New Atkins Book

In article ,
Walter Bushell wrote:

In article
,
" wrote:

On Apr 28, 4:26*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Billy wrote:
*Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

In reality, it establishes nothing.

To know what gravity does, is empirical knowledge.
To claim to know how it does it, may involve a mathematical construct of
"thingies" called gravitons.
It may be nice to know the later, but doesn't affect your use of the
former.

In a recent thread Orlando Enrique Fiol questioned my double standard
objecting to highly sweetened fruit but not to grain fattened livestock.
It was a valid point that needed to be addressed. *The answer to that
comes from the arithmetic of gram counts that are common among low
carbers - When the gram count of carbs are low the sources of carb grams
are important to control. *When the gram count of fats are high the
sources of fat grams are less important. *For fats one can go all the
way from avoiding transfats and otherwise ignoring fatty acid ratios all
the way to tracking fatty acid types by gram and there's little change
in the results.

Now Trader4 questioned the statistical certainty level of my
conclusions. *Given my assertive phrasing it's a completely valid
question. *My assertive phrasing can easily be interpreted as my feeling
more certainty in my conclusions than is statistically valid. *It's an
issue with my writing style. *There's a line between assertive and
aggressive that I do not convey in person that I do convey in writing.
No matter the amount of practice I have not acheived the writing skill
to correctly qualify my statements. *Whenever I try they come across as
long legalese not as descriptions.

Why do I reach the conclusions I do? *What data have I based my
conclusions on? *What's the quality of that data? *Is there better data
on that topic available anywhere? *Is there a scientific explanation for
my stance in addition to the observed data? *Escpecially on points where
I disagree with what Dr Atkins appears to have written and on points
where people quote Dr Aktins regularly it is best to ask these questions
about my conclusions. *The quality of the data and any history I have of
changing my mind on the topic based on increased data quanity or quality
are important considerations.

There's also the issue of formal qualifications. *I'm an engineer with a
good scientific education with neither major nor degree in biochemistry
or medicine. *On the one hand I can't rely on my own authority because
the only authority I have is from a few people who have tried my
suggestions and succeeded. *On the other hand when I disagree with an
Atkins book quote and still claim to be an Atkins fan I have to be
careful in justifying my conclusions. *For me it has to be all about the
data, the quantity of the data and the quality of the data. *The data
has to follow the science and the science has to explain the data. *Here
Trader4 called me on data quality. *Data quality matters greatly. *And
yet conclusions can be made on poor quality data so long as those
conclusions are provisional and subject to change when/if better quality
data emerges.

I do think that beginners need certainty more than they need long lists
of qualifications but that's not the cause of my declarative writing
style. *Among the various side effects of my declarative writing style
that's one that's beneficial. *Not all of the side effects are
beneficial. *Plenty of folks disagree with me on a lot of points that
I've addressed any times over the years. *Eventually it comes down to an
offer to gather better data than I have and get back to me. *So far few
ever have. *

The problem is that your concept of "data" consists of anecdotal
reports from anyone posting on the internet. And I would also
strongly suspect that the data is NOT tabulated and interpreted with
an unbiased eye. In other words, you see what you want to see and
justify it in your own mind.

Regarding this whole issue of the deductibility of carbs, I'd say the
issue of accounting for the soluble carbs in the grand scheme of
things doesn't matter for two reasons. First, with most foods people
doing any reasonable version of LC, the amount of indigestible fiber
is going to be the dominant type of fiber. Second, most of the
soluble fiber is fermented in the digestive tract and turned into
short chain fatty acids, which are actually beneficial to our health.
These are not carbs. The rest is apparently eliminated undigested.

So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all
the carbs from the carb count.

Unless, of course, it doesn't work for *you*. Metabolisms vary.

And how else are yo going to find out if it doesn't work for you unless
you try it? The alternative is do the deer in the headlight routine, by
computing your safe zone/comfort every time you eat, and you still need
to allow for personal metabolism. Of course it may not be personal
metablolism, but the kindness of unknown micro-flora in your guts, i.e.
http://www.physorg.com/news189865361.html . Intrinsic metabolisms, I
presume, are much more similar, or would you like to correct this
presumption?
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html

I'm not dumb. In fact I have a 148 IQ, but I have a hard time following
all this. I can't believe how analytical you folks are? Perhaps it's a case
of the few left on this NG are into the techno babble of it all? In the
olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of
recipes, carb counts. and "whooshes". Please don't take offense. I'm just
making an observation, no insult intended.


--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com

Billy wrote:
Walter Bushell wrote:
" wrote:

So, I think from a practical standpoint it's OK to simply deduct all
the carbs from the carb count.

Unless, of course, it doesn't work for *you*. Metabolisms vary.

And how else are yo going to find out if it doesn't work for you unless
you try it?

Not that many people are organized enough to be able to figure out if
their bodies treat soluble fiber like carbs. It can be done with a
glucose meter. It can be done by telling if you have ketones in your
urine and/or breath and then adjusting your carb and fiber levels in
increments - I did that to see how my body reacted to sugar alcohols
once and it was so much work I have no interest in trying it for fiber.

But it really doesn't matter. Gram counts and calorie counts are
inaccurate but folks lose anyways. Deducting fiber means eating more
veggies and that's a good thing - It does not need to go beyond that.

JK Coney wrote:

In the
olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of
recipes, carb counts. and "whooshes".

Bring on a bunch of newbies so we can discuss beginner issues! it would
be great. The current population of regulars have mostly been at low
carbing a lot of years.

With a new book coming out maybe newbies will flow in. Hope springs
eternal.

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message
...
JK Coney wrote:

In the
olden days of Doc Atkins being alive and well, there was mostly talk of
recipes, carb counts. and "whooshes".

Bring on a bunch of newbies so we can discuss beginner issues! it would
be great. The current population of regulars have mostly been at low
carbing a lot of years.

With a new book coming out maybe newbies will flow in. Hope springs
eternal.


I agree, it would be nice, but I fear that we are the low carb
dinosaurs!


--
JK Sinrod
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com