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

Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 18th, 2010, 11:41 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions

On Jun 17, 5:34*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

Over the years I've provided numerous
references here right out of Atkin's books, complete with page number
that completely refute what Doug claims Atkins said. * I've asked him
to do the same, to back up what he claims, but have yet to see a
single one. * Now we know that's because Doug's musings and self
collected and tabulated "data" trump anything Atkins wrote. *And he
ends by accusing others of taking things out of context and wanting to
believe their own conclusions?


Note that Dr A never published or released any of his tabular data and
now that he's dead there's no way to how long or even if he continued to
maintain any tabular data. He did not discuss his data after journals
refused to publish it. Folks take it on faith that he had any data at
all or that his data was any better than than anecdotal tabulations I
use. *Citations from his books are therefore matters of having faith in
Dr A. They are assumptions that he's right in all cases most
especially when a favored interpretation of his words is not the only
one possible.


Actually the statements I cited from his books were never meant to
show he had data and I never claimed he had data beyond his clinical
observations dealing with thousands of patients over decades. I
posted some of his statements, complete with page numbers from his
books, only to show that many times, what YOU claimed he said was
untrue or that advice you were spewing was inconsistent with
Atkins. You on the other hand have a hard time distinguishing
between fact and opinion and never provide a reference at all.



- There is no living evidence that Dr A's data was better than
mine. *He never published or released it. *If you don't like my data or
my conclusions quoting his books is an argument by appeal to authority
where real data still aces any of it. *As usual a real study with real
data wins not a quote from his book. *My attempts have always been to
improve on people's interpretations of his statements or to build on his
work.


It gets even better. Now Doug actually thinks he's Atkins equal.
It's not that I don't like your data. It's that what you think is
data is just ruminations in your own mind. Do you really expect
anyone to believe you sit around tabulating random anecdotal internet
reports and manage to extract data from it? And even if that were
possible, you are the last person I'd expect would do it fairly or
objectively.




When I started studying low carb it was because statements in his books
do not match actual experience. *Also points in his books trigger
confusion so I tracked how made what choice of meaning and how it
worked. *His plan is so robust it usually works even without choing
the right interpretation. *Pick any one ambiguous point and tracking
posters shows that at points there's a choice that is more effective for
more people than picking the most obvious choice.


Here we go with the "tracking internet posters again." The
statements in his books match my personal experience. Please add
that to your "tracking data banks".




My tabular data is more often about obvious interpretions that are
incorrect. *Dr A used ketosis (which he really used to mean ketonuria)
as synonymous with loss which is completely false if taken literally.
Dr A also stated that adding carbs cut the loss rate which is also
completely false if taken literally.


This is new. At least now you acknowledge that Atkins stated that
adding carbs cuts the weight loss rate. Should I take you back to all
your old posts where you argued vehemently that he never stated
that?


*Taken together they can mean
something - Take it that he meant going over CCLL by more carbs and the
statements all work. *Yet folks quote his statements out of context like
that quite often. *Yes, my tabular data does trump such quotes from his
book. *For the simple reason that such quotes don't match actual results
no matter how much folks want them to be.
My tabular data does trump statements fished out of his books. *Yep. *I
make no bones about that assertion. *And there's no data available to
back up the statements in his book. *He never released any data.


And it gets even better. Now Doug is superior to Atkins. For the
record, I never quoted anything out of context. That's why I freely
provide reference numbers to the page, so people can read it for
themselves and see it in context. You on the other hand, just refer
to your own "data". As for the above new twist that he meant weight
loss only slows when adding more carbs over CCLL, that obviously makes
no sense. That's because when you go over CCLL, your weight loss
doesn't slow, by defintion it stops. Try reading the book.

I'd also wager that decades of Dr Atkins clinical observation covering
thousands of patients trumps your internet tabulations any day. But
I must say, your post this time was truly priceless.



  #3  
Old June 22nd, 2010, 07:21 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions

On Jun 21, 5:35*pm, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

That's why I freely
provide reference numbers to the page, so people can read it for
themselves and see it in context. *


So we're at a point that we originally reached in, what, 2004 or so?


No, we're way beyond that. Back then you weren't claiming yourself as
being Dr Atkins equal. And you also were not claiming that your
internet reading of people's posts here trump statements from Atkins
books based on decades of medical experience with thousands of
patients. I guess that frees you up to present just about anything
as fact now, doesn't it?



You quote the book and ignore reports that go against the book, in other
words ignore data.


And exactly what data would that be? As for ignoring reports, it was
you in this thread who didn't bother to look at the video link to the
study, but then proceeded to summarize and jump to conclusions.




*And you think that makes you right and me wrong.
It's not a situation that's changed in a lot of years and it's why I
rarely reply to your points dismissing my efforts. *I tried replying to
you a very long time ago and the result was you quoting the book and
ignoring reports that go against the book.


Yes, I've noticed you rarely reply and I think I know why. I
provide links to pages in Atkins books to refute your claims of what
you said he wrote. And you reply with zippo. You just did that in
this thread, where you claimed that Atkins stated that weight loss
slows down, but only in the context of it happening when you go over
Critical Carb Level for Losing. Now anyone, even a newbie who has
read the book, knows that's a total crock. The most obvious thing
wrong is that it's impossible by definition. You determine CCLL by
slowly adding carbs each week, having your weight loss slow, and CCLL
is the point at which weight loss stops or reverses. So anyone can
plainly see Atkins could not have meant what you claim he meant, which
is that weight loss only slows down AFTER going over CCLL. It's just
another example of you spinning and lieing. I can point you to
pages in DANDR that completely refute this nonsense. Where are your
page references?




The book has errors. *You ignore that. *I don't.


Errors don't explain your constant misquoting of Atkins as per above.



*You quote the book at
me in response. *That's cyclical. *Cyclical reasoning does not make you
right any more than it does not make me wrong.


Cyclical reasoning? Excuse me? You are wrong because what Atkins
wrote is a fact, it's there in print and what you claim he wrote is
untrue. Show us where he said that as you add carbs weight loss
slows, but only after CCLL. A simple page reference will do.



*And there's no way
you'll ever budge on the point. *Every once in a while I try to engage
you in conversation to see if that has changed. *It has not.


Seems it's not just me that says you have a fertile imagination and
invent things and present them as facts. Two other posters in this
very thread said exactly that.
  #5  
Old July 1st, 2010, 03:21 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions

On Jun 30, 11:15*am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

Yes, I've noticed you rarely reply and I think I know why.


You ignore observation. *


Funny, it was YOU who just gave a good demonstration of doing exactly
that. You ignored playing the video about the study, which was
central to this very thread before spouting off, drawing conclusions
and making comments about it.


You treat the Atkins book as an error free
Bible. *You treat your own interprations of the book as Papal bulls.


I'm always willing to discuss any errors that you claim are in the
book. The way to do that would be for YOU to cite those errors.
Just give us some page references, then we can all go read them, see
exactly what Atkins said, as opposed to what YOU claim he said, which
is frequently wrong.


That's why I rarely respond to your citations from the book.



You rarely respond to those citations because they are there in black
and white and completely contradict what you claimed Atkins said.
You make the bogus claim that I have taken things out of context, then
just slink away because you have no cites to back up your made up
crap. I provide not only the excerpts of the relevant Atkins
statements direct from the book, but also the page numbers so anyone
can go read them and see the context. You have yet to do that, which
speaks volumes about who is full of crap here.


*I also
rarely respond to folks who quote scripture as if it were error free and
they were the sole source of what it means.

I observe and study. *Lacking the funding to conduct experiments I can't
conduct all of the steps of the scientific method but I long ago learned
that scripture references aren't a part of the method.


Really? Atkins had many thousands of patients in his practice over
many decades. How many do you have Doug? Right now, I personally
don't know a single person doing Atkins. Over the decades that I have
done Atkins I also don't know a single person that did Atkins for any
length of time. A mere few tried some version of LC, but I would not
pretend to have any idea what they actually did nor did I have any
insight into the results. Nor did I see their bloodwork, track
their weight loss, etc. So, are you running a clinic? Wait, I
know. You're making "internet observations" from whomever shows up
here in this almost comatose newsgroup, makes a couple posts about
whatever and then disappears. And you claim to "tabulate" that into
"data". What a crock.


Appeal to authority all you like it still doesn't make you right when
observation shows otherwise. *And so you ignore observation.


Yeah, I'll continue to cite Atkins every time you make a post that
claims he said something that he never said. Like the bold faced lie
you made in this thread. You claimed Atkins said that adding carbs
only causes weight loss to slow when your carbs go over CCLL (critical
carb level for losing). Anyone that really knows the Atkins diet
knows that is impossible by defintion alone. CCLL is the point at
which weight loss STOPS or REVERSES, so how the hell could weight loss
just slow when you go beyond it? JUST GIVE US THE PAGE REFERENCE
FROM ATKINS THAT SAYS THAT.

And note that this has NOTHING to do with observation. It's a great
example of YOU lying again about what ATkins said.

It's also funny how you claim you just ignore my posts, yet here you
are, but you can't provide the simple page reference. It's clear
why, and that's because it doesn't exist.

Over time you've earned your reputation here. Two others in this very
thread had similar issues before I ever entered the thread. So go
ahead and continue to compare yourself to Atkins and tell us how your
"data" is equal to or better than his. We all know you're just a
blowhard.
  #7  
Old July 5th, 2010, 07:12 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions

On 1 juil, 20:56, Doug Freyburger wrote:
wrote:

I'm always willing to discuss any errors that you claim are in the
book. * The way to do that would be for YOU to cite those errors.
Just give us some page references, then we can all go read them, see
exactly what Atkins said, as opposed to what YOU claim he said, which
is frequently wrong.


You ask for a scripture quote.



I didn't ask for a scripture quote. I asked for a simple reference
to where Atkins stated that weight loss only slows after you exceed
the CCLL level (critical carb level for losing), which is what YOU
claimed he said. Of course, since you can't provide it, this
nonsense is the best you can do.



*May as well supply some advice from
Odin.

Havamal 22.
A miserable man,
and ill-conditioned,
sneers at every thing;
one thing he knows not,
which he ought to know,
that he is not free from faults.

If you're incapable of the observation that any book about any science
has errors then what's the point of discussing them with you. *You
continue to insist that the Atkins books are error free. *If they were
they would not have changed edition to edition.


It is not and has never been about Atkins books being error free.
It's about you being incapable of seperating facts from personal
opinion, conjecture, and flat out lying.




Paying attention to what actually happens it's not difficult to find
errors in statements in the book. *You deny that every time I point it
out. *Of course you'll see how my quote applies to me without seeing how
it applies to you.


It's not about any errors in any book. If it were, you would provide
the page with the error so everyone could go read it and then discuss
it. It's about you once again just making things up and getting
caught. In this case; it's the absurd claim you attributed to Atkins
in this thread. And I'm not going to just sit here and let you get
away with it. You also have a new found trait. Besides lying about
what Atkins wrote, you have the gall to compare yourself to Atkins and
claim your "data" allegedly gleemed from anonymous internet newsgroup
postings and experience are equal to or superior to his. In fact
you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego. How's that for
scripture?
  #8  
Old July 6th, 2010, 11:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions

wrote:

In fact you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego.


Over the years you've gone from pointing out the problems with my data
without any suggestions as to how to improve the data to calling me a
liar.

Over the years I've gone from acknowledging your objections to the
anecdotal nature of my data to noticing that the same objection applies
to the zero data that Dr Atkins ever published.

That says a lot about the character of the people in the discussion.

Something for anyone interested - What happens if you look at Dr Atkins'
data and apply the same approaches that trader4 has used on mine? The
result is interesting. He never published any data so make some
optimistic guesses. No, realistically make the same sort of
pessimistic guesses that trader4 has made about me.

I'll go with optimistic guesses instead. I will guess that in spite
of his never publishing any data that he did in fact keep tabular
data. His patients had the same self-selected-set problems that
postings I have used, including drop outs. His sample size was in the
range of tens of thousands maybe 100,000, leading to interesting
conclusions about the on-line sample sizes in the ones of thousands and
the statistical value of sample sizes.

Dr Atkins and I asked different questions so the exercise is limited.
He did not learn of the existence of leptin about the time his final
edition was published. I started out noticing differing interpretations
and trying to decide which option was best based on reported outcomes.
He started out wondering if low carbing was healthy. I had that answer
from him at the start. The list goes on but none of it effects the
analysis using trader4's methods.
  #10  
Old July 7th, 2010, 04:35 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions

Billy wrote:
wrote:


In fact you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego.


Doug, you are trying to be reasonable with a jerk ...


Sorry about that. He has a history of positive contributions so I had a
lot of resistance to putting him in my kill file. The move to calling
me a liar finally broke through that resistance. No more getting
frustrated that he requests citations from the holy book that say the
holy book is incorrect. No more getting frustrated that he ignores all
observation that is contrary to his own beliefs.

It's interesting to notice what would happen if the methods he applied
to me were applied to the statements of Dr Atkins. If you want to mine
my sources they are on the wayback machine for escribe and ncenter and
on google for ASLDC. If you want to mine Dr Atkins' sources they either
don't exist at all or in a vault somewhere. Have fun getting Dr A's
data. Yet if you manage to get any of his data notice that it
suffers the same problem of self selected subjects that forum posts
have. And have fun deciding whether to follow trader4's trajectory and
the accusations that would result. I suggest following a different
trajectory.

I remember folks reacting against Lyle McDonald
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ calling his claims ego matters. Like
him or not he's one of the most knowledgable experts in the world on low
carb metabolism. I definitely sympathize with Lyle and wish I had half
his expertese on the subject.
 




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
a good handbook of library ejournal list with stanford jhuuniversity!! [email protected] General Discussion 0 October 17th, 2008 02:54 AM
What makes Ernie Primeau a famous hairloss researcher? I'm not Farrel you retard Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 2nd, 2006 04:50 PM
confirmation - calories are too impractical to work in the real world [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 23 March 4th, 2006 02:07 AM
Obese workers' pay lower -- Stanford U.. Study jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 13 May 11th, 2005 02:58 PM
Researcher Links Obesity, Food Portions Wm Harmon General Discussion 3 January 3rd, 2004 04:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:08 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.