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
  #21  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 02:52 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 10:22 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 21:48:28 -0300, James
wrote:

[...]
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.


Then you're probably part of the problem.


I don't suppose you have any evidence for that. Are you that desperate to
find an insult that you pull stuff outta your ass?


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.


That's what *should* be done to them: they should be tarred and
feathered.

Read Duesberg's book and find out why.

[...]
Because time doesn't cure stupid.


Does anyone compare to you?


As long as I don't compare to you, I'm a happy camper.


I'd say you must be ecstatic.



--
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



--
-jw
  #22  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 03:49 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

James Warren wrote:

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.


Then you know Atkins was a cardiologist and it was his clinical
experiences with the failure of the low fat suggestions that led him to
pursue low carb. And that when he tried to publish his tabular data it
was refused because it wasn't double blind.

As you are now also insisting on double blind I'll agree with Dogman
that you are indeed a part of the problem. Statistical tabular evidence
is valid in science. Read (again) Gregor Mendell's original study on
inheritance in pea plants. I suggest this time you go for the audio
version on librivox.org.

He never did publish that data and now that he's dead it's gone. Rather
like the story of Nikoli Tesla in that particular. I think he should
have published it posthumously but he didn't and there's little evidence
that he continued gathering tabular data once he switched from trying to
publish in journals to successfully publishing in the popular press.
  #23  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 04:05 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On May 21, 1:23*pm, James Warren wrote:
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


The studies are not all small. The best example of a
large study was the LC data extracted from the Framingham
study that went on for decades. It showed among other
things that heart attack rates increased with glycemic load.
But most of those people were probably still eating a diet
a lot higher in carbs than what many of us are eating.

The part I most disagree with is that you're somehow going
to eliminate all criticism by good, large, studies. I don't see any
one, two, ten more studies settling anything, let alone eliminating
all criticism. Haven't you seen the endless studies coming out
every year on a whole host of dietary issues and their linkage to
obesity, CHD, lifespan, cancer, etc? You'll have a study or two
that suggests some strong linkage to X. About 5 or 10 years
later another study comes out that can't confirm it or refutes it.
That has been going on forever, with just a few exceptions.
The problem is that you can't rigorously control what people
eat, what medications they take, how they live, etc by putting
them in cages like rats. In the real world there are so many
variables that there is always going to be uncertainty in any
data and conclusions you extract. More studies would be
a good thing, I just doubt it will settle anything, at least for
the foreseeable future.
  #24  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 04:26 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 5/22/2012 11:49 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:

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.


Then you know Atkins was a cardiologist and it was his clinical
experiences with the failure of the low fat suggestions that led him to
pursue low carb. And that when he tried to publish his tabular data it
was refused because it wasn't double blind.


I did not come to LC through Atkins but Gary Taubes. I have not looked into
any of Atkin's work. Once something has become established then contradicting
evidence needs to be of a somewhat higher standard than that for establishing
the thing in the first place, even if the established thing became established
on dubious grounds. That is because it is assumed that contradictory studies
are more likely to contain errors than the set of confirming studies.

It is hard to see how diet can be double blind by eating normally acquired
foods. It can only be done, it seems to me, be creating special foods that
look and taste the same but have different compositions. I don't even know
if that is possible. I wonder if Atkin's work was not published for other
reasons like small sample sizes and low power or non random assignment to
groups.


As you are now also insisting on double blind I'll agree with Dogman
that you are indeed a part of the problem. Statistical tabular evidence
is valid in science. Read (again) Gregor Mendell's original study on
inheritance in pea plants. I suggest this time you go for the audio
version on librivox.org.


Double blind is not likely possible. But long duration random assignment
studies with high compliance rates can be done. These would be very
convincing.


He never did publish that data and now that he's dead it's gone. Rather
like the story of Nikoli Tesla in that particular. I think he should
have published it posthumously but he didn't and there's little evidence
that he continued gathering tabular data once he switched from trying to
publish in journals to successfully publishing in the popular press.


Enough hints were there to have justified a study even if his original
works were not published.
  #25  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 04:49 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 5/22/2012 12:05 PM, wrote:
On May 21, 1:23 pm, James wrote:
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


The studies are not all small. The best example of a
large study was the LC data extracted from the Framingham
study that went on for decades. It showed among other
things that heart attack rates increased with glycemic load.
But most of those people were probably still eating a diet
a lot higher in carbs than what many of us are eating.


Yes I agree that Framingham is very suggestive. It is only an
observational study however. Findings from such studies need to
be confirmed with controlled studies constructed to answer very
specific questions. Epidemiological studies are fine for finding
correlations but are not well suited for finding causation.


The part I most disagree with is that you're somehow going
to eliminate all criticism by good, large, studies. I don't see any
one, two, ten more studies settling anything, let alone eliminating
all criticism. Haven't you seen the endless studies coming out
every year on a whole host of dietary issues and their linkage to
obesity, CHD, lifespan, cancer, etc? You'll have a study or two
that suggests some strong linkage to X. About 5 or 10 years
later another study comes out that can't confirm it or refutes it.
That has been going on forever, with just a few exceptions.
The problem is that you can't rigorously control what people
eat, what medications they take, how they live, etc by putting
them in cages like rats. In the real world there are so many
variables that there is always going to be uncertainty in any
data and conclusions you extract. More studies would be
a good thing, I just doubt it will settle anything, at least for
the foreseeable future.


That is the problem with uncontrolled observational or epidemiological
studies. The things that are uncontrolled can lead to different results
among studies. These types of studies, while important, can only discover
correlation not causation.

The classic case that come to mind is that on Hormone Replacement Therapy
in post menopausal women. The observational studies found positive results
of lower death rates and lower cardiovascular event rates. The clinical
study had to be stopped early because HRT was found to be killing people!
The reason for the great difference was attributed to self selection in
HRT women. Those who were the most health conscious were the ones opting
for HRT. It was the other things these women were doing that protected
them from the harmful effects of HRT and concealed the true association.
  #26  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 05:57 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job...


....IN SPITE of the many frauds, fakirs, phonies, criminals,
ignoramuses, and arrogant greedy *******s who claim to practice it.

I will never understand why people automatically put doctors and
scientists on such a high pedestal. They're human beings, and all
human beings suffer from the same vices, whether they are doctors,
scientists, accountants, politicians, TV anchors, football coaches,
priests, teachers, farm workers, businessmen, or Wal-Mart clerks.

--
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
  #27  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 06:09 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:49:07 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Yes I agree that Framingham is very suggestive.


Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Prevent Heart Disease, Evidence From 101
Scientific Papers, by David Evans.

http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Sa...7703257&sr=1-1

Feel free to critique all 101 papers. You might find one to your
liking.

You've managed to convince yourself that HIV causes AIDS, that HPV
causes cervical cancer, yet you've never read even one scientific
paper that proves it, because there aren't any.

I don't exactly know what lead you to your sudden conversion to
low-carb from the Standard American Diet, etc., but I doubt it was a
controlled, randomized scientific study, or because your doctor
recommended it.

So...what was it?

--
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
  #28  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 06:22 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 5/22/2012 1:57 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job...


...IN SPITE of the many frauds, fakirs, phonies, criminals,
ignoramuses, and arrogant greedy *******s who claim to practice it.


There aren't as many as you seem to think. That is because it is
hard to get away with fraud and criminal acts. Other scientists are
constantly replicating other's work. Fraud and crimes are sooner
or later revealed and then the reputation is lost.


I will never understand why people automatically put doctors and
scientists on such a high pedestal. They're human beings, and all
human beings suffer from the same vices, whether they are doctors,
scientists, accountants, politicians, TV anchors, football coaches,
priests, teachers, farm workers, businessmen, or Wal-Mart clerks.


  #29  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 06:26 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 5/22/2012 2:09 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 12:49:07 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Yes I agree that Framingham is very suggestive.


Cholesterol and Saturated Fat Prevent Heart Disease, Evidence From 101
Scientific Papers, by David Evans.

http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-Sa...7703257&sr=1-1

Feel free to critique all 101 papers. You might find one to your
liking.

You've managed to convince yourself that HIV causes AIDS, that HPV
causes cervical cancer, yet you've never read even one scientific
paper that proves it, because there aren't any.

I don't exactly know what lead you to your sudden conversion to
low-carb from the Standard American Diet, etc., but I doubt it was a
controlled, randomized scientific study, or because your doctor
recommended it.

So...what was it?


It was a plausibility argument that made it worth a try.

This is not enough to change an entrenched regime though.

  #30  
Old May 22nd, 2012, 07:12 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On May 22, 12:57*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:14:31 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Overall science has done a pretty remarkable job...


...IN SPITE of the many frauds, fakirs, phonies, criminals,
ignoramuses, and arrogant greedy *******s who claim to practice it.


Hmm, this from the guy who thinks Duesburg is some kind
of God and authority on HIV and AIDS?




I will never understand why people automatically put doctors and
scientists on such a high pedestal. They're human beings, and all
human beings suffer from the same vices, whether they are doctors,
scientists, accountants, politicians, TV anchors, football coaches,
priests, teachers, farm workers, businessmen, or Wal-Mart clerks.

--
Dogman



I have no doubt that you will indeed never understand it.
That's OK, most of the thinking world does.
 




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 05:32 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.