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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 03/06/2012 8:36 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even prions. Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which is consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community. The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become infectious. That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios. Never said it. You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al. That doctors, scientists and everyone else who wears a white smock, just like the Koran says, speak the word of Allah, and should never be questioned. Never said it. Never mentioned religion. Are you equally bigotted against Muslims? Must be, otherwise why are you going there? 1. Because I wanted to. 2. It's a good analogy. What do Muslims have to do with any of this? Because the Koran is considered infallible, according to Islam; and to you, doctors, scientists, and drug companies are infallible. a·nal·o·gy 1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based Got it now? That you attended Troll School for almost 10 years, and graduated Minime Cum Laude. That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can "mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want. Never said that or anything even close, liar. You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work, too. That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies. Never said that either. You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history. That's the sign of a stupid mind. That it's a waste of time to read the list of ingredients on food packages because companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's, General Mills, ADM, Cargill, etc., would never add anything to their foods that was bad for our health. Never said that either. You've implied that people shouldn't be concerned about the list of ingredients on fast foods like KFC, supposedly because people are living longer today than in the past. That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb& Dumber," along with James Warren. That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this. Why? He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to for guidance on the issues. First AIDS victims, then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list? Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent any actual discussion. [...] "What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)? They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Yes, exactly! So, make up your mind. I just did. And for the umpteenth time. Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown to be eating a LC diet, And when will *that* study be forthcoming? It's already been done Then put up or shut up! Asshole [...] By default, I don't believe in anything that's "mysterious." I believe in The Scientific Method. Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words, not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal navel-gazing, not science. The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain anything. No, you are! They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research to figure out what is going on. Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We promise! I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures "anything." You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. Even though there is no evidence those patients are on LC. And there's no evidence they aren't! See, again, this is not how it works. The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about it. But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much. It's just too damn "mysterious." But they're still working on it! {...] But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too personally. It's almost as if you're obsessed with it. If I'm obsessed, what about you? I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings. It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing. Look it up. But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are. It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it would have no place in the discussion. I hold *you* in contempt, whether you have AIDS or not. Period. Not that you'd know the difference. I do know the difference. Put up or shut up! And the fact that you've dragged Muslims and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it. It's been obvious to me for some time. By now it should be obvious to everyone. You're a bigot. Yes! I hate stupid assholes! For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever said anything like those words. Dogman in his own words: "What's so "mysterious" about them? "They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets." "There's nothing "mysterious" about it." "And there's nothing "mysterious" about it." Me: "In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain the long term reversal of diabetes. Dogman: "Low-carb explains it." When can I expect that check? As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't! Wow, there's a surprise. It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said. But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never "get it." THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK! Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC? That was a simple declarative sentence. I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more difficult that, so... LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY DOES! Even if that's true, It is. it does not show how gastric surgery patients who are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes. Nor are there any studies to prove it. Also, from the diabetics here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not happen with days. It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet. But carb restriction, especially when coupled with calorie restriction, can. Will it do that for everyone? Probably not. There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't even be explained!), Just another attempt at redirection. The issue was never that LC was mysterious. My point is, why do you beleieve so strongly in something you call "mysterious" when you have something that's not mysterious at all to believe in? I don't believe in something mysterious. Yes you do. You believe in the mysterious effects of gastric bypass surgery, even though no one can explain it. You've probably said it a dozen times by now. See: Ockham's Razor. and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said, that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with any of that. No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. And you can't show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should not try LC or any other diet first. I'm all in favor of that. Then why are you arguing with Doug and I??? I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche? Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him whether you know it or not. Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a troll. Have you seen a single person here agree with your AIDS lunacy? Frankly, I've never seen anyone disagree with it, either. That's a lie. James Warren disagreed with your AIDS denialist nonsense. James doubts it (but then he doubts everything!), but he doesn't know anything about it. I know that strong links have been established between HIV and AIDS. Also, when I compare the arguments and data produced by you and Trader, I conclude that Trader has the much better of it. I try to be objective. You last couple of posts consists of very strained attempts to create straw men to attack. They were rather pathetic really. So did Doug. Doug appears to be smart enough to hedge his bet, by saying he would try to avoid the risk factors noted by Duesberg. Asshole. -- -jw |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 3, 7:36*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even prions. Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which is consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community. The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become infectious. That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios. Never said it. You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al. Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of one editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's side of the story, the drug company's side, etc. And based on how I see you cobble together anything and try to twist it into "fact", I'm now highly suspicous of anything you post. And I've said that overall I think drug companies and the scientific and medical community have done a very good job. Sure, they have gotten some things wrong. They aren't perfect. But I don't condemn them all, but then turn around and very selectively cherry-pick among them to support your own preconceived theories. You don't like the white coats and drug companies? Next time you need an operation or life saving drug, call a hippie. That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can "mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want. Never said that or anything even close, liar. You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work, too. One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing it. YOU immediately claimed that there is nothing mysterious, that it is caused by LC, end of story. Only problem is the reversal is seen at 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when there is no reason to believe that most or any of these patients are even on LC. Most have lost a lot of weight, but remain overweight or mildly obese. Yet the diabetes is gone. Now it would indeed be a LC miracle if that is what's completely reversed the diabetes, when the patients are not even on LC. An yes, I showed you a study that shows bariatric surgery has a very high success rate in keeping weight off, while trying diets on these patients does not. Almost everyone I've ever encountered in this group over the years acknowledges that the long term success rate of getting people to keep weight off through diet is poor. I'm not saying bariatric surgery does not have serious risks and side effects or that it should not be a last resort. That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies. Never said that either. You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history. That's the sign of a stupid mind. I look at the available evidence and it's credibility. And in the case of much of what you believe in, eg that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS, the evidence that you are wrong is overwhelming. You want to talk about who has a basic understanding of the facts? You claimed a few posts ago that heterosexuals are an insignificant component of AIDS in the USA. The actual data shows that they now account for one third of all new diagnosis and 17% of the total cases to date. Now, how could you fairly evaluate Duesburg, Montagnier, or anyone else's theories if you're ignorant of one of the most basic facts about the disease? That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb & Dumber," along with James Warren. That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC. Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this. Why? *He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to for guidance on the issues. First AIDS victims, then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. * Who else is on your hate list? Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent any actual discussion. Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this. MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion. But it does help show how easily you go off track. Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words, not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal navel-gazing, not science. The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain anything. No, you are! One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious effects. James just pointed them out. At which point, YOU, shooting off without the facts, quickly proclaimed there was no mystery because the effects are just due to LC. YOU did the explaining, not us. Capiche? Only problem is there is no evidence the patients are on LC at 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when the diabetes is still gone. Capiche? How many more times do you need to get demolished like this? They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research to figure out what is going on. Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! *We promise! You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds? And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's going on is a joke. The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about it. Show us the one where it works on people who aren't even on it, ie the bariatric patients at 1, 2, 10 years. THAT is the issue, not this cannard. But for gastric bypass surgery? *Not so much. A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have a very high rate of diabetes reversal. Initially you did not argue that. You just told us it had to be due to LC. Now you want to further discredit yourself by denying the effect? It's just too damn "mysterious." But they're still working on it! {...] But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it. If I'm obsessed, what about you? I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings. It's a "cause and effect" *("causality") thing. Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS. When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you are in evaluating things. Look it up. And the fact that you've dragged Muslims and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it. Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect.... For example, you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever said anything like those words. Dogman in his own words: "What's so "mysterious" about them? "They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. " "There's nothing "mysterious" about it. " "And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. " Me: "In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain the long term reversal of diabetes. Dogman: "Low-carb explains it. " When can I expect that check? As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't! Wow, there's a surprise. It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said. But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never "get it." THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK! Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC? That was a simple declarative sentence. Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery" was not about LC diets. Geez... I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more difficult that, so... LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS SURGERY DOES! Even if that's true, It is. it does not show how gastric surgery patients who are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes. Nor are there any studies to prove it. Also, from the diabetics here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not happen with days. It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet. There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this newsgroup. Yet you go off on the ADA diet. Are you just incapable of following a discussion? The diabetics here that I'm talking about are the ones on LC. I've seen them report being able to take less medication or go off medication all together. But I believe that in the cases I recall that did not happen within days. It happened over a much longer period. Perhaps some of them will weigh in on this. I'm not arguing with Doug. *I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. *Capiche? Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him whether you know it or not. Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've created. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:10:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios. Never said it. You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al. Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of one editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's side of the story, the drug company's side, etc. Yes you did! But you couldn't understand them! That's why you shouldn't read scientific studies, scientific papers, PR releases, or even Marvel comic books. You're just too stupid. That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can "mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want. Never said that or anything even close, liar. You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work, too. One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing it. When they get done "researching" it, come back and let us know how it all worked out! Until that happens, I'm not believing in anything "mysterious," including "prions." That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies. Never said that either. You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history. That's the sign of a stupid mind. I look at the available evidence and it's credibility. You don't understand what The Scientific Method is, and that's what gives a theory, a hypothesis, its credibility. Not how many people agree with it, not how many awards a person has received, but if it adheres to The Scientific Method. PERIOD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc When and if you ever figure that out, then and only then will you make any progress. [...] Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent any actual discussion. Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this. MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion. But it does help show how easily you go off track. It's not "off-track," it's just that you don't understand what an analogy. a·nal·o·gy 1.a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based See how that works? No? That figures. Because you're the stupidest man I've ever encountered on Usenet. Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words, not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal navel-gazing, not science. The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain anything. No, you are! One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious effects. James just pointed them out. James couldn't point out which direction his ass was aiming, but you're the one who keeps bringing them up. And the reason you keep bringing them up is because that's all you have to explain your claim. It has to be something "mysterious," because you refuse to allow that the person's diet, or lifestyle change, may have something to do with it. No, it doesn't have to be "mysterious," it could be the diet, and/or and lifestyle changes, and these are easily explainable by SCIENCE. So that's the way I'm leaning until that "mystery" is solved. See: Ockham's Razor. They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research to figure out what is going on. Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! *We promise! You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds? Besides just being stupid? Yes! And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's going on is a joke. Yes, much of science is a joke. That's precisely my point! Very good! Now, if you'll just go back to school and get your GED... But for gastric bypass surgery? *Not so much. A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have a very high rate of diabetes reversal. Compared to what? Compared to a control group that received no treatment, were not even put on a diet, etc? BFD. It's just too damn "mysterious." But they're still working on it! {...] But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it. If I'm obsessed, what about you? I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings. It's a "cause and effect" *("causality") thing. Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS. Yes, that's one possibility. When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you are in evaluating things. Look, little man, as long as you want to keep insulting me about what I believe in, especially since what I believe in is based on The Scientific Method, and not "mysterious" crap, I'm going to keep responding in kind. And if you don't like it? Good luck with that. Look it up. And the fact that you've dragged Muslims and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it. Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect.... Not that I need your permission, but... [...] THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK! Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC? That was a simple declarative sentence. Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery" was not about LC diets. Geez... From the Latin, it means "to make clear." Which I always try to do, especially when I'm conversing with simpletons. But sometimes it doesn't work even then. Sometimes there's just no there, there. [...] Also, from the diabetics here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not happen with days. It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet. There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this newsgroup. Yet you go off on the ADA diet. Yes, because it's on the ADA diet that these people probably got diabetes in the first place. Which is essentially a HIGH-carb, low fat diet. But a LOW-carb diet can reverse diabetes in "a matter of days," and I've given you cites that prove it. I'm not arguing with Doug. *I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. *Capiche? Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him whether you know it or not. Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've created. Do you own license to Doug's name? No? I didn't think so. So I'll drag Doug's name anywhere I want, thankyouverymuch. Asshole. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Each of the popular plans has at least one point where it says to do something not obvious. That's because the author(s) of that plan spent a decade or more experimenting on how to improve past the point you'd get doing the obvious. "Reduce total carbs. You'll lose." If that were it there would be no need for the many books on the topic. Human bodies are not that simple. We are not "calories in equals calories out" mechanical engines. Pick a plan and analyze it. You'll find items that are not obvious. Try them anyways and you'll discover they work. How was it discovered that they work? By anecdotes? By controlled studies? Depending on the plan at least tabular data. Dr Atkins tried to get his tabular data published and was refused because it was not double blind. You have stated that you will accept nothing less than double blind studies. As such I suspect you will call any amount of tabluar data anecodotal. It matters which. To you. To others the quality of the data matters but the content of the data matters as well. Is there any harm in "follow the directions" where the directions are in a book that has sold millions and has been in use for over a decade? To me the biggest downside would be "It failed to work any better than the obvious". What can be known is the non-obvious parts gave results successful enough for an person to notice them and study the field long enough to become established as an expert, publish a book, and for the book to survive the culling process to become well known. Compare the results against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better. Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book. Expertise matters when it comes to results. Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one of the plans. My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped. How much motivation do you have to acheive better results? Only you can answer that. It tells how much motivation you have to try one of the well known plans complete with the parts that are not obvious. Was your success good enough that your hopes were unrealistic? That's extremely common. Are you motivated enough to start trying the non-obvious parts? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
James Warren wrote:
Compare the results against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better. Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book. Expertise matters when it comes to results. Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one of the plans. My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped. I will point out something else - Following the directions more strictly does not equal staying strictly lower in carbs or staying in the early phases. At most the directions allow that to happen. Not the same thing as following the core of the directions simply because it's allowed. Doing what's allowed is taking an optional branch of the process not following the core of the directions. Consider that nearly every plan out there has a starting phase that lasts 2 weeks sometimes 1 week then moves on to the next phase. Following the directions more strictly equals moving on to the next phase on day 15. Doing low carb more strictly equals staying low longer. Not the same thing. In this discussion I am recommending following the directions more strictly to leverage the 10+ years of effect by the author(s) of the book(s). |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 6/4/2012 12:47 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:10:05 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios. Never said it. You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al. Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of one editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's side of the story, the drug company's side, etc. Yes you did! But you couldn't understand them! That's why you shouldn't read scientific studies, scientific papers, PR releases, or even Marvel comic books. You're just too stupid. That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can "mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want. Never said that or anything even close, liar. You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work, too. One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing it. When they get done "researching" it, come back and let us know how it all worked out! Until that happens, I'm not believing in anything "mysterious," including "prions." That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies. Never said that either. You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history. That's the sign of a stupid mind. I look at the available evidence and it's credibility. You don't understand what The Scientific Method is, and that's what gives a theory, a hypothesis, its credibility. Not how many people agree with it, not how many awards a person has received, but if it adheres to The Scientific Method. PERIOD. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc When and if you ever figure that out, then and only then will you make any progress. [...] Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent any actual discussion. Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this. MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion. But it does help show how easily you go off track. It's not "off-track," it's just that you don't understand what an analogy. a·nal·o·gy 1.a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based See how that works? No? That figures. Because you're the stupidest man I've ever encountered on Usenet. Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words, not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal navel-gazing, not science. The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain anything. No, you are! One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious effects. James just pointed them out. James couldn't point out which direction his ass was aiming, but you're the one who keeps bringing them up. And the reason you keep bringing them up is because that's all you have to explain your claim. It has to be something "mysterious," because you refuse to allow that the person's diet, or lifestyle change, may have something to do with it. Well it might not be all that mysterious. They observed large changes in hormone levels post surgery presumable due to part of the stomach and duodenum being bypassed. If these changes could be made to occur without surgery then we might have a better solution to both diabetes and obesity. Also these observation might be big clues to the cause of both diabetes and obesity. It is worth having a look at. No, it doesn't have to be "mysterious," it could be the diet, and/or and lifestyle changes, and these are easily explainable by SCIENCE. LC, to my knowledge, does not produce the rapid improvement in diabetes control even before any weight is lost as does the surgery. LC also doesn't cause drastic changes in hormone levels. So that's the way I'm leaning until that "mystery" is solved. See: Ockham's Razor. How does Ockham's Razor apply? We do not have two or more competing theories from which to choose the simplest. We have observations with no theory, just hypotheses or hunches to look into. They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research to figure out what is going on. Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We promise! You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds? Besides just being stupid? Yes! And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's going on is a joke. Yes, much of science is a joke. That's precisely my point! Nutrition Science might be a joke but it is always worth while to try to understand what is going on especially when the health of many millions is in the balance. Very good! Now, if you'll just go back to school and get your GED... But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much. A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have a very high rate of diabetes reversal. Compared to what? Compared to a control group that received no treatment, were not even put on a diet, etc? BFD. True, it is an observation and not a trial but it is nevertheless a compelling observation that cries out for further exploration and testing. It's just too damn "mysterious." But they're still working on it! {...] But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too personally. It's almost as if you're obsessed with it. If I'm obsessed, what about you? I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings. It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing. Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS. Yes, that's one possibility. When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you are in evaluating things. Look, little man, as long as you want to keep insulting me about what I believe in, especially since what I believe in is based on The Scientific Method, and not "mysterious" crap, I'm going to keep responding in kind. And if you don't like it? Good luck with that. Look it up. And the fact that you've dragged Muslims and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from. I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it. Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect.... Not that I need your permission, but... [...] THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK! Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC? That was a simple declarative sentence. Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery" was not about LC diets. Geez... From the Latin, it means "to make clear." Which I always try to do, especially when I'm conversing with simpletons. But sometimes it doesn't work even then. Sometimes there's just no there, there. [...] Also, from the diabetics here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not happen with days. It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet. There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this newsgroup. Yet you go off on the ADA diet. Yes, because it's on the ADA diet that these people probably got diabetes in the first place. Which is essentially a HIGH-carb, low fat diet. But a LOW-carb diet can reverse diabetes in "a matter of days," and I've given you cites that prove it. I have not seen it. Can you post a link? I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche? Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him whether you know it or not. Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've created. Do you own license to Doug's name? No? I didn't think so. So I'll drag Doug's name anywhere I want, thankyouverymuch. Asshole. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 6/4/2012 1:16 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Each of the popular plans has at least one point where it says to do something not obvious. That's because the author(s) of that plan spent a decade or more experimenting on how to improve past the point you'd get doing the obvious. "Reduce total carbs. You'll lose." If that were it there would be no need for the many books on the topic. Human bodies are not that simple. We are not "calories in equals calories out" mechanical engines. Pick a plan and analyze it. You'll find items that are not obvious. Try them anyways and you'll discover they work. How was it discovered that they work? By anecdotes? By controlled studies? Depending on the plan at least tabular data. Dr Atkins tried to get his tabular data published and was refused because it was not double blind. You have stated that you will accept nothing less than double blind studies. As such I suspect you will call any amount of tabluar data anecodotal. A diet cannot be double blind using real food. Was the assignment to diet random? This would be a minimum requirement for a controlled trial. It matters which. To you. To others the quality of the data matters but the content of the data matters as well. Is there any harm in "follow the directions" where the directions are in a book that has sold millions and has been in use for over a decade? To me the biggest downside would be "It failed to work any better than the obvious". Nope. I posted a link to a video doing exactly that for four diets. However, assignment to diet was randomized. This would evaluate the diet as a whole. Selling millions is not a good scientific criterion for anything though. What can be known is the non-obvious parts gave results successful enough for an person to notice them and study the field long enough to become established as an expert, publish a book, and for the book to survive the culling process to become well known. What are non-obvious parts? How was success defined? What does success of a diet book have to do with anything. Many diet books have been highly successful in selling copies and making money. Surely they didn't all contain good advice, did they? Compare the results against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better. Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book. Expertise matters when it comes to results. Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one of the plans. My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped. How much motivation do you have to acheive better results? Only you can answer that. It tells how much motivation you have to try one of the well known plans complete with the parts that are not obvious. Was your success good enough that your hopes were unrealistic? That's extremely common. Are you motivated enough to start trying the non-obvious parts? It would be hard to get lower carb than I now do. I think I may have asymptoted or have entered a phase of slow decline which is inevitable eventually. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
Dogman wrote:
" wrote: I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche? ... Doug appears to be smart enough to hedge his bet, by saying he would try to avoid the risk factors noted by Duesberg. You will note that I also follow the advice of others to avoid exposure to HIV. Both sets of advice are good public health policy issues. The fact that I follow good public health policy is not the same thing as hedging my bets on the topic. I think it nearly certain that AIDS is triggered by HIV infection. I think other illnesses with AIDS symptoms are probably what is being observed. I avoid HIV infection for one of those reasons. I follow good public heath policy for a lot more reasons than the second one. Asshole. I review my kill file and ask myself if it is time to add Dogman to it. At this point I could trade him for someone else and reduce the noise. Then I check the total amount of traffic that would be left if I did that. It's close. I ask that you read your own posts and decide to not play the abuse game. Don't be a troll by reacting. It's a process that gets worse and worse over time. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On 6/4/2012 1:27 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote: Compare the results against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better. Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book. Expertise matters when it comes to results. Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one of the plans. My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped. I will point out something else - Following the directions more strictly does not equal staying strictly lower in carbs or staying in the early phases. At most the directions allow that to happen. Not the same thing as following the core of the directions simply because it's allowed. Doing what's allowed is taking an optional branch of the process not following the core of the directions. Consider that nearly every plan out there has a starting phase that lasts 2 weeks sometimes 1 week then moves on to the next phase. I don't know about allowed and not allowed. I am simply avoiding carbs. Following the directions more strictly equals moving on to the next phase on day 15. Doing low carb more strictly equals staying low longer. Not the same thing. In this discussion I am recommending following the directions more strictly to leverage the 10+ years of effect by the author(s) of the book(s). I year down, nine more to go. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frankenfoods are Winning | Cubit | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | December 12th, 2007 03:49 AM |
Sweetner Court Battle | RRzVRR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 64 | April 15th, 2007 09:20 AM |
Battle Of The Bulge: Why Losing Weight Easier Than Keeping It Off | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 10th, 2006 07:58 PM |
Article; Battle of School Cafeterias | Carol Frilegh | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2005 10:22 PM |
Personal battle inthe kitchen | Qilt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | November 19th, 2003 05:10 AM |