to be somewhere, it's lunch time
and KFC grilled chicken is available that you should
not eat it. If you take it to that level, then it becomes
extremely difficult.

For example, I frequently dine at restaurants for
lunch or dinner. Most are individual ones, not big
chains. Say I order a fajita salad. How would one
know that it's not been marinated in some of the
same ingredients that are on Dogman's KFC list?
How would I know that the spices used don't
contain calcium silicate?
You would have to demand a complete ingredient
list everywhere you went like the one from KFC.
Which of course, most of us know is unrealitic.

In other words, you'd be extremely limited in
your choices of restaurants and the few things
you could eat there. The individual ones,
per the above, are not going to have the detailed
ingredient lists. And the chains, like KFC will
have them, but it's very likely everything there is
going to have something in it that the fanatics
would consider a chemical.










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.

For what reason?

--
-jw

The last part is certainly not true. Atkins for example even sold
his own line of bars and shakes that had ingredient lists loaded
with things beyond the KFC list. And we've had the discussion
about those many times over the years. My opinion is that they
should not be the core of anyone's diet. You probably should
avoid them during induction. But if you want to have them
occasionally, in moderation, they make it easier for you to do
LC, etc then I think it's fine.

Another obvious chemical that most plans don't have a
problem with is artificial sweetners.

Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
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.

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.

On May 31, 5:45*pm, Dogman wrote:
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?

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, isn't going to make LC harder and
less attractive for a lot of people.




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. This from the guy that says:

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.

What would you like to add to your list of junk science
and lunacy today?

On May 31, 5:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
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.

I gave you the link to summaries from the two studies. There
are news stories covering the studies all over the internet
The studies themselves are available at the New England
Journal of Medicine. Anything else I can help you with,
let me know?




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.

You only came up with that modified weasle position after
your intial silly claim that the diabetes remission was due to LC
was thoroughly smashed. Smashed by the most basic of
facts. And that is that you have ZERO evidence that the
bariatric patients are even on a LC diet, 1, 2, 5 , 10 years
after surgery, when the diabetes reversal still exists.

But it's a good example of how you come up with all kinds
of bizarre and totally unsubstantiated crap:

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

Anything new you'd like to add to the list today?

James Warren wrote:
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. How much stress they put on switching away from
processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it.

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.

I'll offer a longer answer because I like being verbose.

There is evidence but it is a more general statement so the evidence is
less direct. Also the impact of glucose on the metabolism typical dose
for typical dose is larger than the impact of (pick one out of that long
list of chemicals).

The number of sugars, fatty acids and amino acids are small. They can
be combined into chains that have effectively infinite variations but
all such fit into a finite numbers of patterns. These macronutrients
are widely studied and are the vast majority of the diet. As a result
they are the primary target of most dietary plan types. The process can
eventually converge even though it's not necessary to ever reach
agreement.

As a result we have general guidelines about grams of carb, fat and
protein. Some plans then give secondary advice about glycemic load,
good fats and bad fats, mixes of animo acids. Sure enough low carb
plans have their primary focus on the macronutrients with rules about
the carb class of macronutrients.

The number of chemicals that could be used in foods has a variety that
is effectively infinite. They come in patterns but in many cases every
single type of chemical must have its own studies. Many studies have
shown many chemicals to have long term harmful effects but we can only
guess about other chemicals.

As a result we have secondary advice that's more general. Eat quality
foods. Avoid processed foods when practical. Avoid specific known
toxins. Be conservative about those chemicals where so far there are
not enough studies of their long term effects.

In fact we also have secondary advice about those micronutrients that
are known to be beneficial. Some plans encourage supplements other
plans do not. It's a less complex topic than with other chemicals
because few of the micronutrients are toxic in higher dosages. When
discussing supplements caveats about thse ingredients are standard.

Being an Atkins fan I'll switch from most low carb plans to Atkins in
specific at this point. Dr A observed that some of his patients stalled
for no reason he could figure out. He took them off specific chemicals
like aspartame and that resolved the stalls of some of his patients. it
was enough for him to suggest being cautious about chemicals in general.
He never got to the point of the organic/locavore or macrobiotic
movements but he ended up clearly favoring gardened and farmed food over
factory food. When practical. In spite of the fact that he made money
on factory food sold in his name which he endorsed. Part of not going
to the extent of the macrobiotic folks.

The policies of Dr A aren't greatly different on this topic than the
policies of the other popular low carb plans I just know more about him
than about some of the others.

On 6/1/2012 12:34 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
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. How much stress they put on switching away from
processed foods varies plan to plan but they all do mention it.

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? 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?


I'll offer a longer answer because I like being verbose.

There is evidence but it is a more general statement so the evidence is
less direct. Also the impact of glucose on the metabolism typical dose
for typical dose is larger than the impact of (pick one out of that long
list of chemicals).

The number of sugars, fatty acids and amino acids are small. They can
be combined into chains that have effectively infinite variations but
all such fit into a finite numbers of patterns. These macronutrients
are widely studied and are the vast majority of the diet. As a result
they are the primary target of most dietary plan types. The process can
eventually converge even though it's not necessary to ever reach
agreement.

As a result we have general guidelines about grams of carb, fat and
protein. Some plans then give secondary advice about glycemic load,
good fats and bad fats, mixes of animo acids. Sure enough low carb
plans have their primary focus on the macronutrients with rules about
the carb class of macronutrients.

The number of chemicals that could be used in foods has a variety that
is effectively infinite. They come in patterns but in many cases every
single type of chemical must have its own studies. Many studies have
shown many chemicals to have long term harmful effects but we can only
guess about other chemicals.

As a result we have secondary advice that's more general. Eat quality
foods. Avoid processed foods when practical. Avoid specific known
toxins. Be conservative about those chemicals where so far there are
not enough studies of their long term effects.

Being conservative is probably reasonable in the absence of specific
knowledge but fanatical avoidance is not reasonable.


In fact we also have secondary advice about those micronutrients that
are known to be beneficial. Some plans encourage supplements other
plans do not. It's a less complex topic than with other chemicals
because few of the micronutrients are toxic in higher dosages. When
discussing supplements caveats about thse ingredients are standard.

Being an Atkins fan I'll switch from most low carb plans to Atkins in
specific at this point. Dr A observed that some of his patients stalled
for no reason he could figure out. He took them off specific chemicals
like aspartame and that resolved the stalls of some of his patients. it
was enough for him to suggest being cautious about chemicals in general.
He never got to the point of the organic/locavore or macrobiotic
movements but he ended up clearly favoring gardened and farmed food over
factory food. When practical. In spite of the fact that he made money
on factory food sold in his name which he endorsed. Part of not going
to the extent of the macrobiotic folks.

The policies of Dr A aren't greatly different on this topic than the
policies of the other popular low carb plans I just know more about him
than about some of the others.

I just avoid carbs. I don't follow any plan other than that. Is there a
reason why I should follow a plan?