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
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #331   ^
Old Thu, Dec-13-07, 18:37
JL53563's Avatar
JL53563 JL53563 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,209
 
Plan: The Real Human Diet
Stats: 225/165/180 Male 5'8"
BF:?/?/8.6%
Progress: 133%
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
I've maintained my weight for a darn good time at this point and don't really count anything anymore specifically.....now that I started my little experiment to see if consuming excess calories while keeping carbohydrate below 40g a day, I'm finding it really hard to exceed my required calories to maintain ---- there is definitely something going on that my metabolism seems to be putting on the brakes......I can easily eat more calories if I eat a diet with more carbohydrate, that's for certain.....but with carbohydrate kept low, it's not easy at all (for me).


Regina, I find that drinking 2 cups of heavy whipping cream per day really helps with this. All kidding aside, though. Yes, it is hard to do. It's me, jeff, if you haven't figured that out. Come see us on the Magic Bus soon.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #332   ^
Old Fri, Dec-14-07, 06:40
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JL53563
Regina, I find that drinking 2 cups of heavy whipping cream per day really helps with this. All kidding aside, though. Yes, it is hard to do. It's me, jeff, if you haven't figured that out. Come see us on the Magic Bus soon.


I read over there everyday.....I'll post an update over there soon!
Reply With Quote
  #333   ^
Old Sun, Dec-16-07, 01:23
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I saw this quote on a blog today and it totally made me think of Gary's book and how I felt after reading it:

Quote:
"In the 1950s the Schute brothers.......said vitamin E worked against heart disease and cerebrovascular disease. They were greeted with laughter. A couple of years ago, the Harvard School of Public Health ......showed that just 100 units of vitamin E per day decreased the death rate by 40 percent. ...... How many Americans would have been saved in the intervening 35 years had Harvard taken a responsible position and said, "We are skeptical of these claims but let's look at them"? But they wouldn't do that--it didn't fit their paradigm. So vitamin E was totally destroyed by the establishment. Think of the cost of those decisions."--Linus Pauling Interview by Peter Chowka 1996


Reply With Quote
  #334   ^
Old Sun, Dec-16-07, 06:22
Daryl's Avatar
Daryl Daryl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,427
 
Plan: ZC
Stats: 260/222/170 Male 5-10
BF:Huh?
Progress: 42%
Location: Texas
Default

From a blog:

Quote:
I will likely be put in the position soon of having to thoroughly analyze Taubes's selective read of scientific studies. This will not be an overnight task, nor one that I look forward to spending my time on. But, I do have some relevant comments based on my limited understanding of his beliefs.


The fact that all national health organizations and scientific bodies have come to the conclusion that animal-product-centered-diets are at the root of our most common problems (including heart disease) should speak to the importance of this conclusion -- not to discount the negative impact of the refining and processing of our plant foods.


Taubes is standing up for Atkins and this should be his downfall. I did a thorough review of his work and published it in my May 2004 newsletter article -- the Atkins Scientific Research - Deceit and Disappointment -- Link


Ancel Keys was a world renowned pioneer - for Taubes to try to gain fame by throwing rocks at this man's landmark contributions in the fields of research on heart disease speaks to Taubes' character.


I find it most unfortunate that respected scientists who are familiar with the basic research make almost no effort to inform the public about the misinformation spread by people like Taubes and Atkins. The fact that most of the public likes "to hear good news about their bad habits" is similarly disappointing.


Rich foods (especially animal-derived foods), those found on the tables of aristocrats throughout history and most Americans these days, are the primary cause of obesity, coronary heart disease, strokes, most cancers, arthritis, indigestion, constipation, kidney stones, osteoporosis, and much more. (Not to discount the importance of exercise and clean habits). A diet based on unprocessed starches (rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, legumes, pastas, etc.) with the addition of fruits and vegetables will prevent these diseases and cure many of them. Even the most casual observer can confirm this by looking at the health and eating habits of various populations of the world today, as well as those of people throughout history.


Finally, for the survival of the Earth it is essential that the truth be told because livestock (the primary food sources recommended by Taubes and Atkins) production is a primary cause of environmental destruction and global warming. For everyone's sake, plant-food based diets need to accepted widely and soon.


John McDougall, MD


http://mangans.blogspot.com/2007/12...stions-for.html

Reply With Quote
  #335   ^
Old Sun, Dec-16-07, 09:20
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Quote:
...based on my limited understanding of his "beliefs" [quotation mine]...

Note, it isn't, "The man pointed out research," it's "his beliefs," as if his citing research constitutes some strange occult religion.

Quote:
The fact that all national health organizations and scientific bodies have come to the conclusion that animal-product-centered-diets are at the root of our most common problems (including heart disease) should speak to the importance of this conclusion

Because as we know, several interrelated people agreeing with each other means a great deal more than actual science.

Quote:
Taubes is standing up for Atkins and this should be his downfall. I did a thorough review of his work and published it in my May 2004 newsletter article -- the Atkins Scientific Research - Deceit and Disappointment

Ah. So the CENTURY of SCIENCE that Taubes lists is magically hand-waved away; the guy didn't diss Atkins, and THIS guy already wrote a negative paper about Atkins, so Taubes must be wrong. Because as you know, science, no matter what quantity, by how many people, for decades and more, is not really as important as whether one guy from our own time is a good guy vs. bad guy.

Quote:
for Taubes to try to gain fame by throwing rocks at this man's landmark contributions in the fields of research on heart disease speaks to Taubes' character.

Because talking about science, should you question the status quo, makes you a heretic and a heathen, and obviously of low moral character. Ancel Keys is at the right hand of God now. His work may not be questioned!

Quote:
I find it most unfortunate that respected scientists who are familiar with the basic research make almost no effort to inform the public about the misinformation spread by people like Taubes and Atkins. The fact that most of the public likes "to hear good news about their bad habits" is similarly disappointing.

Funny. All my bad habits were supported infinitely by the status quo of Officiality he is backing. Not until Lowcarb did I start eating actual "food". And wow, look, a dozen medical symptoms vanish and so far over 100# have fallen off me. Hmmn, yes, I can see why he thinks steak will kill you but whole wheat crossants are good.

Quote:
Rich foods (especially animal-derived foods), those found on the tables of aristocrats throughout history and most Americans these days,

I think Tracy at Fear and Loathing in the Kitchen in her recent post Diet and Morality had a point that ties into his example.

Actually the poor peasants had meat and dairy, which the comment above neglects to mention. What the rich had that they didn't, was lots of confection and bakery, things that living in a squalid hut in the woods did not lend themselves to nearly as well as raising rabbits or hens or getting an arrow or spear in a deer.

Quote:
are the primary cause of obesity, coronary heart disease, strokes, most cancers, arthritis, indigestion, constipation, kidney stones, osteoporosis, and much more. (Not to discount the importance of exercise and clean habits).

Because he says so. Apparently that open space at the left hand of God, is where this guy now sits.

Quote:
A diet based on unprocessed starches (rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, corn, legumes, pastas, etc.) with the addition of fruits and vegetables will prevent these diseases and cure many of them.

Because he says. And don't you go reading Taubes' book where he mentions over a century of research that suggests otherwise. If he's an immoral cretin for writing it, your soul will be doomed should you read it!

Quote:
Even the most casual observer can confirm this by looking at the health and eating habits of various populations of the world today, as well as those of people throughout history.

That is possibly the most propaganda-ish quote out of the whole thing. There are many foods 'added' to the modern day that destroy health and since nearly ALL of them began with meat, everything else is an addition; the addition of carbohydrates including potatoes, corn, pastas, etc. has happened to many cultures in the last two centuries, and it's annihilated their health. Oh, but to know that, you would have to be exposed to the scientists who tested and documented this, and since you're not allowed to read Taubes' book, I guess you'll never know!

Quote:
Finally, for the survival of the Earth it is essential that the truth be told because livestock (the primary food sources recommended by Taubes and Atkins) production is a primary cause of environmental destruction and global warming. For everyone's sake, plant-food based diets need to accepted widely and soon.

That the human race will then be 100% in thrall to, addicted to, and totally dependent on medicine for life to, more "controlling" elements the moment this happens, is merely a happy bonus. Definitely we should get rid of all the cows, stick a few in a zoo so we don't forget them, and make humans eat like rabbits. That would solve everything!
Reply With Quote
  #336   ^
Old Sun, Dec-16-07, 10:34
Beth1708 Beth1708 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 197
 
Plan: Just no carbs
Stats: 149.6/149.4/128 Female 68
BF:
Progress: 1%
Default

Quote:
Finally, for the survival of the Earth it is essential that the truth be told because livestock (the primary food sources recommended by Taubes and Atkins) production is a primary cause of environmental destruction and global warming. For everyone's sake, plant-food based diets need to accepted widely and soon.


This is actually an important point, albeit presented in a propaganaish way. There is good reason to think that we are reaching the limits of the carrying capacity of the earth, in terms of food production, but the earth's population is still going up. If everyone in China were to eat their fill of meat, there would be a food crisis right now. [Ref: the book Who will feed China by Lester Brown.]

Ironically, imho, this is an even more important reason to establish the heath benefits of low carb. If we know that having everyone eat vegetarian (Diet for a Small planet style) is in fact not a healthy choice, then it becomes even more imperative to find a humane way to control the human population. With fewer people we can find enough meat to feed everyone without destroying the environment, but not with the 9 billion or so that are projected in 2050.

Beth
Reply With Quote
  #337   ^
Old Sun, Dec-16-07, 10:39
LessLiz's Avatar
LessLiz LessLiz is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,938
 
Plan: who knows
Stats: 337/204/180 Female 67 inches
BF:100% pure
Progress: 85%
Location: Pacific NW
Default

You might think its a great point, but I think the science behind that garbage is about the same quality as that which gave us low fat/low cal good, low carb bad
Reply With Quote
  #338   ^
Old Tue, Dec-18-07, 09:00
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,866
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Well, well!
Quote:
As I reconsider the role of saturated fat in diet, given the startlingly insightful discussion by Gary Taubes of Good Calories, Bad Calories...


From Dr. Davis's blog http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

Sounds like he still has some personal revulsion against meat but he might also be having an epiphany. I'm glad he is finally reading that book.
Reply With Quote
  #339   ^
Old Tue, Dec-18-07, 09:59
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,767
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
Well, well!


From Dr. Davis's blog http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

Sounds like he still has some personal revulsion against meat but he might also be having an epiphany. I'm glad he is finally reading that book.
He's got to learn to put his personal beliefs behind the science. "I personally have a natural aversion to meat."
Reply With Quote
  #340   ^
Old Tue, Dec-18-07, 10:31
ValerieL's Avatar
ValerieL ValerieL is offline
Bouncy!
Posts: 9,388
 
Plan: Atkins Maintenance
Stats: 297/173.3/150 Female 5'7" (top weight 340)
BF:41%/31%/??%
Progress: 84%
Location: Burlington, ON
Default

I've just spent the last half hour listening to a taped interview between Dr. McDougall and Dr. Atkins. http://www.drmcdougall.com/mcdougal..._01_track_1.mp3

It's really interesting. Not in terms of information, nothing we haven't heard already, but as an exercise in seeing how belief systems affect how we interpret the information we hear. I'll admit my own personal bias lets me accept Dr. Atkin's views more readily than Dr. McDougall's, so I'm biased in this, too, but it's awfully funny to listen to Dr. McDougall cut to commercial when Dr. Atkins points out that the women with the lowest fat intake in the Harvard study had the highest incidence of breast cancer. Funnily, he doesn't come back to the point. Actually, he's pretty civil and mostly respectful (though you get the feeling he doesn't really feel any respect) to Dr. Atkins, I do have to give him credit for giving Dr. Atkins room to talk and explain his points without cutting him off (too often).
Reply With Quote
  #341   ^
Old Tue, Dec-18-07, 10:52
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger
He's got to learn to put his personal beliefs behind the science. "I personally have a natural aversion to meat."

Some people actually do. I went through a period in my life when I did and it led to me becoming a vegetarian. Fortunately for me, I ate so much dairy that I probably still got protein and aminos. If a person can live on bread, tortillas, pasta, milk, and all kinds of cheeses, I did it. (What? Vegetarian is supposed to mean vegetables?! LOL!)

I think it must be difficult for people who honestly are kind of psychologically repelled from meat, to accept that we are simply supposed to be eating the stuff for health. I think vegetarians, with the help of supplements and protein powders and avoidance of most grains, can probably eat well too, but it's a major effort, and vegans are probably just nutritionally doomed unless they at least 'bend' a few vegan rules to allow at least some amino supplements (is it possible to supplement *all* aminos from non-animal derived products?).

I imagine when someone has naturally (this is human nature) enjoyed seeing research that confirms what they already believe or at least feel intuitively drawn to, it is pretty difficult to see a different view.

I applaud the guy even for the effort he's made so far.
Reply With Quote
  #342   ^
Old Tue, Dec-18-07, 10:57
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

A good quote on that guy's blog, linked above:

Quote:
I will certainly not shed any tears for Merck and its relentless efforts to gain a stronger foothold in the "transform conditions into diseases" marketing strategy, the same strategy that classifies shyness, toe fungus, and sadness into medical conditions necessitating medication.
Reply With Quote
  #343   ^
Old Thu, Dec-20-07, 03:05
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I just finished watching/listening to Taubes's UC Berkeley lecture at
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_d...webcastid=21216


I was reminded of "Zen and the Art of Debunking" by Dan Drasin, one of the greatest articles I've ever read that relates to marginalized ideas or science. His topic is way more controversial than lowcarb, but listen to these quotes, and tell me if they don't sound pretty transferable. Human nature appears to operate, for better or worse--often worse--similarly in every field.

Quote:
[...] Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. [...]

[...]
Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized "scientific truth." As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. [...]

Some of his rules of advice for debunking in the way it seems to be done today, include:

"
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method."

"Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)"

"
If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat.""

"
Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science."

"
At every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational. The unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence."

"
Discourage any study of history that may reveal today's dogma as yesterday's heresy. Likewise, avoid discussing the many historical, philosophical and spiritual parallels between science and democracy."

"
Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this murkiness. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence!"

"
Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."

"
By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of the scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted."

"
Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation. So discredit the whole story by attempting to discredit *part* of the story. Here's how: a) take one element of a case completely out of context; b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it; c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained; d) call a press conference and announce to the world that the entire case has been explained!"

(The above reminds me of how often you see media stories where they go, "And this fat person ate yadayada, so of course we know why he was fat.")

"
Another effective strategy with a long history of success is simply to mis- replicate their experiments--or to avoid replicating them at all on grounds that "to do so would be ridiculous or fruitless."

"
If you're unable to attack the facts of the case, attack the participants--or the journalists who reported the case. *Ad- hominem* arguments, or personality attacks, are among the most powerful ways of swaying the public and avoiding the issue."

"
Fabricate entire research projects. Declare that "these claims have been thoroughly discredited by the top experts in the field!" Do this whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist."

"
In the event of a worst-case scenario ... just remember that the public has a short memory. Simply hail this as a "victory for the scientific method" and say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally significant issue. As a matter of fact, my colleagues and I have been remarking on it for years!"
Reply With Quote
  #344   ^
Old Fri, Dec-21-07, 09:58
trooth2u's Avatar
trooth2u trooth2u is offline
New Member
Posts: 3
 
Plan: Kwasniewski Ratios
Stats: 175/143/142 Male 66.5 inches
BF:30%/22.9%/20%
Progress: 97%
Location: Virginia, United States
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamarian
Not sure if this has been posted. One of the main pioneers in the book, IMHO, is Cleave. Found his book on line:

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_li...cleave_toc.html


Thanks and at the same site is this one:
Physical Degeneration

A Comparison of Primitive and Modern Diets
and Their Effects

BY

Weston A. Price, MS., D.D.S., F.A.G.D.
Member Research Commission, American Dental Association
Member American Association of Physical Anthropologists
Author, "Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic"

Foreword by

Earnest Albert Hooton
Professor of Anthropology,
Harvard University

With 134 figures



Paul B. Hoeber, Inc
Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers
New York London
Copyright, 1939, by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc.

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_li...e/pricetoc.html
Reply With Quote
  #345   ^
Old Wed, Dec-26-07, 13:11
nocarbkat's Avatar
nocarbkat nocarbkat is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 459
 
Plan: very low fiber
Stats: 225/225/150 Female 67 in.
BF:dont know
Progress: 0%
Default

At everyone's advise I finally took the plunge and went out in the snow and bought the book. I am on chapter one and my head is spinning from what I am reading. OMG! I just got done with the part about Keys, and how all of the low fat stuff got started. Crap, how could it have all gone so wrong! And I wonder what (maybe someone here knows) changed in the years between 1957 when the AHA countered Keys and basicly didn't support his hypothesis, and 1960 when they let the 6 man group along with Keys publish the paper that got him on the cover of Times what pretty much supported his theory. (all be it only half way, what they didn't want to acknowlege was just ignored, ie: the lack of references, for instance)

Being the die hard skeptic that I am, even if only HALF of what Taubes states in his book is correct, then we have be hoodwinked all along.

If Banting ate fruit and toast, but didn't eat bread, what was called toast in that day? (it says this in the prologue)
OK, I am going back to the book.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 00:23.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.