About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On May 4, 5:09*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:47:52 -0300, James Warren





wrote:
On 5/4/2012 5:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:03:54 -0300, James Warren
*wrote:

[...]
Did he do that? Atkins himself didn't have a lot of evidence
did he? He had reasonable plausibility arguments but the evidence didn't
come until fairly recently.

The evidence has been there for hundreds, maybe even million of years.

The evidence was mainly of an anecdotal or correlational nature. The
randomized clinical trial is the modern gold standard in medicine.

Find me the randomized, double-blind clinical trial that proves that
statin drugs prevent heart attacks.

I could but not right now.

No, you couldn't. Take all the time you want.

[...]

I started eating low carb about a year ago. I lost 35 pounds
and dropped one of my meds since then and my BS is well controlled.
However, I am but a sample of one. I am an anecdote.

No, you are a clinical trial consisting of n=1. And it has obviously
worked for you. So it's not an anecdote.

Yes it is. A trial with n=1 has no statistical power.

It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

I would like
to see a large clinical trial to sort out exactly what the benefits
and risks to low carb eating are. There is already fairly good
evidence from small studies that the benefits outweigh any harmful
effects, but the evidence is not yet strong enough to overthrow the
entrenched establishment.

Yet you still eat a low-carb diet!

What are you, some kind of quack?

No. The evidence is strong enough to give it a try but it is not
nearly as strong as I would like to see and not nearly strong enough
to influence the medical establishment.

Only $$$$ influences the medical establishment. That's why they have
so little interest in disease PREVENTION.

The $$$$ is in TREATMENT, not prevention.

--
Dogman- Hide quoted text -


Agree with most of what you are saying. But the claim of
no interest in disease prevention just isn't true. Your own
example of statins being a good example. The drug
companies have also come up with and produce an
amazing array of vaccines.

On May 4, 10:33*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:





On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
*wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
* wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. *Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.



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. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.



I'm beginning to think you're a troll. You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC. And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. LC is NOT low fat.
Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

On 05/05/2012 6:56 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In articleaIOdndwZNdGXADnSnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews. com,
James 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.

If large enough, there will be enough deaths and morbid events in 5 years to be able
to distinguish among the diet groups if any difference exist.

On 05/05/2012 9:55 AM, wrote:
On May 4, 10:33 pm, James wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:





On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.



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. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.



I'm beginning to think you're a troll. You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC.

What? I can't be skeptical? The LC case is pretty good but it is not
rock solid. Why would you not want to make the case more solid?

And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. LC is NOT low fat.

I know. It is high fat. I responded to the "Not necessarily" comment.

Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

Why are you so defensive? Let settle it once and for all.
Let's find out if there is an ideal diet and what that
might be.

x-n0-archive: yes

On 5/4/2012 9:35 PM, James Warren wrote:

There may have been evidence from many decades before but that evidence
was of a fairly low quality by the standards of the 70s and 80s.

There is evidence extending way back.

But if you're genuinely curious, read Gary Taubes. Assiduous and
careful reviewer of the scientific evidence.

Superb science writer.

Susan

On 05/05/2012 10:32 AM, Susan wrote:
x-n0-archive: yes

On 5/4/2012 9:35 PM, James Warren wrote:

There may have been evidence from many decades before but that evidence
was of a fairly low quality by the standards of the 70s and 80s.

There is evidence extending way back.

But if you're genuinely curious, read Gary Taubes. Assiduous and careful reviewer of the scientific
evidence.

Superb science writer.

Susan

That is what got me started along this road. I did read Gary and he has
some good arguments and good data. The clinical trial though is the
modern standard of evidence. A really good trial needs to be done to
test all the competing claims just to clear the air. It can only
expand our knowledge of what may be important about the way we eat and
its health consequences. We can't lose.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 05:46:45 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Only $$$$ influences the medical establishment. That's why they have
so little interest in disease PREVENTION.

The $$$$ is in TREATMENT, not prevention.

--
Dogman- Hide quoted text -


Agree with most of what you are saying. But the claim of
no interest in disease prevention just isn't true. Your own
example of statins being a good example. The drug
companies have also come up with and produce an
amazing array of vaccines.

I include statins in the treatment category, just like I would include
almost any drug prescription, including cancer chemotherapy.

Vaccines? In my opinion, we seriously overvaccinate. I think most of
them are totally unnecessary. The flu vaccine, for example. Tetanus
vaccine, however, would be a vaccination (considering the serious risk
of death without it) I would put in the necessary category.

And don't get me started on the practice of vaccinating children as
young as 9 (both boys and girls!) with the so-called HPV vaccine
(Gardisil)!

What a sham.



--
Dogman

On May 5, 9:18*am, James Warren wrote:
On 05/05/2012 9:55 AM, wrote:





On May 4, 10:33 pm, James *wrote:
On 04/05/2012 11:20 PM, Dogman wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2012 23:03:20 -0300, James Warren
* *wrote:

On 04/05/2012 10:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2012 22:20:02 -0300, James Warren
* * wrote:

[...]
It does to YOU! And you've proved it! You've lost 35 pounds, already
dropped one of your meds (and can probably drop them all eventually),
got your BS under control -- what the hell do you want?

A good study.

You've got one. *Yours.

Not good enough. I am just an anecdote.

Then stop what you're doing and go back to eating the way you used to
eat.

It might all be due to something else I did that coincided
with the diet.

What else did you do?

I don't know.

If you don't know, who would?

Beats me.

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. There must be carbs or
fats to prevent kidney damage.

I'm beginning to think you're a troll. *You claim to have been
on LC for a year, lost 35 lbs, gone of meds, blood sugar is
now well controlled. * Yet, you appear remarkably skeptical
about LC.

What? I can't be skeptical? The LC case is pretty good but it is not
rock solid. Why would you not want to make the case more solid?

Anything that's done to research LC is fine with me. It's just
that you seem to be VERY skeptical of what you say has worked
for you. And you want some definitive study which we all
know is next to impossible and not likely to happen.



And now you've come up with the above gem,
which is the classic anti-LC lie. *LC is NOT low fat.

I know. It is high fat. I responded to the "Not necessarily" comment.

Certainly not if you're doing Atkins or a similar approach.
Nor is Atkins or any rational approach to LC, no carb.
And if there must be carbs to prevent kidney damage,
how exactly are the Inuit still alive and healthy?

What's next? *Are you gonna invite the media in to
see a refrigerator filled with just steak and bacon?

Why are you so defensive?

I just get annoyed when people start misrepresenting what
LC is about and spouting the silly nonsense that so called "experts"
put forth all the time to try to discredit LC. And sorry, but when
you say that LC doesn't have fat, imply that LC doesn't have any
carbs and start talking about kidney
damage, well I think just maybe you're a troll.



Let settle it once and for all.
Let's find out if there is an ideal diet and what that
might be.



Dogman and others have tried to explain this to you. What
exact study do you need? You can't put humans in a cage,
control what they eat, control the environment like they were
lab animals. There isn't ever going to be a definitive study
that settles anything. It's just naive to think that one study
could ever settle anything about diets. Why can't you just be
happy and supportive of what has obviously worked for you?

On May 5, 12:48*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2012 05:46:45 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Only $$$$ influences the medical establishment. That's why they have
so little interest in disease PREVENTION.

The $$$$ is in TREATMENT, not prevention.

--
Dogman- Hide quoted text -

Agree with most of what you are saying. *But the claim of
no interest in disease prevention just isn't true. * Your own
example of statins being a good example. *The drug
companies have also come up with and produce an
amazing array of vaccines.

I include statins in the treatment category, just like I would include
almost any drug prescription, including cancer chemotherapy.

Vaccines? In my opinion, we seriously overvaccinate. I think most of
them are totally unnecessary. The flu vaccine, for example. Tetanus
vaccine, however, would be a vaccination (considering the serious risk
of death without it) I would put in the necessary category.

And don't get me started on the practice of vaccinating children as
young as 9 (both boys and girls!) with the so-called HPV vaccine
(Gardisil)!

What a sham.

--
Dogman

Whether we over vaccinate or not, it's a classic example of drug
companies preventing disease. As for statins, the majority of
those on them are taking them to PREVENT heart disease,
not to treat it. It's obviously a huge disease prevention business.
Now you can argue about whether it does prevent disease all
you want. But the fact that it's a class of drugs being used to
prevent disease can't be disputed.

On Sat, 5 May 2012 11:09:55 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
I include statins in the treatment category, just like I would include
almost any drug prescription, including cancer chemotherapy.

Vaccines? In my opinion, we seriously overvaccinate. I think most of
them are totally unnecessary. The flu vaccine, for example. Tetanus
vaccine, however, would be a vaccination (considering the serious risk
of death without it) I would put in the necessary category.

And don't get me started on the practice of vaccinating children as
young as 9 (both boys and girls!) with the so-called HPV vaccine
(Gardisil)!

What a sham.

--
Dogman

Whether we over vaccinate or not, it's a classic example of drug
companies preventing disease.

I'd put it another way. For example, "It's a classic example of drug
companies ripping off the public."

As for statins, the majority of
those on them are taking them to PREVENT heart disease,
not to treat it.

I'll make you the same deal: show me one randomiszed, double-blind
trial that proves statin drugs prevent heart disease.

Do they lower cholesterol? Yes.

Do they prevent heart disease? No.

Now you can argue about whether it does prevent disease all
you want.

That's precisely what I'm arguing.

But the fact that it's a class of drugs being used to
prevent disease can't be disputed.

Again, I'd put it another way. It's a class of drugs designed to rip
off the public.

What would you say Pfizer was doing with regards to Neurontin, for
example? Preventing disease? Or ripping off the public?

http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/pfi...udies-experts/

--
Dogman