About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On 04/05/2012 11:41 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:26:28 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[....]
Another old saying for you: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

That makes no sense. Perfection is the goal that ensure that what we
get is as good as it can be.

Here's where it makes sense: While you're waiting around for the
perfect, you could die, where if you'd settled for the good, you might
be alive at the ripe old age of 100.

I am not waiting. I decided. I think the information I used to make my
decision could have been better. I can't see why you argue against having
better information.


You'll find it by googling artificial sweeteners and addiction.

I see. You don't want to support your claims.

Actually, I just don't want to do your work for you.

Telling you how and where to find what you're looking for should be
more than enough, don't you think?

Nope. You're trying to place your burden of proof onto me. A link or
two is not asking too much is it?


--
Dogman

In article ,
James Warren wrote:

On 04/05/2012 11:36 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:20:49 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:52 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:47:42 -0300, James Warren
wrote:
[...]
The very worst plan you can have is to not have a plan.

Pick one.

I have. I picked LC. But my choice is based on the best available
evidence, not on the best possible evidence.

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."

That is just a slogan. Why not try to do better?



--
Dogman

Well personally I don't have the money to do a definitive study, which
would have to be for like 50--60 years at least. Not to mention
putting half the people on a high carb diet for that long certainly
would be against my personal ethics.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

On 04/05/2012 11:51 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:33:39 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.

Sigh.

Also, these beneficial effects might be offset by very bad
effects that I don't know about.

For example?

LC implies high fat.

Not necessarily.

Too much protean is harmful to the kidneys.

So is too much water.

Moral: Don't drink too much water.

I've been trying to tell you what I think you should do for quite some
time now.

What have you told me besides google. How can google supply data from studies
that have not yet been done?

They have been done. But what I've been trying to tell you is, stop
waiting for the perfect and go with the good.

They have been done but they leave many questions unanswered.


There comes a point where you have to go with what makes the most
sense to YOU. Period.

I agree. But better information almost always leads to better more
informed decisions.

Sigh.

What specifically do you disagree with? Surely you're not against having
better information or more informed decisions? How about simply having
confirmation of your beliefs?

James, "what we've got here is failure to communicate."

I agree.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

I give up.

--
Dogman

On 04/05/2012 11:53 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:37:49 -0300, James Warren
wrote:


That's my point, James. It was wrong! Mistakes were made, etc.
Mainstream medicine was "defied," and you should be thankful that it
was.

It wasn't defied. It was amended and corrected. It happens all the time
in science.

To be amended or corrected, it first must be defied.

Defied is a strange way to describe it. It usually happens by discovering
something new that negates what was previously thought. It's not like
storming the ramparts and overthrowing the old masters.


Don't I recall Mercola pushing a radical low fat vegan diet plan for a
lot of years? He's since come partially over the the light side of the
force but he sure took his time of it..

Dean Ornish pushed, and still pushes, such a diet.

Yes, and he may have had a hand in the death of Steve Jobs.

How is one to know. Jobs died from cancer.

A cancer that should have given him many years to live, but Ornish put
him on a HIGH CARB (basically a vegan diet) diet. Recent studies have
shown that LOW CARB/HIGH PROTEIN diets can slow the progression of
cancer.

Oh I'd like to see the evidence for that!

Google it.

Just show me. It is your claim.


Ornish may have just added fuel to the fire, expediting Jobs'
death.

If so, it was because he caused Jobs to delay necessary surgery.

That's certainly part of it.

--
Dogman

On 04/05/2012 11:56 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:44:36 -0300, James Warren
wrote:


A good theory must always be attacked, that's what real science is all
about.

It always is. And when it survives all attacks consensus results.

And that's precisely when dangerous mistakes are made, mistakes that
often cost the lives of thousands of human beings.

Holy ****. So when science forms a consensus we should throw it out.
What a revolutionary idea. So let's throw out gravity, Relativity and
Quantum Theory.


If a hypothesis can't be falsified, it's not a scientific hypothesis.
Correct.


When you hear scientists saying that there's a "consensus," it's a
clue that they aren't really scientists.

False. Scientist often are in majority agreement about their theories
exactly because they have been well tested and survived many
falsifying attempts. What else would you expect them to do in such a
case?

Base their claim on the science itself, not that they all agree, so
they must be right!

They do! The agreed upon theories are those that have passed all the tests!

There is no end to testing in the scientific method.

Possibly not. Is that bad?


They're still testing the Theory of Relativity, in case you haven't
noticed.

And well they should. Wouldn't it be a great surprise if it should ever fail
a test!


See: Galileo.

Why?

I shouldn't have to tell you that, James.

Are you trying to say that all dissenters and all those who defy
established science are Galileos? Wow! That is a fantastic claim!

--
Dogman

On 04/05/2012 11:56 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In articleaeCdna9zWeoECTnSnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews. com,
James wrote:

On 04/05/2012 11:36 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:20:49 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:52 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:47:42 -0300, James Warren
wrote:
[...]
The very worst plan you can have is to not have a plan.

Pick one.

I have. I picked LC. But my choice is based on the best available
evidence, not on the best possible evidence.

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."

That is just a slogan. Why not try to do better?



--
Dogman

Well personally I don't have the money to do a definitive study, which
would have to be for like 50--60 years at least. Not to mention
putting half the people on a high carb diet for that long certainly
would be against my personal ethics.


It would have to last that long. A good 5 year study would suffice. A lot
of people believe in the HC diet so testing it is a good idea. Studies are
done exactly because the answers are not known to everyone's satisfaction.
What you believe or what I believe on inadequate information may turn out
to be wrong.

On 04/05/2012 11:57 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:46:49 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 11:36 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:20:49 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:52 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:47:42 -0300, James Warren
wrote:
[...]
The very worst plan you can have is to not have a plan.

Pick one.

I have. I picked LC. But my choice is based on the best available
evidence, not on the best possible evidence.

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."

That is just a slogan. Why not try to do better?

Sorry, James. I'm done trying to convince you of anything.

There may not be any there, there.

If you're trying to convince me that we have the best information that
it is possible to have or that the information we have is extremely
strong, then you're right, you can't convince me. Why you seem to be
arguing that it is not worth the bother to do definitive studies is
beyond me.


--
Dogman

On 04/05/2012 11:59 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:49:58 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 11:41 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:26:28 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[....]
Another old saying for you: "The perfect is the enemy of the good."

That makes no sense. Perfection is the goal that ensure that what we
get is as good as it can be.

Here's where it makes sense: While you're waiting around for the
perfect, you could die, where if you'd settled for the good, you might
be alive at the ripe old age of 100.

I am not waiting. I decided. I think the information I used to make my
decision could have been better. I can't see why you argue against having
better information.

That's because I'm not. I'm arguing against waiting for it, ad
infinitum.

So am I. I think the study is long overdue considering how much is at stake.
If the high carb diet, low fat diet that has been pushed for 30-40 years is
really bad for the health of the country then it is about time we find out
for sure. If LC can fix some of those health problems it is high time we
find out that for sure too. These are not the only contenders. They should
all be rigorously tested. How on earth can doing this be a bad idea?


You'll find it by googling artificial sweeteners and addiction.

I see. You don't want to support your claims.

Actually, I just don't want to do your work for you.

Telling you how and where to find what you're looking for should be
more than enough, don't you think?

Nope. You're trying to place your burden of proof onto me. A link or
two is not asking too much is it?

Yes.

You are tempting me to conclude that you have no evidence or that it is too
poor to post.


--
Dogman

On 05/05/2012 12:17 AM, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2012 00:12:05 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
A cancer that should have given him many years to live, but Ornish put
him on a HIGH CARB (basically a vegan diet) diet. Recent studies have
shown that LOW CARB/HIGH PROTEIN diets can slow the progression of
cancer.

Oh I'd like to see the evidence for that!

Google it.

Just show me. It is your claim.

Nope.

I'm done, James.

Nothing personal, okay?

OK.


--
Dogman

In article ,
James Warren wrote:

On 04/05/2012 11:56 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In articleaeCdna9zWeoECTnSnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews. com,
James wrote:

On 04/05/2012 11:36 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:20:49 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:52 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:47:42 -0300, James Warren
wrote:
[...]
The very worst plan you can have is to not have a plan.

Pick one.

I have. I picked LC. But my choice is based on the best available
evidence, not on the best possible evidence.

"Perfection is the enemy of the good."

That is just a slogan. Why not try to do better?



--
Dogman

Well personally I don't have the money to do a definitive study, which
would have to be for like 50--60 years at least. Not to mention
putting half the people on a high carb diet for that long certainly
would be against my personal ethics.


It would have to last that long. A good 5 year study would suffice. A lot
of people believe in the HC diet so testing it is a good idea. Studies are
done exactly because the answers are not known to everyone's satisfaction.
What you believe or what I believe on inadequate information may turn out
to be wrong.

But in a five year study all you have are markers, weight, blood work
etcetera at five years cancer is just beginning to be detectable.

In fact, to be definitive we should do a several generation study,
because it rats there are some diets that at least in rats don't show
their total effect for several generations.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.