Follow the money.

Who pays for the adverts?

Who can make money telling people to lay naked in the sun at noon?

Is anyone going to pay for adverts telling people they can get vitamin d for free at laying naked in the midday sun?.

Who can make money telling people to eat low fat heart healthy low fat crap?

Is anyone currently paying good money for adverts for "heart healthy" low fat crap?

Where are the professional high(er) fat proponents who can debunk these studies for the crap that they are? Why do I not hear about them contacting the today show, or putting our their own rebuttal of these studies? Maybe it's because there are so many junk science articles coming out... It's really frustrating though, because much of the population don't want to do the legwork for themselves, so they just believe whatever the industry is spouting off, and then they wonder why they feel so poor when they're following orders.

"Follow the money.

Who pays for the adverts?"

I don't know, who does?

I don't give a damn about these studies anymore since they are so biased it drives me crazy.

All of us who have been successful low-carbing who have not only lost weight but also improved our health by the conventional methods (blood pressure, lipid profile, etc) are walking testaments to this WOE, and thus it's best promoters.

It is going to take a long time for the medical establishment to do an about face and admit that what they have been promoting for the past 30+ years has done insurmountable damage to people's health, so I work on converting perceptions one person at a time. I make sure I am extremely knowledgable about the subject matter so that I can speak about it with confidence and be informative. I won't change everyone's mind, but I have already gotten my doctor on my side (although he still prefers South Beach over Atkins and cringes when I tell him I eat on average 55% fat in my diet and most of it saturated, but my test results make him very happy so he says 'keep doing what you are doing'), plus a friend and now her sister are also low-carbing successfully too (her sister left WW to do Atkins after seeing what success my friend was having). The results don't lie. Our successes don't lie.

Big pharma pays for the advertising that funds peer reviewed medical scientific research and while you won't see adverts for sunbathing naked at noon (because there is no profit in vitamin d) you will be able to find adverts for o called low fat heart healthy products from the like of Nabisco and Unilever.

In the same way it's perfectly possible to eat a low carbohydrate way and control diabetes without medication at all, but big pharma and the diabetes industry (which includes diabetes charities and online forums) generally want diabetics to depend on medications because that is where the money, sponsorship and profit lies.

You know I can count calories. I used to count them up to 3,000 a day. I never lost an ounce counting them though. I concluded that counting calories doesn't burn very many calories.

Frank M. Sacks, MD

Lecture Support From: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fournier, Kos Pharmaceuticals.

Advisor To: AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fournier, Bayer

Research Support From: Bristol-Myers Squibb

Now what would we expect a representative of those organisations to come up with?

Who is surprised that the report is based on the calories in calories out basis and the only way to lose weight is to eat a semistarvation diet?

Show your source, Hutch.

The meek shall inherit the media.

From the link in my earlier post...

While im sure the study is bullcrap, It is true in my experience you need to cut calories to loose weight.

Its a slight paradox that weight gain and weight loss dont follow the same rules. I.E. its almost impossible to gain weight on zero carbs regardless of calories.

Even on zero carb though at some point you reach a pleateau and you gotta start cutting the calories to continue loosing weight.

So we believe calories are consequential?:
http://magicbus.myfreeforum.org/fto...4-0-asc-250.php

All I have to say is, that I have been for the past several years at the advice of my doctor trying to stick to a low calorie diet. It ain't worked because I starve and give up, go ahead and eat. And if all I am going to get for years of starving is 9 pounds???!! Granted they say after so long you get used to it and no longer starve, but 9 POUNDS!!!!

*cough, cough, cough... ahem* no thanks...

35 years of cutting calories never brought me PERMANENT weight loss; vLC/HF/gluten-, soy-, junk- & dairy-free is the only approach that has worked. I alternated between being perfect on 1000-1200 calorie diets for months on end followed by periods where I ate 2000-3000 cals of crap per day, after my willpower failed, which it will. Over the course of the year I averaged 2000 cals/day.

On High-Fat (70%), very Low Carb (<30g net; 5%) I lost 1 lb/week averaging 1900 cals/day. I did not have to cut 500 cals/day as the usual formulas insist. And I maintain 136 lbs effortlessly on 2000 calories eating like this, whereas I maintained 190 lbs on 2000 cals of HC foods (I've logged everything I eat for the past 19 years). Sure N=1 in this study, but it proves to me that all calories do not have the same effect on hormones, the immune system & fat storage.

They only tested low-cal (& not very LC) diets, so how can they say low-cal diets are best?

The money trail also includes all low-cal, low-fat processed food makers who stock ~half the contents of typical supermarkets. They and the pill pushers rely on people never being successful, so they are not about to tell us to eat our meat and vegetables.

Scroll down page to Dagens koststudie - Prov utan värde Then use GOOGLE TRANSLATE. you can cut and paste the link location in and select "detect language" or choose Swedish

Sorry I didn't attribute but was in a hurry and I didn't think by now anyone would think I ever put anything online that I hadn't checked first.

I would also like to remind people that never at any time while I was losing weight did I ever any day eat fewer calories than my body requires for basal metabolism. NOR (because of underlying disabling condition) did I ever indulge in any exercise vigorous or not. So my weight loss and the fact I've remained at my target weight is entirely due to change in the foods rather than then calories I consume.

My weight loss had absolutely nothing to do with calorie restriction nor was it exercise induced. I will though concede that not having hunger cravings has made it easier to avoid snacking so while I still consume more calories than I need the total is less than it was previously. I will also concede that being nearer 11stone than 15stone it's a lot easier for me to get about, standing/walking are much easier and I'm less likely to fall so I am now able to do more than I did before. But that does not include vigorous or prolonged activity and although I presume it consumes a few more calories than previously it's not significant.