Mon, Mar-07-11, 09:34
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 1,072
|
|
Plan: IF
Stats: 350/235/150
BF:generous
Progress: 57%
Location: UK
|
|
I am glad it was on, but I also think that things were done in a way to try to isolate Taubes as a radical outsider with heretical beliefs that only he believed outside of fad dieters.
Not all doctors believe what Dr Oz believes, but the impression was that Gary Taubes, a person with a doctorate in science, was smart but mislead (or something). And then Oz tried to make these weird attempts at proving that he was right: the 24 hour, very excessive diet--how many low carbers actually eat the amount of food as frequently as Oz ate, wanting to test Taubes' cholesterol and almost knowingly nodding when Taubes refused. Taubes should have just explained simply that taking one person's cholesterol would neither prove or disprove a point, let alone trying to get into the validity of blood serum readings or which type were a better indicator of CVD risk.
Yeah, I am glad it was on, but I have a feeling that Oz smells a change in the air. I noticed his meals were lower carb than most "heart healthy" plans would have been a few years ago, and much of what he was trying to push as his own suggestions (minus the "whole grain" pasta and maybe slightly less fruit) would be permissible on many low carb plans, particularly after any intervention period.
Like strawberries, probably the lowest carb fruit outside of the ones we normally call vegetables (tomatoes, olives) would be totally off the menu for low carbers and would totally derail a low carb plan. And I don't think it was an act of ignorance on his part. I predict a "low glycemic" higher fat (but maybe not saturated fat) approach from Oz as time goes on.
|