A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 29th, 2012, 07:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default 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  
Old May 29th, 2012, 08:45 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 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  
Old May 29th, 2012, 09:12 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 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  
Old May 29th, 2012, 09:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default 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  
Old May 29th, 2012, 10:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default 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  
Old May 30th, 2012, 04:41 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default 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  
Old May 30th, 2012, 04:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 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  
Old May 30th, 2012, 05:50 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default 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  
Old May 30th, 2012, 06:04 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default 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  
Old May 30th, 2012, 08:40 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frankenfoods are Winning Cubit Low Carbohydrate Diets 10 December 12th, 2007 04:49 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 08:58 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 06:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.