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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
weird pro-carb scare ad
While watching the news early this morning, I caught this weird 'public
service announcement'. Woman driving in a car, ominous voice over starts out "In the headlong rush to lose weight..." and goes on to tell us of the health risks of cutting out "essential carbohydrates": high blood pressure, heart disease, and (pause for effect...) cancer. I caught the Web site, it's the Partnership for Essential Nutrition: http://www.essentialnutrition.org/ I remember seeing something about this outfit earlier in the summer. There is some big money behind it and it was founded by Shape Up America. As usual, it creates a strawman diet in which people are "eating unlimited amounts of meat and fat". From http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php "The United States is in the midst of a skyrocketing obesity epidemic. Today, more than 60 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and many are investing in diet books, such as those promising rapid weight loss in a matter of weeks by greatly restricting the intake of carbohydrates while eating unlimited amounts of meat and fat." But, wait! That's not all! They can have it both ways, because "... the prime reason that low-carbohydrate diets work at all is that people on these plans consume fewer calories than the body needs, which is the same principle used by every other diet." All this while eating those unlimited amounts of meat and fat. Pretty good trick! There's a lot of "according to scientists" and "according to doctors and nutritionists" and "numerous studies have shown" (all unspecified) strewn throughout, something that always makes me suspicious. One thing they do have right, though -- their survey showed that the average American is woefully uninformed about what carbohydrates are and which foods contain them. On a side note, in this context I find it interesting that my maintenance level will probably be around 90-100g of carbs a day (a mere 25% reduction in the recommended 130g per day). Dan 325/199/180 Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution) Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel Hoffmeister wrote:
[...] I found this statement (from http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php) interesting: "An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.6 Because so few dieters following the Atkins plan were found in the registry, the researchers concluded that very low-carbohydrate diets do not offer a weight loss advantage over the long term (because only dieters with long term weight loss are admitted into the Registry in the first place). " I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Also, 24% calories from carbs might be considered a low-carb by those in maintainence since the standard recommendations are typically over 50%. The nonsense will never cease. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Daniel Hoffmeister wrote:
[...] I found this statement (from http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php) interesting: "An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.6 Because so few dieters following the Atkins plan were found in the registry, the researchers concluded that very low-carbohydrate diets do not offer a weight loss advantage over the long term (because only dieters with long term weight loss are admitted into the Registry in the first place). " I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Also, 24% calories from carbs might be considered a low-carb by those in maintainence since the standard recommendations are typically over 50%. The nonsense will never cease. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Zoul" wrote I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Here's one right here!!! -- ClabberHead 5.0 (aka Iron Chef Atkins) 248.5/189.5/185.0 Livin' La Vida Low-Carb since 5/1/03 Al-Team #"e" to 27 decimal places (2.71828182845904523536028747...) MSTie # 93058 "Think about how stupid the average person is, then remember half of them are stupider than that!" - George Carlin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Daniel Hoffmeister wrote: [...] I found this statement (from http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php) interesting: "An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.6 Because so few dieters following the Atkins plan were found in the registry, the researchers concluded that very low-carbohydrate diets do not offer a weight loss advantage over the long term (because only dieters with long term weight loss are admitted into the Registry in the first place). " I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Also, 24% calories from carbs might be considered a low-carb by those in maintainence since the standard recommendations are typically over 50%. The nonsense will never cease. I've only been low-carbing since April, and I've only lost 26 pounds so far. I'll get back with ya next April |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Daniel Hoffmeister wrote: [...] I found this statement (from http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php) interesting: "An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.6 Because so few dieters following the Atkins plan were found in the registry, the researchers concluded that very low-carbohydrate diets do not offer a weight loss advantage over the long term (because only dieters with long term weight loss are admitted into the Registry in the first place). " I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. Also, 24% calories from carbs might be considered a low-carb by those in maintainence since the standard recommendations are typically over 50%. The nonsense will never cease. I've only been low-carbing since April, and I've only lost 26 pounds so far. I'll get back with ya next April |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Daniel Hoffmeister wrote: [...] I found this statement (from http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php) interesting: "An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.6 Because so few dieters following the Atkins plan were found in the registry, the researchers concluded that very low-carbohydrate diets do not offer a weight loss advantage over the long term (because only dieters with long term weight loss are admitted into the Registry in the first place). " I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. I lost 30lbs on Atkins and kept it off for 3 years, then gained weight during my 2 pregnancies. i've already lost 22lbs of it and have only been back on LC since July! Also, 24% calories from carbs might be considered a low-carb by those in maintainence since the standard recommendations are typically over 50%. The nonsense will never cease. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Roger Zoul" wrote in message ... Daniel Hoffmeister wrote: [...] I found this statement (from http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php) interesting: "An analysis of the diets of 2,681 people who are listed in the National Weight Control Registry found that fewer than 1 percent who had maintained at least a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more followed a diet with less than 24 percent of the daily calories from carbohydrates.6 Because so few dieters following the Atkins plan were found in the registry, the researchers concluded that very low-carbohydrate diets do not offer a weight loss advantage over the long term (because only dieters with long term weight loss are admitted into the Registry in the first place). " I'd be willing to bet money that one could find more than 27 people right here in this newsgroup who have maintained a 30-pound weight loss for a year or more. I lost 30lbs on Atkins and kept it off for 3 years, then gained weight during my 2 pregnancies. i've already lost 22lbs of it and have only been back on LC since July! Also, 24% calories from carbs might be considered a low-carb by those in maintainence since the standard recommendations are typically over 50%. The nonsense will never cease. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Hoffmeister" wrote in message ... While watching the news early this morning, I caught this weird 'public service announcement'. Woman driving in a car, ominous voice over starts out "In the headlong rush to lose weight..." and goes on to tell us of the health risks of cutting out "essential carbohydrates": high blood pressure, heart disease, and (pause for effect...) cancer. I caught the Web site, it's the Partnership for Essential Nutrition: http://www.essentialnutrition.org/ I remember seeing something about this outfit earlier in the summer. There is some big money behind it and it was founded by Shape Up America. As usual, it creates a strawman diet in which people are "eating unlimited amounts of meat and fat". Typical drivel from those that don't take time to research that which they talk about. Makes everything they say suspect. From http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php "The United States is in the midst of a skyrocketing obesity epidemic. Today, more than 60 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and many are investing in diet books, such as those promising rapid weight loss in a matter of weeks by greatly restricting the intake of carbohydrates while eating unlimited amounts of meat and fat." See above comment.... But, wait! That's not all! They can have it both ways, because "... the prime reason that low-carbohydrate diets work at all is that people on these plans consume fewer calories than the body needs, which is the same principle used by every other diet." All this while eating those unlimited amounts of meat and fat. Pretty good trick! Flawed research and knowledge.... There's a lot of "according to scientists" and "according to doctors and nutritionists" and "numerous studies have shown" (all unspecified) strewn throughout, something that always makes me suspicious. The fits right in with "as everyone knows", "it's common knowledge", "it's obvious". Through out some generalities that can not be pinned down to make a point when you have no real info. One thing they do have right, though -- their survey showed that the average American is woefully uninformed about what carbohydrates are and which foods contain them. True... On a side note, in this context I find it interesting that my maintenance level will probably be around 90-100g of carbs a day (a mere 25% reduction in the recommended 130g per day). I'm just slightly lower to maintain by BG Levels with Type 2 Diabetes. They need to get educated to the idea that "Low Carb" does not mean "No Carb". BJ 232/182/182 reached goal 18months ago Ha1c 5.0 for the last 2 years |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel Hoffmeister" wrote in message ... While watching the news early this morning, I caught this weird 'public service announcement'. Woman driving in a car, ominous voice over starts out "In the headlong rush to lose weight..." and goes on to tell us of the health risks of cutting out "essential carbohydrates": high blood pressure, heart disease, and (pause for effect...) cancer. I caught the Web site, it's the Partnership for Essential Nutrition: http://www.essentialnutrition.org/ I remember seeing something about this outfit earlier in the summer. There is some big money behind it and it was founded by Shape Up America. As usual, it creates a strawman diet in which people are "eating unlimited amounts of meat and fat". Typical drivel from those that don't take time to research that which they talk about. Makes everything they say suspect. From http://www.essentialnutrition.org/lowcarb.php "The United States is in the midst of a skyrocketing obesity epidemic. Today, more than 60 percent of American adults are overweight or obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and many are investing in diet books, such as those promising rapid weight loss in a matter of weeks by greatly restricting the intake of carbohydrates while eating unlimited amounts of meat and fat." See above comment.... But, wait! That's not all! They can have it both ways, because "... the prime reason that low-carbohydrate diets work at all is that people on these plans consume fewer calories than the body needs, which is the same principle used by every other diet." All this while eating those unlimited amounts of meat and fat. Pretty good trick! Flawed research and knowledge.... There's a lot of "according to scientists" and "according to doctors and nutritionists" and "numerous studies have shown" (all unspecified) strewn throughout, something that always makes me suspicious. The fits right in with "as everyone knows", "it's common knowledge", "it's obvious". Through out some generalities that can not be pinned down to make a point when you have no real info. One thing they do have right, though -- their survey showed that the average American is woefully uninformed about what carbohydrates are and which foods contain them. True... On a side note, in this context I find it interesting that my maintenance level will probably be around 90-100g of carbs a day (a mere 25% reduction in the recommended 130g per day). I'm just slightly lower to maintain by BG Levels with Type 2 Diabetes. They need to get educated to the idea that "Low Carb" does not mean "No Carb". BJ 232/182/182 reached goal 18months ago Ha1c 5.0 for the last 2 years |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr Bernstein's Clinic (Canada) IS NOT Low Carb! | Abby Walker | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | September 5th, 2005 06:13 AM |
Latest "Net Carb" Scam? | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | June 26th, 2004 07:00 PM |
Learning How To Get Back On Track | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 31 | January 14th, 2004 07:57 PM |
news segment on low carb diets | Jenny | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | November 19th, 2003 08:20 PM |
La Tiara Taco Shells - Important Update | Damsel in dis Dress | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 23 | November 3rd, 2003 12:34 AM |