 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / July 2010Stanford researcher compares diets in real world conditions
http://academicearth.org/lectures/battle-of-the-diets Christopher Gardner, Stanford MedCast, January 2008. (Stanford University: Stanford University School of Medicine), http://med.stanford.edu (Accessed November 3, 2009). License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 LECTURE DESCRIPTION The case for low-carbohydrate diets is gaining weight. Christopher Gardner, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, has completed the largest and longest-ever comparison of four popular diets using real-world conditions, which he discu LECTURE DESCRIPTION The case for low-carbohydrate diets is gaining weight. Christopher Gardner, PhD, assistant professor of medicine at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, has completed the largest and longest-ever comparison of four popular diets using real-world conditions, which he discusses - the lowest-carbohydrate Atkins diet came out on top. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of four popular diets using real-world conditions, which he discusses - > the lowest-carbohydrate Atkins diet came out on top. I'm afraid you're going to have to read it to him, too many polysyllabic words.  Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'm afraid you're going to have to read it to him, too many polysyllabic > words. Thanks for the words of encouragement Billy. Despite having a 145 IQ I am learning disabled, and have lots of trouble with reading comprehension. Do you enjoy chasing the few posters we have here with your nasty and sarcastic comments, or do you think this one was funny? Do you want me to go? Please tell me the rules, but do it slowly. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > >> x-no-archive: yes > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > sarcastic comments, or do you think this one was funny? Do you want me to > go? Please tell me the rules, but do it slowly. I will, as soon as you settle down to one personality. A Mac would have read the text for you. What intelligence does you 145 IQ manifest itself in? Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > > In article <87fmfrFun...@mid.individual.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I completely dismissed this Billy when he first appeared after seeing him reply to every bit of spam and off topic post that shows up here. That told me all I needed to know. > > I'm afraid you're going to have to read it to him, too many polysyllabic > > words. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I completely dismissed this Billy when he first appeared after seeing him reply to every bit of spam and off topic post that shows up here. That told me all I needed to know. It's interesting that many of the few remaining here from the good old Atkins days, insist on being so surly. Occasionally I'll post an innocent question, and get told to google it, or knocked for asking in the first place. What happened to common courtesy, civility, and plain friendliness? They all want to fight or prove themselves right. Or perhaps I'm just too old school? Lighten up Billy, I'm not your enemy. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > It's interesting that many of the few remaining here from the good old > Atkins days, insist on being so surly. Occasionally I'll post an innocent > question, and get told to google it, or knocked for asking in the first > place. What happened to common courtesy, civility, and plain friendliness? > They all want to fight or prove themselves right. Or perhaps I'm just too > old school? Lighten up Billy, I'm not your enemy. Excuse me, but I posted a video and you said you had no time to bother listening to it. Before asking to be provided with an executive summary, did you try finding it for even a second? I did it for you despite your rudness and presumption of privilege. If someone provides information, I say THANK YOU, period, and if I want to learn more, I do my own search, only asking for assistance if that fails. There's no socially redeeming virtue in bitching even after you've been spoon fed. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Susan Sorry Susan but I missed the video link. Thanks for trying. Oh by the way thanks for the name calling and scolding and lecturing on how YOU behave compared to me. Apparently your rules weren't followed, and that gave you the right to assume I was rude and bitching. Lastly thanks for proving my point about the nasty and surly folks here. SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com > Sorry Susan but I missed the video link. Thanks for trying. Oh by the > way thanks for the name calling and scolding and lecturing on how YOU behave > compared to me. Apparently your rules weren't followed, and that gave you > the right to assume I was rude and bitching. Lastly thanks for proving my > point about the nasty and surly folks here. Hmmmm. Is that burning martyr that I smell? Well, he's smoking too much. Open the flue. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > Sorry Susan but I missed the video link. Thanks for trying. Oh by the > way thanks for the name calling and scolding and lecturing on how YOU behave > compared to me. Apparently your rules weren't followed, and that gave you > the right to assume I was rude and bitching. Lastly thanks for proving my > point about the nasty and surly folks here. Lazy *and* a whiner. Nice. Susan > It's interesting that many of the few remaining here from the good old > Atkins days, insist on being so surly. Occasionally I'll post an innocent > question, and get told to google it, or knocked for asking in the first > place. What happened to common courtesy, civility, and plain friendliness? It's not just ASDLC. Being harsher in writing than in person has been a problem for me since ong before I ever heard of low carbing. I have it worse than most but it's common across the on line world. Even though the video didn't work for me the discussion here on ASDLC and the written material pointed to were informative. Thanks to all who posted. Short summary - There was a study that divided 300 subjects across 4 diet plans. The one on Atkins did much better than the ones on any of the other plans. Atkins blew them away. My extra commentary - How they described Atkins isn't what is written in the book, but I've never heard of a study that actually did that. At least what they described is far closer to any of the other studies. Part of the fun - The way it was described the test subjects were on a plan extremely close to what is written in "Protein Power" by Drs Eades for most of the test. The study didn't say so but the real winner was the PP plan not the DANDR plan. Very cool. >> It's interesting that many of the few remaining here from the good old >> Atkins days, insist on being so surly. Occasionally I'll post an innocent [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > test. The study didn't say so but the real winner was the PP plan not > the DANDR plan. Very cool. TOO BAD you didn't actually get to the real data - the VIDEO. Your summary above is the INACCURATE SUMMARY one would expect of someone who had NOT VIEWED THE VIDEO. The study was conducted with a formal training session for each of the diets (you only got the Atkins training if you were assigned to the Atkins diet. Each participant was given the "book" for their diet as part of the training. The idea was that they wanted people to "follow the book as realistically as possible" - that is as realistically as you can expect people to actually follow instructions..... OR TO ACTUALLY VIEW THE VIDEOS, if videos are the source of information. So, the Atkins participants were given the literature and training for Atkins. What the people did with the information and training was obvious -- they didn't follow it very well. The VIDEO goes into that aspect, but you didn't see the VIDEO - so you used your fertile brain to confabulate what the VIDEO must have been to fit with the FEW COMMENTS those who saw the VIDEO made. Your fertile imagination. You don't know how they described Atkins in the study because you DID NOT WATCH THE VIDEO, and you made up, in your fertile imagination, that they failed to describe Atkins correctly. You have a lot of failings in your writing. You have those failings in your unscientific approach --- commenting in detail on something you never read or saw. You at least are consistent - year after year after year. You need to view the video to fully understand the message that the video actually conveyed. Figure out how to do that. There are multiple copies of the video floating around the net, and a real scholar could find them. >> It's not just ASDLC. Being harsher in writing than in person has been a >> problem for me since ong before I ever heard of low carbing. I have it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > TOO BAD you didn't actually get to the real data - the VIDEO. As you can see JK I'm not the only one who comes across harsher on line than in person. There's as much of that on ASDLC as there is in so many other on line groups and forums. It's not unique to me and not unique to ASDLC. It's endemic across on line environments. > What the people did with the information and training was obvious -- > they didn't follow it very well. Few ever do. My points remain - 1) As described they came closer than any other study that I can recall. 2) Even the described poor adherence to the directions still blew away the competition. 3) The fact that so many people fail to follow the directions in the book is evidence that he failed to get his message across and in spite of that it still blows away the competition. 4) Folks love to quote the book and all sorts of other sources to call me wrong. None of them have any better data for their stances than I do but they never seem to realize that. Dr A in the 1970s offered to publish his tabular data but medical journals at the time refused him. He never published any of his tabular data after that. Not having access to his data why are out of context statements by him so powerful? Because folks want to believe their own conclusions. > As you can see JK I'm not the only one who comes across harsher on line > than in person. There's as much of that on ASDLC as there is in so many > other on line groups and forums. It's not unique to me and not unique > to ASDLC. It's endemic across on line environments. So you're saying you've met Pamela in person? >> What the people did with the information and training was obvious -- >> they didn't follow it very well. You had no idea what training, if any, they had, yet you speculated as if you had a grasp of the facts. Pamela made valid points. No one is arguing about the results, so I don't know why you're restating them here. Susan >>> It's not just ASDLC. Being harsher in writing than in person has been a >>> problem for me since ong before I ever heard of low carbing. I have it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Few ever do. My points remain - Here comes the Waffle that even though he didn't see the actual video we are discussing, he did nothing wrong in inventing an interpretation nevertheless. > 1) As described they came closer than any other study that I can recall. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > book is evidence that he failed to get his message across and in spite > of that it still blows away the competition. ABSOLUTE AND UTTER BULLSHIT I don't expect better from you, doug. > 4) Folks love to quote the book and all sorts of other sources to call > me wrong. None of them have any better data for their stances than I do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > access to his data why are out of context statements by him so powerful? > Because folks want to believe their own conclusions. The above point is actually pointless, but it is a nice self pat on the back. Expect this from you, Doub. > >>> It's not just ASDLC. Being harsher in writing than in person has been a > >>> problem for me since ong before I ever heard of low carbing. I have it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > are discussing, he did nothing wrong in inventing an interpretation > nevertheless. Invent, conjure, hallucinate, what's in a word? What the hell are you talking about. The discussion is about a presentation. If JK wants to join the conversation, he needs to understand the topic being discussed. If he prefers mental masturbation, fine, but it doesn't address the subject, and you are rather strange to suggest that it does. > > 1) As described they came closer than any other study that I can recall. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ABSOLUTE AND UTTER BULLSHIT (Citation please/explain yourself, or is that beneath you?) > I don't expect better from you, doug. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The above point is actually pointless, but it is a nice self pat on the > back. Expect this from you, Doub. Jam, why do you resort to sarcasm? What was fallacious in Doug's statement? Can you explain yourself, or are you only talking to yourself? I see no logic. Either I am too simple, or there is none. Please use more than 4 words. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Arn3lF5XSUg http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/HZinn_page.html > In article <hv90cd$hs...@speranza.aioe.org>, Jim <jb...@revealed.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > If he prefers mental masturbation, fine, but it doesn't address the > subject, and you are rather strange to suggest that it does. Speaking of hallucinating and following discussions, the comments that you are replying to were addressed to Doug, not JK. Doh! > > 4) Folks love to quote the book and all sorts of other sources to call > > me wrong. None of them have any better data for their stances than I do [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > The above point is actually pointless, but it is a nice self pat on the > back. Expect this from you, Doub. It sure is priceless. Over the years I've provided numerous references here right out of Atkin's books, complete with page number that completely refute what Doug claims Atkins said. I've asked him to do the same, to back up what he claims, but have yet to see a single one. Now we know that's because Doug's musings and self collected and tabulated "data" trump anything Atkins wrote. And he ends by accusing others of taking things out of context and wanting to believe their own conclusions? > Over the years I've provided numerous > references here right out of Atkin's books, complete with page number [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > ends by accusing others of taking things out of context and wanting to > believe their own conclusions? Note that Dr A never published or released any of his tabular data and now that he's dead there's no way to how long or even if he continued to maintain any tabular data. He did not discuss his data after journals refused to publish it. Folks take it on faith that he had any data at all or that his data was any better than than anecdotal tabulations I use. Citations from his books are therefore matters of having faith in Dr A. They are assumptions that he's right in all cases most especially when a favored interpretation of his words is not the only one possible. To repeat - There is no living evidence that Dr A's data was better than mine. He never published or released it. If you don't like my data or my conclusions quoting his books is an argument by appeal to authority where real data still aces any of it. As usual a real study with real data wins not a quote from his book. My attempts have always been to improve on people's interpretations of his statements or to build on his work. When I started studying low carb it was because statements in his books do not match actual experience. Also points in his books trigger confusion so I tracked how made what choice of meaning and how it worked. His plan is so robust it usually works even without choing the right interpretation. Pick any one ambiguous point and tracking posters shows that at points there's a choice that is more effective for more people than picking the most obvious choice. My tabular data is more often about obvious interpretions that are incorrect. Dr A used ketosis (which he really used to mean ketonuria) as synonymous with loss which is completely false if taken literally. Dr A also stated that adding carbs cut the loss rate which is also completely false if taken literally. Taken together they can mean something - Take it that he meant going over CCLL by more carbs and the statements all work. Yet folks quote his statements out of context like that quite often. Yes, my tabular data does trump such quotes from his book. For the simple reason that such quotes don't match actual results no matter how much folks want them to be. My tabular data does trump statements fished out of his books. Yep. I make no bones about that assertion. And there's no data available to back up the statements in his book. He never released any data. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > especially when a favored interpretation of his words is not the only > one possible. Actually the statements I cited from his books were never meant to show he had data and I never claimed he had data beyond his clinical observations dealing with thousands of patients over decades. I posted some of his statements, complete with page numbers from his books, only to show that many times, what YOU claimed he said was untrue or that advice you were spewing was inconsistent with Atkins. You on the other hand have a hard time distinguishing between fact and opinion and never provide a reference at all. >- There is no living evidence that Dr A's data was better than > mine. He never published or released it. If you don't like my data or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > improve on people's interpretations of his statements or to build on his > work. It gets even better. Now Doug actually thinks he's Atkins equal. It's not that I don't like your data. It's that what you think is data is just ruminations in your own mind. Do you really expect anyone to believe you sit around tabulating random anecdotal internet reports and manage to extract data from it? And even if that were possible, you are the last person I'd expect would do it fairly or objectively. > When I started studying low carb it was because statements in his books > do not match actual experience. Also points in his books trigger [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > posters shows that at points there's a choice that is more effective for > more people than picking the most obvious choice. Here we go with the "tracking internet posters again." The statements in his books match my personal experience. Please add that to your "tracking data banks". > My tabular data is more often about obvious interpretions that are > incorrect. Dr A used ketosis (which he really used to mean ketonuria) > as synonymous with loss which is completely false if taken literally. > Dr A also stated that adding carbs cut the loss rate which is also > completely false if taken literally. This is new. At least now you acknowledge that Atkins stated that adding carbs cuts the weight loss rate. Should I take you back to all your old posts where you argued vehemently that he never stated that? > Taken together they can mean > something - Take it that he meant going over CCLL by more carbs and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > make no bones about that assertion. And there's no data available to > back up the statements in his book. He never released any data. And it gets even better. Now Doug is superior to Atkins. For the record, I never quoted anything out of context. That's why I freely provide reference numbers to the page, so people can read it for themselves and see it in context. You on the other hand, just refer to your own "data". As for the above new twist that he meant weight loss only slows when adding more carbs over CCLL, that obviously makes no sense. That's because when you go over CCLL, your weight loss doesn't slow, by defintion it stops. Try reading the book. I'd also wager that decades of Dr Atkins clinical observation covering thousands of patients trumps your internet tabulations any day. But I must say, your post this time was truly priceless. > That's why I freely > provide reference numbers to the page, so people can read it for > themselves and see it in context. So we're at a point that we originally reached in, what, 2004 or so? You quote the book and ignore reports that go against the book, in other words ignore data. And you think that makes you right and me wrong. It's not a situation that's changed in a lot of years and it's why I rarely reply to your points dismissing my efforts. I tried replying to you a very long time ago and the result was you quoting the book and ignoring reports that go against the book. The book has errors. You ignore that. I don't. You quote the book at me in response. That's cyclical. Cyclical reasoning does not make you right any more than it does not make me wrong. And there's no way you'll ever budge on the point. Every once in a while I try to engage you in conversation to see if that has changed. It has not. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So we're at a point that we originally reached in, what, 2004 or so? No, we're way beyond that. Back then you weren't claiming yourself as being Dr Atkins equal. And you also were not claiming that your internet reading of people's posts here trump statements from Atkins books based on decades of medical experience with thousands of patients. I guess that frees you up to present just about anything as fact now, doesn't it? > You quote the book and ignore reports that go against the book, in other > words ignore data. And exactly what data would that be? As for ignoring reports, it was you in this thread who didn't bother to look at the video link to the study, but then proceeded to summarize and jump to conclusions. > And you think that makes you right and me wrong. > It's not a situation that's changed in a lot of years and it's why I > rarely reply to your points dismissing my efforts. I tried replying to > you a very long time ago and the result was you quoting the book and > ignoring reports that go against the book. Yes, I've noticed you rarely reply and I think I know why. I provide links to pages in Atkins books to refute your claims of what you said he wrote. And you reply with zippo. You just did that in this thread, where you claimed that Atkins stated that weight loss slows down, but only in the context of it happening when you go over Critical Carb Level for Losing. Now anyone, even a newbie who has read the book, knows that's a total crock. The most obvious thing wrong is that it's impossible by definition. You determine CCLL by slowly adding carbs each week, having your weight loss slow, and CCLL is the point at which weight loss stops or reverses. So anyone can plainly see Atkins could not have meant what you claim he meant, which is that weight loss only slows down AFTER going over CCLL. It's just another example of you spinning and lieing. I can point you to pages in DANDR that completely refute this nonsense. Where are your page references? > The book has errors. You ignore that. I don't. Errors don't explain your constant misquoting of Atkins as per above. >You quote the book at > me in response. That's cyclical. Cyclical reasoning does not make you > right any more than it does not make me wrong. Cyclical reasoning? Excuse me? You are wrong because what Atkins wrote is a fact, it's there in print and what you claim he wrote is untrue. Show us where he said that as you add carbs weight loss slows, but only after CCLL. A simple page reference will do. > And there's no way > you'll ever budge on the point. Every once in a while I try to engage > you in conversation to see if that has changed. It has not. Seems it's not just me that says you have a fertile imagination and invent things and present them as facts. Two other posters in this very thread said exactly that. > Yes, I've noticed you rarely reply and I think I know why. You ignore observation. You treat the Atkins book as an error free Bible. You treat your own interprations of the book as Papal bulls. That's why I rarely respond to your citations from the book. I also rarely respond to folks who quote scripture as if it were error free and they were the sole source of what it means. I observe and study. Lacking the funding to conduct experiments I can't conduct all of the steps of the scientific method but I long ago learned that scripture references aren't a part of the method. Appeal to authority all you like it still doesn't make you right when observation shows otherwise. And so you ignore observation. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > > > Yes, I've noticed you rarely reply and I think I know why. > > You ignore observation. Funny, it was YOU who just gave a good demonstration of doing exactly that. You ignored playing the video about the study, which was central to this very thread before spouting off, drawing conclusions and making comments about it. >You treat the Atkins book as an error free > Bible. You treat your own interprations of the book as Papal bulls. I'm always willing to discuss any errors that you claim are in the book. The way to do that would be for YOU to cite those errors. Just give us some page references, then we can all go read them, see exactly what Atkins said, as opposed to what YOU claim he said, which is frequently wrong. > That's why I rarely respond to your citations from the book. You rarely respond to those citations because they are there in black and white and completely contradict what you claimed Atkins said. You make the bogus claim that I have taken things out of context, then just slink away because you have no cites to back up your made up crap. I provide not only the excerpts of the relevant Atkins statements direct from the book, but also the page numbers so anyone can go read them and see the context. You have yet to do that, which speaks volumes about who is full of crap here. > I also > rarely respond to folks who quote scripture as if it were error free and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > conduct all of the steps of the scientific method but I long ago learned > that scripture references aren't a part of the method. Really? Atkins had many thousands of patients in his practice over many decades. How many do you have Doug? Right now, I personally don't know a single person doing Atkins. Over the decades that I have done Atkins I also don't know a single person that did Atkins for any length of time. A mere few tried some version of LC, but I would not pretend to have any idea what they actually did nor did I have any insight into the results. Nor did I see their bloodwork, track their weight loss, etc. So, are you running a clinic? Wait, I know. You're making "internet observations" from whomever shows up here in this almost comatose newsgroup, makes a couple posts about whatever and then disappears. And you claim to "tabulate" that into "data". What a crock. > Appeal to authority all you like it still doesn't make you right when > observation shows otherwise. And so you ignore observation. Yeah, I'll continue to cite Atkins every time you make a post that claims he said something that he never said. Like the bold faced lie you made in this thread. You claimed Atkins said that adding carbs only causes weight loss to slow when your carbs go over CCLL (critical carb level for losing). Anyone that really knows the Atkins diet knows that is impossible by defintion alone. CCLL is the point at which weight loss STOPS or REVERSES, so how the hell could weight loss just slow when you go beyond it? JUST GIVE US THE PAGE REFERENCE FROM ATKINS THAT SAYS THAT. And note that this has NOTHING to do with observation. It's a great example of YOU lying again about what ATkins said. It's also funny how you claim you just ignore my posts, yet here you are, but you can't provide the simple page reference. It's clear why, and that's because it doesn't exist. Over time you've earned your reputation here. Two others in this very thread had similar issues before I ever entered the thread. So go ahead and continue to compare yourself to Atkins and tell us how your "data" is equal to or better than his. We all know you're just a blowhard. > I'm always willing to discuss any errors that you claim are in the > book. The way to do that would be for YOU to cite those errors. > Just give us some page references, then we can all go read them, see > exactly what Atkins said, as opposed to what YOU claim he said, which > is frequently wrong. You ask for a scripture quote. May as well supply some advice from Odin. Havamal 22. A miserable man, and ill-conditioned, sneers at every thing; one thing he knows not, which he ought to know, that he is not free from faults. If you're incapable of the observation that any book about any science has errors then what's the point of discussing them with you. You continue to insist that the Atkins books are error free. If they were they would not have changed edition to edition. Paying attention to what actually happens it's not difficult to find errors in statements in the book. You deny that every time I point it out. Of course you'll see how my quote applies to me without seeing how it applies to you. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You ask for a scripture quote. I didn't ask for a scripture quote. I asked for a simple reference to where Atkins stated that weight loss only slows after you exceed the CCLL level (critical carb level for losing), which is what YOU claimed he said. Of course, since you can't provide it, this nonsense is the best you can do. < May as well supply some advice from > Odin. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > continue to insist that the Atkins books are error free. If they were > they would not have changed edition to edition. It is not and has never been about Atkins books being error free. It's about you being incapable of seperating facts from personal opinion, conjecture, and flat out lying. > Paying attention to what actually happens it's not difficult to find > errors in statements in the book. You deny that every time I point it > out. Of course you'll see how my quote applies to me without seeing how > it applies to you. It's not about any errors in any book. If it were, you would provide the page with the error so everyone could go read it and then discuss it. It's about you once again just making things up and getting caught. In this case; it's the absurd claim you attributed to Atkins in this thread. And I'm not going to just sit here and let you get away with it. You also have a new found trait. Besides lying about what Atkins wrote, you have the gall to compare yourself to Atkins and claim your "data" allegedly gleemed from anonymous internet newsgroup postings and experience are equal to or superior to his. In fact you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego. How's that for scripture? > In fact you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego. Over the years you've gone from pointing out the problems with my data without any suggestions as to how to improve the data to calling me a liar. Over the years I've gone from acknowledging your objections to the anecdotal nature of my data to noticing that the same objection applies to the zero data that Dr Atkins ever published. That says a lot about the character of the people in the discussion. Something for anyone interested - What happens if you look at Dr Atkins' data and apply the same approaches that trader4 has used on mine? The result is interesting. He never published any data so make some optimistic guesses. No, realistically make the same sort of pessimistic guesses that trader4 has made about me. I'll go with optimistic guesses instead. I will guess that in spite of his never publishing any data that he did in fact keep tabular data. His patients had the same self-selected-set problems that postings I have used, including drop outs. His sample size was in the range of tens of thousands maybe 100,000, leading to interesting conclusions about the on-line sample sizes in the ones of thousands and the statistical value of sample sizes. Dr Atkins and I asked different questions so the exercise is limited. He did not learn of the existence of leptin about the time his final edition was published. I started out noticing differing interpretations and trying to decide which option was best based on reported outcomes. He started out wondering if low carbing was healthy. I had that answer from him at the start. The list goes on but none of it effects the analysis using trader4's methods. > > In fact you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego. Doug, you are trying to be reasonable with a jerk (the kindest adjective I could find). Remember the story of the "Tar Baby", the more you messed with it, the worse it got. Say hello, to the "Tar Baby". If you don't recognize it, it doesn't exist. Bye-bye. Quit breathing life into it. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/naomi_klein_the_real_crime_scene >> > In fact you're just a lying blowhard with an inflated ego. > > Doug, you are trying to be reasonable with a jerk ... Sorry about that. He has a history of positive contributions so I had a lot of resistance to putting him in my kill file. The move to calling me a liar finally broke through that resistance. No more getting frustrated that he requests citations from the holy book that say the holy book is incorrect. No more getting frustrated that he ignores all observation that is contrary to his own beliefs. It's interesting to notice what would happen if the methods he applied to me were applied to the statements of Dr Atkins. If you want to mine my sources they are on the wayback machine for escribe and ncenter and on google for ASLDC. If you want to mine Dr Atkins' sources they either don't exist at all or in a vault somewhere. Have fun getting Dr A's data. Yet if you manage to get any of his data notice that it suffers the same problem of self selected subjects that forum posts have. And have fun deciding whether to follow trader4's trajectory and the accusations that would result. I suggest following a different trajectory. I remember folks reacting against Lyle McDonald http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ calling his claims ego matters. Like him or not he's one of the most knowledgable experts in the world on low carb metabolism. I definitely sympathize with Lyle and wish I had half his expertese on the subject. > I remember folks reacting against Lyle McDonald > http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ calling his claims ego matters. Like > him or not he's one of the most knowledgable experts in the world on low > carb metabolism. I definitely sympathize with Lyle and wish I had half > his expertese on the subject. To the degree that's true of Lyle, Doug, the difference is that he documents tons of research with citations to back up every assertion. He doesn't rely on self referential assertions as fact. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Susan Seems a bit gratuitously harsh. Admittedly, you are both over my head with Atkins and low fat, but the search for "truth" doesn't exclude the subjective, empirical approach. One can arrive at the truth without understanding how it works. If nothing else, stating one's observations is a good place for dialogue to begin. Perhaps you know Doug better than I, but he has never seemed demagogic, indeed he is often critical of his own observations. Just sayin' Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/naomi_klein_the_real_crime_scene >> > I remember folks reacting against Lyle McDonald >> > http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ calling his claims ego matters. Like [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> To the degree that's true of Lyle, Doug, the difference is that he >> documents tons of research with citations to back up every assertion. You ignore my citations because you disagree with my methods. You follow Lyle's citations because you agree with his methods. That's not how science works. >> He doesn't rely on self referential assertions as fact. And then you accuse my observations as self referential. That does nothing to support your position. Science does not work by ignoring obvservation when it produces results not wanted. That does happen a lot in science but eventually the data wins. > Seems a bit gratuitously harsh. Admittedly, you are both over my head > with Atkins and low fat, but the search for "truth" doesn't exclude the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I, but he has never seemed demagogic, indeed he is often critical of his > own observations. Susan wants the science first and she does in fact assert that any working directions fail when not backed up by science she agrees with. The fact is the directions in the Atkins book work better than the instructions of any book before and most of the books since in spite of the fact that the scientific explanation is extremely poor in the Atkins books. I started out noticing that certain points in the Atkins book don't say to do the obvious thing. It's obvious that less is better but phase 2 is called Ongoing Weight Loss with phase 2 cruising at well above the minimum carb levels. I started out wondering if those higher levels result in better loss. Then I started observing people who asserted that less is better and watched them stall in droves. I observed many quit in disgust and I also observed many move on to find their CCLL. Sure enough the ones who increaed their carb intake came off their stalls. This taught me that Dr Atkins had to know that less isn't better and that led me to the conclusion that he was a very poor technical writer. It's not a hard conclusion to make when reading his books and actually tracking what happens. Once I had made such observations I started studying the science to try to figure out why what I had observed could be true. I eventually formulated a low carb hypothesis of my own that differs from what I read in his books in details but not in general trend. On the other hand my hypothesis differs greatly from common observation-free book-quoting assertions that are commonly made on ASDLC. Over the years my hypothesis has evolved. That's how the scientific method progresses - make observations, study the literature, formulate a hypothesis, make predictions, design and conduct experiments, refine hypothesis into theory. Lacking the funds to conduct real experiments I remain stuck in the hypothesis phase looking for studies that answer questions I wish to ask in experiments. I track experiments as they are reported in an attempt to refine my hypothesis. Compare that to Susan's method. Discard any methods not supported by science she agrees with and therefore ignore the Atkins method and any results from it. Having discarded observation of results from Atkins practice, fail to build on science to try to explain it. Susan's method does have its good parts. Follow the science and use the science to form conclusions. Susan and a lot of other posters have something in common. They pay a lot more attention to their own results than to the result sof others. Folks, any one person is only one data point in any one study and for making any one conclusion. I get a ton of flack for taking the experiences of others into account but when it comes down to it that's the reason I end up ignoring those who give me flack on the topic. Folks actually call me wrong for counting results other than my own. It's pitiful. > >> > I remember folks reacting against Lyle McDonald > >> > http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ calling his claims ego matters. Like [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > Folks actually call me wrong for counting results other than my own. > It's pitiful. Again, both you and Susan are over my head with low carb. What I do know is that you have been supportive and helpful of my inquiries into "low carb" diets. I am also indebted to Susan for more thought provoking information than I have been able to process, so far. It seems that it should be sufficient to criticize a report, without criticizing the messenger, even when it is the messenger's own observations. Signature- Billy "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini. http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/28/naomi_klein_the_real_crime_scene > You ignore my citations because you disagree with my methods. You > follow Lyle's citations because you agree with his methods. That's not > how science works. I may be wrong, but I don't recall you citing much to support most of your assertions, unless you mean that citing yourself is scientifically sound? Don't bother lecturing me about scientific thought; it's how I came to low carbing, by being open to stuff that was against my every belief and preference when I read it. How presumptuous and supremely arrogant of you. Further, I didn't say I agree with Lyle, only that his assertions were backed with assiduous research and citations. I disagreed with some of his conclusions when I read his stuff, but at least I could see how he'd come to them. >>> He doesn't rely on self referential assertions as fact. > > And then you accuse my observations as self referential. That does > nothing to support your position. Science does not work by ignoring > obvservation when it produces results not wanted. That does happen a > lot in science but eventually the data wins. Observations are a jumping off point for scientific inquiry, they are not scientific proof. They often lead us to VERY different conclusions than they initially elicit. > Susan wants the science first and she does in fact assert that any > working directions fail when not backed up by science she agrees with. No, I don't. I say that the the Atkins books suck due to lousy writing filled with self aggrandizement and no scientific citations. > The fact is the directions in the Atkins book work better than the > instructions of any book before and most of the books since in spite of > the fact that the scientific explanation is extremely poor in the Atkins > books. I NEVER said the directions don't work; that's an out and out lie. I said the book is inferior to Protein Power by the Eades. I stopped reading when I saw the rest of your total and complete lies and misrepresentations about me and my position. It's a pathetic gambit by a lying coward with no integrity. I love to find new stuff in the scientific literature to improve my health and to make sense of all the other stuff I've learned; I NEVER cherry pick to suit my beliefs, that's your bullshit game. You make up your own fact, so much so that they're more accurately called FICTs. Lying liars lie. You're a lying liar, Doug. Susan > I may be wrong, but I don't recall you citing much to support most of > your assertions, unless you mean that citing yourself is scientifically > sound? Over the years your responses to my citations have had a significant impact on the evolution of my view of how low carbing works. Disussing my observations that have the exact same problem of being a self-selected-set as Dr Atkins' patients is something I've been open about all along. > Don't bother lecturing me about scientific thought You have a blind spot in your reactions to Atkins. You don't like when it is mentioned. > Lying liars lie. You're a lying liar, Doug. Whatever. Plonk. >> I may be wrong, but I don't recall you citing much to support most of >> your assertions, unless you mean that citing yourself is scientifically [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Whatever. Plonk. More lies and misrepresentations. I often recommend and defend Atkins' diet, just not the books. I hope you told the truth about plonking me. It's kind of amusing when a man gets his panties twisted and flounces off in a huff. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Bingo! Of course Doug doesn't provide references to support his assertions beyond referring back to his own "data" collected from random internet postings. A perfect example is the bold faced lie of nonsense made in this very thread. He just claimed Atkins said that weight loss only slows down when you add carbs beyond your CCLL (critical carb level for losing). Where's the reference for that assertion that even a novice who has read the books knows is total BS? Simple to do if it were in fact true. > trad...@optonline.net wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > anecdotal nature of my data to noticing that the same objection applies > to the zero data that Dr Atkins ever published. The obvious difference is Atkins was an MD with decades of clinical experience dealing with thousands of patients that he actually monitored. Your "data" and "experience" consists of taking whatever crap someone posts anonymously on the internet. And given how you just lied about what Atkins said on a very clear point, only a fool would believe anything you say you concluded from your "data." > That says a lot about the character of the people in the discussion. It sure does. You made the specific claim in this thread that Atkins stated that weight loss only slowed down when you add carbs IF YOU GO OVER CCLL (critical carb level for losing). Yet, you can't produce a reference because it doesn't exist. Not only doesn't it exist, but even a novice who has read the books can tell you that what you claim is impossible by definition. CCLL is the level at which weight loss STOPS or REVERSES. The term was created and defined that way by Atkins, so clearly he could not have said that weight loss slows down when you go above it. This is pure BS that you once again have just made up and attributed to Atkins. It's NOT a difference in opinion. It's a flat out lie. > Something for anyone interested - What happens if you look at Dr Atkins' > data and apply the same approaches that trader4 has used on mine? The > result is interesting. He never published any data so make some > optimistic guesses. No, realistically make the same sort of > pessimistic guesses that trader4 has made about me. There you go again, comparing yourself to Dr. Atkins. But that isn't the issue. The issue is, if Atkins stated what you claim he did, then just give us the page. It's not about his data, his experience. It's about what he wrote which is there in black and white. Yet, you never provide a page reference and here you are again, caught. > I'll go with optimistic guesses instead. I will guess that in spite > of his never publishing any data that he did in fact keep tabular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > conclusions about the on-line sample sizes in the ones of thousands and > the statistical value of sample sizes. You like to make guesses. The problem is that many of those guesses then get presented as fact and you can't understand the difference. The vast majority of posters here show up, make maybe a few posts, then disappear. Most of them are not even following Atkins, many have never read a book of his, many are not doing the plan correctly, etc. No rational person would consider any "data" allegedly gleemed from this to be equal to Atkins experience with actual patients. Did these internet posters send you their blood work reports? Did they get on your office scale? Do you know what prescription drugs they were taking? How old they are? What diseases they may have? But then, that isn't the issue here. Just give us the page to back up what you claimed Atkins said. That's how you prove it, not by this distraction over comparing yourself to Atkins. > Dr Atkins and I asked different questions so the exercise is limited. > He did not learn of the existence of leptin about the time his final [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from him at the start. The list goes on but none of it effects the > analysis using trader4's methods. Your "method" is to try to lie about what Atkins said and turn it into something that fits your own concocted beliefs. If you're not then just provide the page references right here for everyone to see. I've done that many times over the years. You, never do. Yet we're supposed to believe that you are so even handed, so fair, so open minded. A true scientist who gleems and tabulates "data" from crap internet postings. What a total crock > x-no-archive: yes > > http://academicearth.org/lectures/battle-of-the-diets Way way over my attention span to read all this. Bottom line please? SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com >> x-no-archive: yes >> >> http://academicearth.org/lectures/battle-of-the-diets > > Way way over my attention span to read all this. Bottom line please? You could've googled up the author's name yourself, no? You're welcome: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/969 Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Susan Thanks, but why can't I ask a question without being advised to google it? Isn't this a forum for give and take etc etc. If everyone googled all their queries, this place would be quiet as a morgue... oh wait it already is! LOL SignatureJK Sinrod www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > their queries, this place would be quiet as a morgue... oh wait it already > is! LOL I gues we have a well identified "taker" for our give and take. >>> http://academicearth.org/lectures/battle-of-the-diets For me the video did not show, just the summary paragraph you quoted. > http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/969 "The Atkins group aimed for 20 g/d or less of carbohydrate for "induction" (usually 2-3 months) and 50 g/d or less of carbohydrate for the subsequent "ongoing weight loss" phase. " That's not what the directions say but it's a lot closer to what they say than most of the previous studies. Excellent. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Research Center, has completed the largest and longest-ever comparison > of four popular diets using real-world conditions, which he discu Thanks for the link. I had viewed this lecture over a year ago, and remember my enjoyment of the personality and character of the lecturer. I evidently hadn't remembered the content that well. Viewing it a second time leads me to take this as a more important piece of work, and thinking, that I previously considered it. > Thanks for the link. I had viewed this lecture over a year ago, and > remember my enjoyment of the personality and character of the lecturer. > > I evidently hadn't remembered the content that well. Viewing it a second > time leads me to take this as a more important piece of work, and > thinking, that I previously considered it. This one isn't even actually low carb, but check out the differences in fat loss at same weight loss levels: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/jn.108.099440v1 "At 4 mo, the PRO group had lost 22% more fat mass (FM) (–5.6 ± 0.4 kg) than the CHO group (–4.6 ± 0.3 kg) but weight loss did not differ between groups (–8.2 ± 0.5 kg vs. –7.0 ± 0.5 kg; P = 0.10). At 12 mo, the PRO group had more participants complete the study (64 vs. 45%, P < 0.05) with greater improvement in body composition; however, weight loss did not differ between groups (–10.4 ± 1.2 kg vs. –8.4 ± 0.9 kg; P = 0.18)." Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Susan And one can extrapolate that the results would have been different if the subjects were not all pre menopausal women, but in the over 50 year old cohort. Older people are more likely to be insulin resistant. SignatureAll BP's money, and all the President's men, Cannot put the Gulf of Mexico together again. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.