Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-14, 17:48
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is online now
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 18,185
 
Plan: Dirty Primal Mostly Keto
Stats: 520/398.8/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 71%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Which of my traditional diets?

I am 15 nationalities. Really, this would be difficult...

PJ
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-14, 18:28
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,129
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
Which of my traditional diets?

I am 15 nationalities. Really, this would be difficult...

PJ


Yes and she says that. Her point is: Is there anything inherently more healthful about the Mediterranean diet (or our caricature of it)? Should we all adopt it? Her conclusion is probably not. If we are Danish, why not adopt a traditional Danish diet?; if we are Thai, why not adopt a traditional Thai diet?, etc. (assuming it served our ancestors well). For those of more mixed heritage, yes, it can be difficult. For all diets, though, she believes that an absence of sweets and vegetable seed oils will make for more positive health.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Mon, Jun-09-14, 18:45
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,448
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
Which of my traditional diets?

I am 15 nationalities. Really, this would be difficult...

PJ


And how far do we go back? I'm willing to go far back enough to exclude wheat and sugar, at the least. But if going that far back excludes butter, I'm out.
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 00:11
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
If we are Danish, why not adopt a traditional Danish diet?; if we are Thai, why not adopt a traditional Thai diet?, etc. (assuming it served our ancestors well). For those of more mixed heritage, yes, it can be difficult. For all diets, though, she believes that an absence of sweets and vegetable seed oils will make for more positive health.


Why not? Because we live in in a far different world than our cultural ancestors. There are seven persistent known carcinogens in our atmosphere, according to the EPA. Women are becoming shorter due to xenoestrogens in their diet, causing premature capping of the bones. And nearly all of us ate the SAD for a long time and have been permanently affected by it. We can't go home again.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 00:23
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,129
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_cohn
Why not? Because we live in in a far different world than our cultural ancestors. There are seven persistent known carcinogens in our atmosphere, according to the EPA. Women are becoming shorter due to xenoestrogens in their diet, causing premature capping of the bones. And nearly all of us ate the SAD for a long time and have been permanently affected by it. We can't go home again.


So, how should we eat?
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 08:46
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,045
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_cohn
His accusations of plagiarism stem not from her lack of acknowledgement of Taubes' work, but from the use of *exactly* the same phrasing of Taubes in many instances.


Seeming to plagiarize is a problem when one is writing about subject that others have also written about. I used to write a weekly food & recipe column for our small town newspaper. When the subject was seasonal food, my column looked very much like the food articles in the nearest city paper. Not because either that author or I were plagiarizing, but because there are just so many words that fit the subject and just so many ways of putting those words together. And I think we both depended on Widipedia! That's how I learned to cast my net more widely to get quotes from knowledgeable people - quotes from locals or well-known cooks & gardeners gave my column a different flavor - so to speak.
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 08:55
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,045
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
For all diets, though, she believes that an absence of sweets and vegetable seed oils will make for more positive health.


Denise Minger brings that up in her review of Weston Price's work in Death By Food Pyramid." Also no refined flours.

I don't think it matters so much which traditional diet one eats, just as long as it is low in processed foods. I'm partial to our local traditional Indian diet. Not because I'm Indian, but because I love salmon.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 09:18
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,545
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

The critics could even claim she plagiarized Denise Minger's conclusion and advice. What do all the health-promoting diets omit:
-refined flour
-refined sugar
-industrially processed vegetable oils
-chemical preservatives and lab produced anythings
-nearly any creation that comes in a crinkly tinfoil package, a microwaveable tray, or a McDonald's take-out bag.
As Bonnie wrote, there are only so many ways you can write "just eat real unprocessed food". The Big Fat Surprise adds more information to the discussion, and with the WSJ article added more new readers who may not have heard this information about how fat phobia came about before, so I wish it much success. The fact that star ratings are 54 to 9 now is encouraging.
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 09:52
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,129
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
And how far do we go back? I'm willing to go far back enough to exclude wheat and sugar, at the least. But if going that far back excludes butter, I'm out.


I know you are joking, but just for clarity, in no way does she advise cutting out butter. On the contrary, she is all for replacing vegetable oils with butter because it IS traditional.
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 09:52
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
The fact that star ratings are 54 to 9 now is encouraging.


I'm sure that in the 1960's, a book on the soundness of the low-fat diet would have this same ratio. That doesn't mean the majority was right. Only a preponderance of empirical evidence (or lack therof) counts.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 09:55
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,129
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aj_cohn
Women are becoming shorter due to xenoestrogens in their diet, causing premature capping of the bones.


How do we know it is xenoestrogens doing it? This author points out that we are all becoming shorter in the US. She theorizes that it is due to less meat/protein in our diets (and more carbs). Perhaps it is both.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 10:00
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,129
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

I'm trying to figure out why you are so fundamentally opposed to this book, aj cohnů..is it the message or the messenger? And why such a strong reaction? Her advice for eating falls squarely within the Paleo/primal/ancestral health sphere. Do you have a problem with these ideas? Or it her presentation of it?
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 10:35
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,448
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
I know you are joking, but just for clarity, in no way does she advise cutting out butter. On the contrary, she is all for replacing vegetable oils with butter because it IS traditional.


I was joking--but I either had a point in my tomfoolery, or am willing to do a little backfilling, and make like I had a point.

I sort of have a problem when it comes to "eat what your ancestors eat" as a prime directive. A lot of people follow that through to its logical conclusion... and end up macronutrient "agnostic," which I think is a mistake that insulin sensitive people can afford to make, but as for the rest of us... in my family, perogies are a tradition, but then, so is celiac.

I don't eat low carb because my ancestors ate low carb. I eat low carb because, unlike the SAD, this diet doesn't seem to be making any obvious attacks on my health and well-being.
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 10:57
Liz53's Avatar
Liz53 Liz53 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,129
 
Plan: Mostly Fung/IDM
Stats: 165/138.4/135 Female 63
BF:???/better/???
Progress: 89%
Location: Washington state
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser

I don't eat low carb because my ancestors ate low carb. I eat low carb because, unlike the SAD, this diet doesn't seem to be making any obvious attacks on my health and well-being.


That seems fair. However even though that is not the reasoning behind your eating LC, it turns out that you are eating closer to how your ancestors ate than how the general population currently eats.

I may be fortunate in that I don't have any obvious conditions such as celiac. I am a bit older than you and can look back at my direct ancestors and see people who ate "normally" - meat with plenty of fat attached and eaten (and for that matter, gravy), some vegetables (but might see the salad I eat for lunch to be "excessive"), sweets in moderation (after Sunday dinner perhaps, but certainly not every day and not driving around in one's car). Pie crusts were definitely made from lard well into the 80s (probably till lard could no longer be found).

These family members were both thin (on my dad's side) and heavier (on my mom's side). From what I can remember, they all ate about the same. I would hazard a guess that my mom's side was genetically destined to be heavier. They were certainly no more gluttonous or sloth-like than members of my dad's side.

Perhaps you object to Nina Teicholz's phrasing - I think she is simply trying to summon up a general way of eating that those not as obsessed with food/nutrition as people who while away their days on this board can understand. Perhaps she is paraphrasing Michael Pollan who has been showered with acclaim for his idea of eating food your grandmother would recognize (though MY grandmothers would NOT recognize the idea of eating mostly plants). In my mind, she is leading us to eat the REAL way our grandmothers/great-grandmothers ate: 3 square meals a day, each with plenty of protein and fat, and limited carbs. No soft drinks. No vegetable oils (admittedly that goes further back than MY grandmothers). Limited refined sugars. No endless snacking.

This book is not perfect. Even I, a more casual and optimistic reader of it, found some factual errors. But nothing that negates her entire message. In her acknowledgements, she mentions Gary Taubes as one of the people that read part or all of her manuscript before publication. If he can live with her "plagiarism" then so can I.
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Tue, Jun-10-14, 11:12
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liz53
I'm trying to figure out why you are so fundamentally opposed to this book, aj cohnů..is it the message or the messenger? And why such a strong reaction? Her advice for eating falls squarely within the Paleo/primal/ancestral health sphere. Do you have a problem with these ideas? Or it her presentation of it?


I'm not fundamentally opposed to this book; I'm fundamentally opposed to poor scholarship, fuzzy thinking and intellectual dishonesty, especially in published works. Both Dr.s Davis' and Perlmutter's books, for example, are classic examples books of citing studies that show only associations to support assertions of causality and even citing studies that show the opposite of what's asserted. Davis' book even devotes a full chapter to the debunked acid-alkaline hypothesis. Such books damage the efforts to critique the low-fat dogma and promote more traditional diets.

The one-star review I mentioned presents quite a persuasive case of plagiarism of Taubes rather than simple re-phrasing. The review and subsequent comments by the reviewer also present a persuasive case for Teicholz misrepresenting or torturing the conclusions of the studies she cites. Here's just one such example from the review:
Quote:
On page 11-12 Teicholz discusses the Masai tribe of Africa and how they consume quite a bit of milk daily yet have very low cholesterol (much like Taubes does in ch. 2 of GCBC). She also mentions that and are not fat they don't have high blood pressure. I don't know why she throws that the blood pressure and leanness in there since no one claims that milk causes high blood pressure, nor that these African tribes that walk about 30 miles per day and burn 300-500 kcals/hour would be fat because they drink milk. The real crime here is one of omission. In support of her argument that diets heavy in saturated fat won't lead to high cholesterol and atherosclerosis because the Masai do it, she cites an article published in the NEJM titled "Some Unique Biologic Characteristics of the Masai of East Africa." The entire point of that article was to claim that the reason that the Masai have such low cholesterol levels (and therefore atherosclerosis) despite a diet heavy in saturated fats was because they have a unique feedback mechanism that suppresses endogenous cholesterol synthesis that most of us don't have. Yet there of course is no mention of this in the text (or GCBC) because to suggest that their low cholesterol was due to genetics would hurt her meat-is-good-for-you narrative.

Even a single misuse of allegedly-supporting studies makes everything in a book suspect. If you find three such examples, you can throw away the entire book and reasonably say that proponents of certain POV are like mindless zealots.

Last edited by aj_cohn : Tue, Jun-10-14 at 14:12.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:21.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.