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

Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 21st, 2012, 06:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 21/05/2012 12:16 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:

That is a very narrow minded position. If LC works as well as it seems
to work and is safe, then the world at large needs to know about it.
The entrenched regimes needs to change. The best way to do that is to
overwhelm them with solid evidence.


Solid evidence - Go to the mall and look for fat people. If you see
more than the ancient 10% percentage of obesity that's the result of
decades of low fat pressure. This is very simple not rocket science.

The entrenched regime needs to be attacked on intellectual and
organizational levels. Endless low carb studies have been coming out
for over a decade and they are a part of the solution, but only a part.


Those studies are small and the results only suggestive. The critics can
always say "yeah, but". We need to eliminate all criticism by good, large
studies. Looking around the mall and then pointing to what they are eating
is only a plausibility argument. Such arguments need experimental verification.

--
-jw
  #12  
Old May 21st, 2012, 06:27 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 21/05/2012 1:40 PM, wrote:
On May 21, 11:16 am, Doug wrote:
James Warren wrote:

That is a very narrow minded position. If LC works as well as it seems
to work and is safe, then the world at large needs to know about it.
The entrenched regimes needs to change. The best way to do that is to
overwhelm them with solid evidence.


Solid evidence - Go to the mall and look for fat people. If you see
more than the ancient 10% percentage of obesity that's the result of
decades of low fat pressure. This is very simple not rocket science.


Look. I agree, LC appears to work. It works for
me. But to claim that because there is more obesity
today than in ancient times proves that it's from
decades of low fat pressure is just ludicrous.
First, a few decades does not equal ancient. We were
already getting fatter before the low-fat campaign. In
fact, that's part of what prompted the push to low fat.. Second, the
obesity could also be due to less exercise, something in our
environment, perhaps chemicals in use today, some infectious agent,
there are lots of possibilities.

I have no problem with more studies of LC and it's long
term effects. It's just that this being a complex problem
with many components I doubt one more study is going
to settle anything. But neither is casual observation at
the mall.


For one thing, sugar consumption has been increasing since 1900
or before. That may be related to the rising obesity rate that the low fat
movement was supposed to address. It didn't work probably because it
was the increasing carb consumption that was the actual problem, not fat.

--
-jw
  #13  
Old May 21st, 2012, 06:29 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:40:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
We were already getting fatter before the low-fat campaign.


Not really. The low-fat pressure was primarily the result of (in my
opinion, unjustified) cholesterol concerns. See: The McGovern Report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFQc2kxm9c

That is, that dietary cholesterol was in some way related to blood
cholesterol levels, which we now know is not true. It was thought that
certain fats (primarily saturated fats) caused "clogging of the
arteries," which we also know today isn't true. And that those who ate
high-fat diets died earlier than those who ate low-fat diets (we can
thank that fraudulent scumbag Ancel Keys for that), which also today
we know isn't true

Study after study has shown us that just as many people die of CHD
with low cholesterol levels as die with high cholesterol levels. Ditto
for high-fat diets and low-fat diets.

Unfortunately, many of these studies did not control for carbs,
especially refined and processed carbs (like sugar).

Other studies have shown an overall decrease in morbidity from eating
high-fat/low-carb diets. Especially from cancer.

We have more studies than we can shake a stick at.

If James wants to wait around for that one singular study that comes
along and "the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins
to heal," he's going to have a really, really, really long wait.

This is a perfect example of why the government should generally stay
out of the field of science and medicine.

--
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
  #14  
Old May 21st, 2012, 06:51 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 21/05/2012 2:29 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 09:40:02 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
We were already getting fatter before the low-fat campaign.


Not really. The low-fat pressure was primarily the result of (in my
opinion, unjustified) cholesterol concerns. See: The McGovern Report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFQc2kxm9c

That is, that dietary cholesterol was in some way related to blood
cholesterol levels, which we now know is not true. It was thought that
certain fats (primarily saturated fats) caused "clogging of the
arteries," which we also know today isn't true. And that those who ate
high-fat diets died earlier than those who ate low-fat diets (we can
thank that fraudulent scumbag Ancel Keys for that), which also today
we know isn't true

Study after study has shown us that just as many people die of CHD
with low cholesterol levels as die with high cholesterol levels. Ditto
for high-fat diets and low-fat diets.

Unfortunately, many of these studies did not control for carbs,
especially refined and processed carbs (like sugar).

Other studies have shown an overall decrease in morbidity from eating
high-fat/low-carb diets. Especially from cancer.

We have more studies than we can shake a stick at.

If James wants to wait around for that one singular study that comes
along and "the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins
to heal," he's going to have a really, really, really long wait.


Why do you say I'm waiting? It will be good studies that will sway entrenched
medicine.


This is a perfect example of why the government should generally stay
out of the field of science and medicine.



--
-jw
  #15  
Old May 21st, 2012, 07:03 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:51:51 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
If James wants to wait around for that one singular study that comes
along and "the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins
to heal," he's going to have a really, really, really long wait.


Why do you say I'm waiting?


Because you keep demanding things that aren't going to happen. You're
basically a digital recording on loop. Or a troll. Or both.

It will be good studies that will sway entrenched medicine.


Only TIME sways entrenched medicine. TIME for them to die, avoiding
embarassment, incarceration, and mega-law$uit$.

You'll figure it out one day.

Or maybe not.

--
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
  #16  
Old May 21st, 2012, 07:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 21/05/2012 3:03 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 14:51:51 -0300, James
wrote:

[...]
If James wants to wait around for that one singular study that comes
along and "the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins
to heal," he's going to have a really, really, really long wait.


Why do you say I'm waiting?


Because you keep demanding things that aren't going to happen. You're
basically a digital recording on loop. Or a troll. Or both.


Yeah, OK. I guess being a disciple to a discredited god is better than
real science.


It will be good studies that will sway entrenched medicine.


Only TIME sways entrenched medicine. TIME for them to die, avoiding
embarassment, incarceration, and mega-law$uit$.

You'll figure it out one day.

Or maybe not.


Time will tell.

--
-jw
  #17  
Old May 21st, 2012, 08:17 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:57:22 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Because you keep demanding things that aren't going to happen. You're
basically a digital recording on loop. Or a troll. Or both.


Yeah, OK. I guess being a disciple to a discredited god is better than
real science.


Actually, my little TROLL, you wouldn't know real science, or a real
scientist, if you were hit in the head with it.

And being "discredited" by idiots, fakes, frauds, liars and cheats is
a badge of honor.

It will be good studies that will sway entrenched medicine.


Only TIME sways entrenched medicine. TIME for them to die, avoiding
embarassment, incarceration, and mega-law$uit$.

You'll figure it out one day.

Or maybe not.


Time will tell.


Not in your case.

Because time doesn't cure stupid.

--
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
  #18  
Old May 21st, 2012, 08:25 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

We were already getting fatter before the low-fat campaign.


Not really. The low-fat pressure was primarily the result of (in my
opinion, unjustified) cholesterol concerns. See: The McGovern Report.


There should be graphs that compare obesisty over time from well before
the invention of refined flour and sugar against exercise (reduced as
the Industrial Revolution progressed), carb intake (increased), fat
intake and several other variables.

Obesity was at higher levels than the ancient values before the low fat
crave. It increased when the low fat craze started. Low fat pressure
overlaps with super sizing now but it did not during the first decade of
the low fat craze I suspect.

Other studies have shown an overall decrease in morbidity from eating
high-fat/low-carb diets. Especially from cancer.

We have more studies than we can shake a stick at.


Exactly.

If James wants to wait around for that one singular study that comes
along and "the rise of the oceans begin to slow and our planet begins
to heal," he's going to have a really, really, really long wait.


Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". He states that
old theories only die when their last adherents die. Low fat folks are
going to be with us a very long time.
  #19  
Old May 21st, 2012, 08:39 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Mon, 21 May 2012 19:25:11 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

[...]
Thomas Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". He states that
old theories only die when their last adherents die. Low fat folks are
going to be with us a very long time.


Indeed, and a great read!

--
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
  #20  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 01:48 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 21/05/2012 4:17 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 15:57:22 -0300, James
wrote:

[...]
Because you keep demanding things that aren't going to happen. You're
basically a digital recording on loop. Or a troll. Or both.


Yeah, OK. I guess being a disciple to a discredited god is better than
real science.


Actually, my little TROLL, you wouldn't know real science, or a real
scientist, if you were hit in the head with it.


Actually I've been working in medical science (electrocardiology) for
40 years doing programming and statistics. I know a little about
science and how it's done.


And being "discredited" by idiots, fakes, frauds, liars and cheats is
a badge of honor.


That's a lot of good scientists you're tarring here.


It will be good studies that will sway entrenched medicine.

Only TIME sways entrenched medicine. TIME for them to die, avoiding
embarassment, incarceration, and mega-law$uit$.

You'll figure it out one day.

Or maybe not.


Time will tell.


Not in your case.

Because time doesn't cure stupid.


Does anyone compare to you?

--
-jw
 




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
Eating slowly jjrb230 via WeightAdviser.com General Discussion 4 August 21st, 2006 06:30 PM
Slowly, slowly Alan Low Carbohydrate Diets 13 October 26th, 2005 02:49 PM
Shrinking slowly! sandy Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 9th, 2004 08:00 PM
Is low-carbing successful if you go slowly?? wilson Low Carbohydrate Diets 14 March 9th, 2004 01:49 AM
changing slowly Susan Jones-Anderson General Discussion 16 October 3rd, 2003 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.