just what we need, another anti low carb article.

I came across it, and searched this site for any reference but saw none. I wasn't sure where to post it, but thought I'd try here.

http://www.uiw.edu/nutrition/atkins/Atkins.html

mari

Mari, you got the right place for your article Unfortunately, the link was broken. I can't edit in this forum, so I've re-included it .

Nat

re: broken links ...

When you wish to post a straightforward link to an article or webpage in your post, simply type or paste the address directly into your message. The database will automatically create the URL link for you

Using the http:// button when typing a message is for a HYPERlink, which is a two-step process. When you submit your post, what will show in your message is not the web address, but some other text that you have entered instead.

So, simplest and easiest ... just paste the address in the message itself.

Doreen

Well, would you believe that is what I did first. I just copied and pasted into my message thought I had done something wrong because it didn't appear highlighted or underlined like a link usually does. Oh well, now I know. Thanks for fixing it up Nat and for setting me straight Doreen.

Mari

The link will be created when you submit the post. Unlike in an email, where the link is created and underscored as soon as you type it.

Doreen

I think this is a term paper written by students for a dietetics course at the university sponsoring the story pages. The references are dietetics and sport nutrition textbooks, the JAMA journals cited are from 1973 and 74 ... and much has been discovered about insulin since then! Another reference was from a journal which accepts any article, with no requirement for scientific format or protocol. But the reference that stood out for me was this one

• 6. Stanton, Michele. Gym Shorts. Prevention Magazine Web Page. March 28, 2000. http://www.healthyideas.com/weight/gym/990825.gym.html

Notwithstanding the fact that the link just takes you to the Prevention index page ... and I could find no link or anything in the e-zine's archive ... something twigged in my memory .. March 2000 .. hmmmmm..

Then I remembered that I posted a rant about Prevention, and their anti-lowcarb stance ... and when I did the search, whaddya know, it was about an article published in March 2000 Here's the hyperlink to that post.

There are too many erroneous and inaccurate statements in this paper for it to be a valid argument. For example, on page 2, it's implied that the brain will go into a coma if the blood sugar is too low. While this statement is true in general, with low-carbing, this situation does not happen. The brain functions quite nicely on ketones and the switchover to ketone from glucose takes place while the body is being fed adequate protein .. NOT during starvation. Plus, the liver can make glucose out of proteins for those few tissues in the body which require it.

Another error, also on page 2 ... the statement is made "There is no solid evidence that high insulin levels make you fat." Well, the work and research of Dr Gerald Reaven (Syndrome X) and others would say differently.

And so on, throughout the paper. It's a well-written, but not well-researched essay, and would not get an "A" from me

Doreen

Doreen,

Your user title should be changed to "Master Debunker!"

Wa'il

Actually, I forgot to also mention that one of the references DID have me concerned; it was from an recently published article in Diabetes Care, that seemed to show the harmful effects of high-fat diets .. unti I read the abstract of the actual article at Medline, which stated very clearly the harm was only present when the diet was also high in carbohydrates.

Doreen

periodicals like Diabetes Care seem to have a rather paternal editorial approach that seems to translate to:

" don't confuse them with the facts (i.e., carbs AND fats), they won't want to give up their carbs anyway ... and we don't want to fly in the face of the ADA/CDA/fill-in-the-blank's POSITION ... "

Aaargh.

There's a fallacy on the introduction page anyway.



The assumption the writer wants you to make is that every person in the U.S. followed the Atkins diet and got fatter. It's a completely irrelevant and unsupported statement. Which fallacy is that? I keep meaning to learn those... I go look it up.

Post hoc

Coincidental Correlation
(post hoc ergo propter hoc)

Definition:

The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this". This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the one thing was caused by the other.

Examples:

Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased immigration caused the increased welfare rolls.

I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold disappeared.

OH! I forgot my point. My point is I don't respect writers that use fallacies. I feel it's either lazy, or malicious by preying on the ignorance of the reader.