Actually, Lindsay, I never condemned your writing abilities and neither did Rosebud. We just pointed out that while you can critique the study all you like, low carb works and it works better than the current low fat dogma being proported by most dieticians out there while they at the same time condemn low carb as unhealthy. If you want to be seen as credible, you would also do well to heed Rosebud's suggestion and learn the difference between dietary ketosis and diabetic ketoacidosis as the two are distinctly different in both cause and effect and not knowing the difference simply makes you look uninformed and silly to those that do. Case in point on that issue; I've been in dietary ketosis for going on 3 years now. My brain, kidneys or any other vital organ have not ceased to function or developed any abnormalities that can be measured through standard blood tests (and believe me, my doctor orders them all!). I have a job that demands that I be able to analyze and think critically and that ability has not been impaired even though I eat no more than 30 grams of carb in any given day. If it did, I wouldn't still have my job and I've been there for 12 years. I'm also a diabetic and even with that condition, being in dietary ketosis has not harmed me because my blood sugars remain in the normal range 24/7; something the ADA diet could never do for me.
As for my opinion of dieticians, your right. It's pretty poor at this point. If you got bad advice from 3 different professionals from the same field of study, what would your assesment of them be, especially if their advice wound up making you sicker and needing medications?
BTW, most people don't get into low carbing because they were persuaded by some study. They get into it because they know someone who has been successful with it or [in increasing numbers] because their physician recommended it. Physicians aren't beginning to recommend low carb in increasing numbers because of the studies they have read, but rather because of the patients that they have who experienced positive results with it. Studies are all fine and good, but they can't trump actual results with real people who are not being monitored by researchers.



In all fairness, you never asked for constructive criticism. You asked for comments and you got them. Critiqueing a study from the point of theory is one thing, but you're talking to people here who are putting low carb principles into practice and living with the [generally very positive] results, many who have already tried every other way of eating out there without getting the results they wanted and in some cases, desperately needed. From my own personal perspective after nearly 3 years on low carb, I can tell you it's not the supplements and it's not the calorie reduction that have brought the results that I've achieved so far because A) I don't take most of the supplements that you credit with the positive changes in cardiac profile and have yet achieved the same positive results and B) I'm eating more calories on low carb than I was on the low fat ADA diet and losing better as well as more weight than I did on that plan.
You say that your goal in coming here was to learn about real life experiences that people were having with low CHO diets, but then started out by telling us, in effect, by posting your critique that that we have all been deceived by a poorly run study. That probably wasn't the best way to go about achieving that goal as those on low carb are already going against mainstream thinking and many are getting pretty sick of being told by uninformed people that their kidneys are going to explode because they've chosen not to eat pasta, rice or potatoes (yes, someone actually said that to me and the person was a professional). In other words, you're already treading on some pretty sensitive ground where toes are easily stepped on.



If this is really your plan, I have some constructive suggestions based on experience:

1) Develop a thicker skin. Not everyone who comes to see you will be thrilled with what you have to say or think you are some type of angel in disguise. If the first crotchety old man who looks you in the eye and tells you he thinks you're full of s**t and that no wet behind the ears kid is going to tell him how to eat will make you want to give up on helping people, you're in the wrong field. Public service professions are some of the most thankless, stressful, high burnout jobs there are.

2) If you don't think that's ever going to happen to you, you're in the wrong field.

3) Loose the "I've been published, therefore I know way more than you do" attitude. It will not win you friends and most of the time will not influence people to any real degree. While this may give you status in academia, the average person on the street doesn't care how many journals your name appears in.

4) If you want to know what someone's experience is with a particular application for the purpose of information gathering, don't start out by telling them that you think they're wrong or that you think they're being misled. Ask them directly and take their answers at face value. You'll be a lot more successful at getting the information you're after that way.

Lisa,

You said:
"Develop a thicker skin. Not everyone who comes to see you will be thrilled with what you have to say or think you are some type of angel in disguise."

>Why do you think I've chosen to interact with the people in this forum, anyway?! It was for this reason exactly. As far as the "Holier than thou" attitude you suggested I have attitude; I don't have one, but some of the moderators of this forum certainly do.

You said:
"Public service professions are some of the most thankless, stressful, high burnout jobs there are."

>Tell me something I don't know. I've invested over 300 hours of volunteer services at local middle schools. At the middle school I coach at, I single-handedly reformed the school lunch program at my school and got rid of the vendors that we contracted with who provided vending machines full of candy, chips, and soda. I did this without pay and without thanks, and never looked back because I was not motivated by recognition. It was worthwhile because the kids are better off now, and I know I was apart of that. I almost quit when I realized that I cared more than the parents of the kids did, but I stuck with it and made it happen, despite being burned by parents, administrators, and even the kids at my school who don't yet understand why it's not okay to drink 3 sodas a day and have M&M's for lunch. I share this with you this to demonstrate that I well aware of what field I'm getting myself into, and am completley disarmed of any ego you've implied I have.
Having said all this, I'll probably be accused of being a self-righteous egotistical jerk in humanitarian's clothing, knowing the typical reply I get here.

You said:
"If you want to know what someone's experience is with a particular application for the purpose of information gathering, don't start out by telling them that you think they're wrong or that you think they're being misled."

>I didn't say either of those things; you put words in my mouth. I never said you were wrong or mislead, I said the study I critiqued was misleading. Two VERY different things. I admit that I did not approach the this forum in the most appropriate manner for the information I was seeking, and I aplogize for any misunderstandings.
However Lisa, for you to adress my feelings regarding the way in which people have ridiculed my attempt at sharing information with a "suck it up" type comment is NOT an appropriate way to respond, either. At least I can admit where I was wrong.

You said to lose the "I've been published, therefore I know way more than you do" attitude.
>This was my answer to the person that told me that I'm incapable of writing a research critique; it served no other purpose.
Oddly, I am unable to view that last response to this thread, the one which spurred your reply to me...why not? Has it been censored or removed or something? You only quoted segments of it, but the response in it's entirety does not appear anywhere.

I did not intend to insult you. I do think, however, that your writing style lacks some. This is just my opinion. I come from more of a research style of writing.

So, please calm down. I am not attacking you. I just have my own personal preference when it comes to a critical analysis.

No posts in this thread have been censored or removed. The forum default is to show 15 messages on one page, then it spills over to the next. You will find your message on the previous page to this one.

Another way to quickly locate your posts is to click on the little at the bottom of your message.


Doreen

Lindsay:
First, welcome back. I was afraid the vitriol had chased you off for good.

Amidst the emotional and ideological rantings, some people have critiqued your paper and raised specific questions that I think you would do well to address, both for our edification and for your own education. So how about skipping over the ad hominem, and gain some credibility by responding to the substantive issues that have been raised?

Just remember that telling people they have a bad diet is a bit like telling them they have an ugly baby: they probably won't be happy and they'll be hard to convince.