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 > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Wed, Oct-23-02, 19:15
rjakubin rjakubin is offline
New Member
Posts: 20
 
Plan: TSP-II
Stats: 169/175/175
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Lake County, Indiana
Default

(seyont) You're right about your body can only store 200 grams of glycogen. As a bicyclists I found out the hard way what a 'bonk' was. After riding my bike for an hour and a half to two hours I would suddenly slow down and expierence a type of brain fog. Doing some research I found out it was my glycogen stores in my body being used up and my body was switching to burning fat. Any bicycling web site will fully explain this phenomenon. It doesn't mean I couldn't finish the ride home - I did but as the cycling web sites point out in greater detail at only 50% VO2 Max. Let's say for instance one day Jonathan for some oddball reason was very busy and had very little to eat and went to bed. Would he wake up in ketosis???
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Wed, Oct-23-02, 19:22
jhilgeman jhilgeman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 15
 
Plan: NA
Stats: 230/230/230
BF:
Progress:
Default

I will pick up this discussion tomorrow as soon as I finish some of the studies listed here. However, here are some quick comments (not meant to address the entire responses just yet):

First, remember that I've only started to study all of this. I came here with the intention of getting my article refuted. I say this because the wording of some of you sounds upset. I'm keeping an open mind here - I benefit from being re-convinced that the low-carb diet works, and am open to changing my opinion. I would appreciate it if you all would do the same and don't take offense. A critical look is sometimes frustrating but necessary to establish good grounds.

Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.

I never stated that weight loss via negative calories was bad. However, it all depends on how the negative balance is reached.

At this point, I haven't done any research into diabetes and low-carb, but I'll take your word for it that it would be another disorder benefiting from the diet. (Edited: I'm still planning on studying diabetic <-> low-carb connection, but for now, I'll take your word for it...)

Kristine:
You asked about the sources - I've since provided a list of references. I didn't want to shout the fatality thing to the mountaintops, so that was the only place I said it - in parentheses, prefixed with "potential." I figured it sounded a bit too drastic. I would think that the source (I can find out which one of the references said it) may have established a vague link between anorexic deaths and low-carb dieting, but that's a total guess.

Sorry you don't like analogies - they're not just there to explain things, though. I find them entertaining - reader's preference, I suppose.

I'm also guessing "*2,000,000* history" means 2 million years of history (based on your comment about 10,000 years of age, which would imply that you didn't believe in the common young earth). As stated above, there's really no way anyone could know what people ate 2 million years ago (assuming validity of the age). And if they're hunters/gatherers, wouldn't they eat fruit, too?

While I didn't explicitly equate low-carb and ketogenic, I would venture that they are similar, if not the same thing? If you drank a lot of water on the diet, you may dilute the amount of measurable ketones (or so says the "Theoretical Basis for Ketogenic Diets" - one of my sources listed at the bottom of the article).

I'll investigate your last comment more tomorrow before I make a comment on that.

rjakubin:
Fascinating - I'll check it out. Thank you! (But I'm not picking on Atkins specifically, even if I made some comments about Atkins in this discussion)

tamarian:
Just because I said I'd weigh the credibility doesn't mean I automatically discredit them. Don't be so quick to assume - it's a bad habit that I have. Go ahead and point me to the journals.
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Wed, Oct-23-02, 19:50
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jhilgeman
Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

So do prolonged diets for weight loss of any kind, as long as fat is being burned, ketones are being produced. Low carb diets only produce ketosis for as long as necessary to reach a desired weight loss goal and then carbs are gradually raised until weight loss stops, at which point most people are no longer in a ketotic state. How long that takes depends on how much weight a person has to lose and how long it takes them to lose it. Most people are no longer in ketosis on a steady basis (as defined by Atkins) at anything above 50 grams of carb per day.


You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.

It stands to reason. If you live in a cold climate, you will not be able to gather fruit or berries year round or green vegetable matter, either; only when they are in season which is only a few months out of the year. What you do manage to gather, dry and store will be a small amount that would certainly not last through the winter months and you must carefully guard it against marauding rodents and other creatures. BTW...people on low carb diets do often eat fruit; mostly berries and melons, but fruit today is bred for much higher sugar content than that of fruit several thousand years ago.
I also gave the example of the traditional Inuit diet which has been studied (see the writings of Stefansson) and was exactly as I outlined above. For the majority of the year, they lived on meat and blubber. Some types of Inuits ate no vegetable matter at all, even when it was in season, because of cultural taboos.


I never stated that weight loss via negative calories was bad. However, it all depends on how the negative balance is reached.

You did wonder why one would want to "trick" their body into believing it was starving. Negative calorie diets of all types are a type of controlled starvation...there's no tricking about it. Forcing your body to use an alternative energy source is not equivalent to starvation. Again, calorie deficit diets work in the same manner; they don't provide enough fuel for the body to function, so it turns to burning it's fat stores (and often its own muscle if protein is lacking as well as calories) to provide the energy it requires. If caloric intake drops below that which is required for basal metabolic functions, starvation begins. Low carb simply forces the body to burn more of its fat stores than it would if there were more carbs (the easier energy source) coming in. Since the metabolic pathways for fat metabolism require more energy than those of carbohydrate metabolism, a person who is losing weight via low carb can consume more calories than if they were losing weight via caloric deficit alone on high carb and still lose weight. It also controls insulin production which is key in fat storage and fat release (See Protein Power for a very thorough explanation of that process).

At this point, I haven't done any research into diabetes and low-carb, but I'll take your word for it that it would be another disorder benefiting from the diet. (Edited: I'm still planning on studying diabetic <-> low-carb connection, but for now, I'll take your word for it...)

If you're going to research it, I'd suggest that you include Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution by Richard K. Bernstein in your research materials.

Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Wed, Oct-23-02, 20:09
rjakubin rjakubin is offline
New Member
Posts: 20
 
Plan: TSP-II
Stats: 169/175/175
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Lake County, Indiana
Default

"I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty."
Lisa N - It sure was. Back then they didn't have pesticides so you can imagine the amount of juicy bugs an apple would have had. I read somewhere that the bugs provided a good protein source.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Wed, Oct-23-02, 22:30
Omega Omega is offline
New Member
Posts: 7
 
Plan: N/A
Stats: 140/140/140
BF:
Progress:
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jhilgeman

Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.



Another thing to consider besides fruits are tubers (starchy, edible roots like potatoes and carrots). Here's an article that discusses that issue:

Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains?

The debate in this article is whether it was the consumption of meat or tubers that allowed larger brain development. However, no one really seems to object to the idea that some prehistoric people may have consumed small to moderate amounts of starchy roots. The one thing that virtually everyone agrees to is that grain consumption wasn't much until about 40,000 - 10,000 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 01:35
suze_c's Avatar
suze_c suze_c is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,082
 
Plan: SuManKins
Stats: 321/249/221 Female 64 inches
BF:Let's not go there
Progress: 72%
Location: Midwest Flatlands
Default the ketogenic diet

The ketogenic diet can hardly be called unhealthy for certain individuals who have benefitted from it with severe epilepsy, where regular antiseizure medications have done nothing, yet this diet has been like a miracle for them... are you going to include them in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 07:17
Lisa N's Avatar
Lisa N Lisa N is offline
Posts: 12,028
 
Plan: Bernstein Diabetes Soluti
Stats: 260/-/145 Female 5' 3"
BF:
Progress: 63%
Location: Michigan
Default

Absolutely, Suze_C...

It's also the diet of choice for women with PCOS because of the insulin resistance and high risk for diabetes associated with this syndrome (which I'd also like to note is another condition that could not be considered "rare").
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 07:38
suze_c's Avatar
suze_c suze_c is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,082
 
Plan: SuManKins
Stats: 321/249/221 Female 64 inches
BF:Let's not go there
Progress: 72%
Location: Midwest Flatlands
Default About this diet

As far as finding evidence to the contrary about this way of eating being healthy, I am sure that you can... if a person looks hard enough, and reads things the "right" way, most anything can be refuted... The thing is though... why not look at all the maladies,the varying degrees of obesity from a few pounds overweight to morbid obesity and physical conditions,for lack of a better word at the moment, that ketogenic diets have HELPED! Browse this forum, and see the tremendous witness to the thousands, yes LITERALLY thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating... There will ALWAYS be the naysayers... because it is something that goes against the "norm". Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!? Our body physiology has certainly been thrown out of whack, by numerous conditions, and in most cases, do not respond to "traditional" means of losing weight, or "traditional" means of treating the certain conditions... and if time allowed me, I would go into more detail, but I have to get my son ready for school~ think about what I have proposed here.."think outside the box".
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 12:21
agonycat's Avatar
agonycat agonycat is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,473
 
Plan: AHP&FP
Stats: 197/125/137 Female 5' 6"
BF:42%/22%/21%
Progress: 120%
Location: Dallas, Texas
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jhilgeman
Lisa N:
Ketosis may occur whenever you're burning fat, to some extent. However, low-carb dieting seemingly promotes sustained ketosis. Keyword sustained.

You said that our ancestors lived in ketosis for several months out of the year. First, how do you know this for sure? Second, wouldn't gathering imply the gathering of fruits, as well? I would imagine that fruits would be a main staple back then - easy to gather and tasty.




How do we know for sure? Something called winter. Fruit bearing plants do not grow fruit in the ice/snow or cold temps.

Now our ancestors may or may not have figured out how to dry fruits or preserve fruits. I am willing to bet they were not proficient in this skill and gathered fruit when it was available in the spring/summer/fall months.

Plus the climate back then was a bit colder than what we experience now.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 12:36
jhilgeman jhilgeman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 15
 
Plan: NA
Stats: 230/230/230
BF:
Progress:
Default Horde of Replies.

So many posts to answer... still haven't gotten time to search for the studies... Let me begin answering posts, though.

seyont:
> Is this site a demo for your web-design and PHP skills?
I appreciate the comments on my design skills. I like to learn about a wide variety of topics, so I'll pick a topic, and stick with it until I'm decent at it, and then go on with something else. I learned web design a few years back. However, this isn't the topic at hand, but thanks. (It's not a cybersquat - just another topic I've chosen because of the potential reselling of some ketogenic products)

> Dr Ornish might have some good material, but searching the web for "Anti-Atkins" would also be a good start.
I haven't heard of Dr. Ornish nor of Anti-Atkins, but those sound a bit biased against the topic, so they weren't in my search criteria. At this point, they may come in useful in this debate. Most of you have probably already debated the points, so it would be easy coverage. I'll look at them later.

> If it's a sincere attempt to discredit ultra-low-carb diet plans...
Again, it's not an attempt to discredit the diet plan. That's just how it came out.

> you will have trouble equating Ketogenic with Zero Carbs.
I quickly re-read my article and didn't see that equation anywhere. I didn't equate that because from what I read, it was about low-carbs, not about no-carbs.

> the mere presence of ketones leads to all these symptoms
This is something that I'm getting close to changing. From what I've gathered here, would it be factually correct to say that ketosis (aka lipolysis aka ketosis/lipolysis) happens at any time the body burns fat? If so, would the only thing that would trigger the burning of fat be the absence of glucose to use as fuel? And if so, wouldn't the state of ketosis only be extremely short/temporary, in which case the symptoms would not have a chance to appear unless ketosis was sustained?

Also, which of the symptoms would you consider to be factually incorrect when linked to ketosis? For sure, bad breath... which gives me another point to heckle with Atkins. I just finished reading one of their FAQs which stated that its not bad breath - just different breath. However, according to the numerous related posts that I've read on this forum, it's a bad different (which can be helped with those Listerine strips, which Atkins could sell on their site ). Either way, it's these little wording things that just detract credibility points from articles written by people trying to sell their products. Personally, I would've stated, "Yes, it gives you bad breath, but here are ways around it..." rather than trying to "spin" it. But that's just me and that's just Atkins.

> the body can only hold about 200 grams of glycogen
On the Atkins FAQ I just mentioned, it stated that it can hold two days' supply of glycogen ("glucose in the form of glycogen"). A two days' supply is 200 grams? That seems a little small. Is there another term that would be more appropriate in that context?

> "The Weight Loss Doesn't Stick", and "To Make Matters Worse" simply aren't serious writing.
Just because of the analogies?

------- On to the next person -------

Lisa N:
>as long as fat is being burned, ketones are being produced.
But again, things like exercise might burn fat, but those ketones are not constant. In a low-carb diet, the ketogenic state is sustained / continuous. A prolonged diet doesn't necessarily have to be a continuous action of dieting - a diet plan could simply include a schedule of activities that burn fat - slowly but surely. At least this is what I'm reading into here.

However, you did bring up an excellent point that I had not heard about - that is, that people are not in a ketogenic state at any point they are on the diet, and that after the weight loss has been achieved, they increase the carb counts slowly until loss stops. At that point, they maintain their current weight and level of carbohydrates. Did I read this correctly? So what is happening chemically at that point? Are transitions into ketogenic states just more frequent than your usual non-dieting person, so some balance is achieved?

> It stands to reason. If you live in a cold climate...
Heh - we're getting into evolution-istic area here, assuming cold climates and an old earth. Personally, I'm a Creationist (although you could technically have an old-earth-Creationist, but I think a young-earth-Creationist is more logical reasoning). So there's an obvious conflict there, but either way, there would still be no way of determining what the climates were like back then, nor would there be a way to positively say that certain crops were out of season at different points. If you want to get technical about it, you can look at it from an evolutionist's POV and ask yourself if man evolved so much over the millions or billions of years (depending on which evolutionist theory you subscribe to), why would climates and plants not have evolved, as well? This could get into a lot of areas that aren't really related to this topic, but for now, it would be safer to assume that we have no real knowledge of how things were thousands, millions, and/or billions of years ago. Someone sarcastically stated that there would be bugs in the fruit, but I would venture that the person has not grown up in a variety of settings including orchards and houses with a couple fruit trees, with and without pesticides. Trust me - I've lived the fruity life and that isn't a very valid argument against eating fruit back then.

I don't know about the Inuit diets, though, but I would also venture that a lifestyle change would also be in order with a diet change, so I'm not sure if that was studied, as well. If you happen to find the study online anywhere, please let me know - I'll keep my eye out, too.

> You did wonder why one would want to "trick" their body into believing it was starving
However, burning calories wouldn't necessarily be controlled starvation. Since starvation is not considered something we are normally in, and since we burn calories just by typing on a keyboard or walking somewhere, it would stand to reason that starvation wouldn't result just from normal burning of calories. Thus, a diet including a plan of scheduled exercise to burn more calories wouldn't be considered controlled starvation, as long as you're eating correctly.

> Forcing your body to use an alternative energy source is not equivalent to starvation.
You're right. It isn't - you aren't really starving. That's why I didn't say that you were starving yourself - rather tricking your body into thinking that it's starving, when it really isn't. That was my point to make. Also, you just said that all negative caloric diets would be considered controlled starvation, and low-carb diets do seem to offer lower-calorie balances (even though you say you're -allowed- to eat more), so wouldn't they be considered controlled starvation?

> If you're going to research it, I'd suggest that you include Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution
I will take that into consideration. Thank you!

------- On to the next person -------

Omega:
Back to evolution again? Just out of curiousity, how many of you believe in evolution? Not to pick a fight - just curious... I'm not going to discredit it here - this isn't the proper forum for that debate.

------- On to the next person -------

suze_c: (1st post on 2nd page)
> are you going to include [epileptics] in your claim that this diet is unhealthy?
Ouch - this doesn't seem like a very good argument from you, suze_c. There's plenty of "medicine" out there that is unhealthy for you, but it can offer treatment at the same time.

------- On to the next person -------

Lisa_N:
> I'd also like to note [diabetes] is another condition that could not be considered "rare").
I never said epilepsy was rare - someone generated that somewhere along the line. If I recall correctly, it affects 1 out of every 200 people. Ebola's rare to me. Not epilepsy. Neither is diabetes - I concur. And again, note that I already had an article up there on epilepsy and the benefits epileptics can receive from ketogenic dieting. I would've put one up on diabetics, but I wanted to do a little research before posting anything on that.

------- On to the next person -------

suze_c: (2nd post)
> ...thousands, who have benefitted from this way of eating...
I wouldn't doubt that it might work for many people. However, this isn't my point. Look at history and you'll find plenty of "solutions" that worked for thousands, even millions of people until someone found out that there were unpleasant sides to the solutions, at which point solutions get revoked. At this time, I've heard a lot of negative comments against ketogenic dieting that seem to make sense, and so I am trying to do a personal study into whether or not the comments hold water. There are lots of small signs that bother me, as well.

For instance, when new medicine is introduced, even revolutionary and provocatory medicine, the medical community tends to shun it for a few years, while they study it in secret, and then about 20 years later, you'll see it in use, or it'll just disappear. However, it's very unusual to have a treatment that gets introduced, gets shunned, and after a long period of time, it still has not been accepted by the medical community. To make it look even worse, a lone figurehead stands at one of the most widely-known varieties of the treatment. Lone figureheads, especially lone doctors, tend to turn out to be scam artists. Again, I'm not saying Atkins is a scam artist (at least I'm not saying that yet - you never know what the future holds). However, I am trying to describe the painting set before me, and what it's likened to, and the unusual circumstances I see. Now I'm just trying to clear up the negative commentaries to understand why it's all painted this way.

> Whoever said that those of us who benefit from a ketogenic eating plan were normal in the first place?!?
Actually... a couple of people implied it in this thread, I believe. But I think they were meaning physically intact (no physical disorders, diseases, etc).

> think outside the box
Not to sound egotistical, but I would classify people who would write an article like mine and then try to critically disprove it with a horde of opposing viewpoints as people who are thinking well outside the box.

Whew. I've already lost pounds typing all this.

- Jonathan
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 13:20
jhilgeman jhilgeman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 15
 
Plan: NA
Stats: 230/230/230
BF:
Progress:
Default

One more quick thing. As I was reading through the "War" forum (a truly entertaining collection of threads - some people just can't argue and be civil...), I did notice that someone brought up something about a person named Phil Kaplan who was attacking Atkins and was promoting his own product. (Note, since he is attacking Atkins here, I'm just hopping along for the ride - my original intent is not focusing on Atkins alone - rather on general ketogenic dieting)

I glanced through PK's article and noted some interesting points, then came back to the intial thread that talked about the article. The basic responses were that PK was a "quack" and that he was out to sell his own product, but I didn't see anyone attacking his article. I'm guessing he probably makes points that everyone here disagrees with, but at the same time, is his information factually incorrect? One of the items that caught my eye was:

"1. Extended periods of ketosis affect the chemical composition of the blood in such a way that you increase risk of cardiac incident (blood ketoacidosis)."

I understand ketoacidosis is not ketosis, and that it's much worse than ketosis, but is it true to say that sustained ketosis increased the chances of progressing to ketoacidosis?

There were also some items about kidney stones being formed by many people on the Atkins diet. I'd have to some research on kidney stones, but wouldn't the presence of kidney stones indicate some deeper issues, or just an initial resistance to the diet? PK didn't pursue the issue of the stones much further, so not all of my questions were answered by his article.

It would seem questionable to just declare him a quack and discard his article because he's selling a competing product, IF he brings up any valid points. Even quacks might have good points. Any particular reason he's a quack besides that he's anti-low-carb?

- Jonathan
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 13:29
agonycat's Avatar
agonycat agonycat is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,473
 
Plan: AHP&FP
Stats: 197/125/137 Female 5' 6"
BF:42%/22%/21%
Progress: 120%
Location: Dallas, Texas
Default

Concerning your inquiry to Ketoacidosis.


http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthre...ht=ketoacidosis
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 14:00
jhilgeman jhilgeman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 15
 
Plan: NA
Stats: 230/230/230
BF:
Progress:
Default

agonycat:
Thank you, but that post you pointed to seemed misleading. All it did was describe what ketoacidosis was, and the difference between ketosis and ketoacidosis. A summary of it looks like:

---
1. Ketosis doesn't lead to ketoacidosis.
2. This is what ketoacidosis is.
3. This is what ketosis is and epileptic kids use it to control seizures.
4. For more somewhat-related information, go here. (Nothing that talked about ketosis leading to ketoacidosis)

- Doreen
---

However, there's no support for #1. It's straw man logic. The closest Doreen gets is "Ketones don't cause ketoacidosis, but they are a result of it." But there's still no grounding for that argument/claim.

- Jonathan
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 14:00
suze_c's Avatar
suze_c suze_c is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,082
 
Plan: SuManKins
Stats: 321/249/221 Female 64 inches
BF:Let's not go there
Progress: 72%
Location: Midwest Flatlands
Default Let's Just......

Let's just rename this whole part of the forum... "Let's Agree to Disagree" That sure seems like what is happening here... we all seem to have valid arguments for the most part, to support the way that we are thinking, and isn't that what a healthy debate is all about? As far as using a ketogenic diet to control epileptic seizures in cases where they cannot be controlled by the usual antiseizure medications... that to me is very important information, as my son suffers from a seizure disorder... I thank God above, that a change in medications was able to bring it more under control... But being in the "parent of a disabled child" *community*, so to speak, I do know of those with seizure disorders who were helped with a ketogenic diet... I don't plan on my *restricted* way of eating of being something that is going to last forever.... but it does show me how much of a "hold" that carbs have on me, and how much they affect me overall... when I do introduce more carbs back into my way of eating, they will be more natural ones and less processed and "man-made" ones,so to speak.To those who are carb sensitive, it is like a drug or a drink,... it so affects the body's physiology... in my opinion, asking someone to go back to carbage, i.e., the carbs unhealthy for them is no better than giving "bad drugs" back to a drug addict who has recovered,or alcohol to someone with a drinking problem who no longer boozes.
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Thu, Oct-24-02, 14:12
jhilgeman jhilgeman is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 15
 
Plan: NA
Stats: 230/230/230
BF:
Progress:
Default

suze_c:
This always happens - people don't want to argue anymore, so things stop at "Let's Agree to Disagree." To me, that's quitting and that's just room for more "naysayers" to come in. We are not at a standstill just yet, and I truly believe that all standstills can be resolved with valid persistence (rather than stubborness).

I can appreciate your situation and stance on the epilepsy issue, and I have concurred that the ketogenic diet does seem to offer a mystery phenomenon of seizure control. I am not debating its positive correlation to epilepsy - all research in this area seems to agree with each other, and seems straightforward. (There's still work to be done in the area since the correlation between ketones and seizure control is still unknown, though.)

What I -am- trying to do is clear the air of unsupported beliefs, and thus validate the foundation of a very popular form of dieting. If the foundation is rock solid, it will stand up to critical questions, and if it's weak, that will show, too.

- Jonathan
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Here is an article bashing 'big fat lie': fairchild LC Research/Media 18 Mon, Sep-08-03 16:37
Washington Post Magazine article on why Americans are getting fatter liz175 LC Research/Media 3 Mon, Mar-31-03 06:40
Gary Taubes' Response to Washington Post Article DrByrnes LC Research/Media 4 Sun, Oct-13-02 23:59
ANMA Monitor Article DrByrnes LC Research/Media 0 Thu, Aug-08-02 01:17


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.