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
  #31   ^
Old Thu, Mar-08-18, 09:44
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Posts: 2,053
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

Quote:
I guess that we are supposed to think for ourselves.
Fortunately our various NON-plant-based WOEs seem to have the added benefit of clearing up brain-fog making thinking for oneself a whole lot easier.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32   ^
Old Thu, Mar-08-18, 12:56
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,215
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

More tips on what to write, with links where to post comments.

Massively important: A unique opportunity to change the US Dietary Guidelines

https://www.dietdoctor.com/massivel...tary-guidelines

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/2...ary-guidelines/

5,000 character limit...should you have a tendency to go on as I do

This also has a link to their newsletter to learn what else can be done about the new guidelines in the future.

One thing I did last time, nominate LC experts for the DGAC...of course, that went nowhere.

"USDA and HHS will consider all public comments submitted in relation to these criteria in finalizing the list of topics and questions to be examined in the development of the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines. After finalizing the topics and supporting questions, USDA and HHS will post a public call for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee nominations. The areas of expertise needed will be based on the final topics and supporting scientific questions, resulting in a coordinated and efficient scientific review."

Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Mar-08-18 at 13:59.
Reply With Quote
  #33   ^
Old Fri, Mar-09-18, 11:05
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 7,602
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/213/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 99%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Well, it looks like the comment battle is on. After the DD and Nutrition Coalition articles went up a wave of comments in support of low carb/saturated fat appeared today, counter balancing the onslaught of "plant based" comments the past few days. This is going to be interesting to watch. I'm seeing lots of testimonials of improved health in the comments in support of LC. Hopefully that message will get through to the decision makers. This WOE makes sick people better. I'm not seeing any real-life examples of improved health put forth in the comments pushing the vegan message.
Reply With Quote
  #34   ^
Old Fri, Mar-09-18, 12:18
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,492
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

I recall a clip where McGovern was saying something like "We don't have the luxury to wait for evidence before we do something". That was 50 years ago or something. Well, time has passed, and evidence has been uncovered, though not having had the luxury to wait that long for that much evidence to accumulate 50 years ago. Today, we certainly have the luxury to consider the last 50 years of evidence before we do something. We certainly have the luxury to choose among the best and most reliable evidence. We certainly have the luxury to admit we (in fact, not we, but they - 50 years ago, see?) were wrong in light of the obvious failure. We certainly have the luxury to try something different this time around.

We certainly have the luxury to request for input before we decide on the 2020 DGA.
Reply With Quote
  #35   ^
Old Fri, Mar-09-18, 12:46
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,103
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khrussva
Well, it looks like the comment battle is on. After the DD and Nutrition Coalition articles went up a wave of comments in support of low carb/saturated fat appeared today, counter balancing the onslaught of "plant based" comments the past few days. This is going to be interesting to watch. I'm seeing lots of testimonials of improved health in the comments in support of LC. Hopefully that message will get through to the decision makers. This WOE makes sick people better. I'm not seeing any real-life examples of improved health put forth in the comments pushing the vegan message.

Thanks for keeping an eye on this for us, Ken. I'd be following this more closely myself but I'm too busy with my own proposal right now.

I expect I'll probably submit a comment of my own in a couple of weeks once things settle down again a bit here.
Reply With Quote
  #36   ^
Old Fri, Mar-09-18, 13:59
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,215
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Comment period runs to March 30, submit it to: https://www.regulations.gov/comment...FRDOC_0001-1803
Reply With Quote
  #37   ^
Old Sun, Mar-11-18, 11:44
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,215
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

There are quite a few comments urging low carb and higher fat now...most a 2-4 sentences, but individually answered, many with their own brief LCHF weight loss/diabetes story. The vegetarians use the cut and paste of same two sentences.

Tried to submit my long comment...full of links of course, but they do not appear as links. And did not see anyone else with links either. Someone reading could copy and place into a browser, but what a pain, so I closed my comment.
Re-thinking it all.
Reply With Quote
  #38   ^
Old Sun, Mar-11-18, 12:22
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,492
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Comments will be printed obviously. Think of those comments as the same as comments published in a scientific journal, they all have references at the end, these references aren't links but standard IDs like PubMed uses for example. So instead of links to web pages, use standard IDs to pertinent research to support your comment. I'd go with comparative diet experiments, like the A-TO-Z study for example (doi:10.1001/jama.297.9.969 or PMID 17341711).

Bear in mind that it's hard to support health arguments with diet experiments since they're primarily done to figure out what makes us lean or fat, not what makes us healthy or sick. They still measure some health markers so you could go as far as that.

I just thought of a strategy but maybe it's too much in-your-face kinda thing. Cite studies paid by tax money, then ask why, as the case may be, they were not considered as basis to design DGA. I mean, why would tax money pay for that if we're not gonna use it for tax payers' benefit, hm?

-edit- The A-TO-Z experiment, as a for instance, was funded with lots of tax money, but as far as I'm aware has not been even mentioned in any official document wrt DGA:
Quote:
Funding/Support: This investigation was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R21AT1098, by a grant from the Community Foundation of Southeastern Michigan, and by Human Health Service grant M01-RR00070, General Clinical Research Centers, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health.

Last edited by M Levac : Sun, Mar-11-18 at 12:29.
Reply With Quote
  #39   ^
Old Sun, Mar-11-18, 13:30
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,215
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

ummm...some are citations (has more characters than the links) but some are lists of studies at websites, like the PHC.org list.

In their tips for commenting: "10. Agency reviewers look for sound science and reasoning in the comments they receive. When possible, support your comment with substantive data, facts, and/or expert opinions. You may also provide personal experience in your comment, as may be appropriate. By supporting your arguments well you are more likely to influence the agency decision making."

but then it appears I can't add the support (at least easily) I could make a separate file of References to attach...but I'm not submitting this for a PhD.

My first citation is from the CDC...got that the tax payer money angle there! Thanks,

https://www.regulations.gov/docs/Ti...ve_Comments.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #40   ^
Old Mon, Mar-12-18, 10:37
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 7,602
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/213/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 99%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

The volume of comments is really getting up there, so I've pretty much given up trying to read them all. All those "plant based" posts get a little boring -- like counting sheep. Anyway, this morning I did some key word searches just to see what the results might be. The search feature is apparently an exact word match. In other words, "carb" does not match the words "carbs" or "carbohydrates" even though they all start with "carb". Here are the results of the document counts that I found with the key words that I searched...

Total comment documents: 962

Containing the word ...

CARB: 406 documents
CARBS: 162 documents
PLANT: 214 documents
PLANTS: 215 documents
FAT: 363 documents
SATURATED: 88 documents
DIABETES: 254
OBESITY: 263
VEGAN: 28 documents
VEGETARIAN: 19 documents
ATKINS: 64 documents
KETO: 16 documents
KETOGENIC: 35 documents

I realize that some of these words might appear in anyone's comment, whether it is pro LC or not. But given the wording in the standard "plant based" message, it looks to me like pro LCHF/Saturated Fat comments are having a good showing. At the very least, using the key word search makes it easier to keep up on the carb related responses, which is really all that I'm interested in.

Last edited by khrussva : Mon, Mar-12-18 at 10:50.
Reply With Quote
  #41   ^
Old Mon, Mar-12-18, 12:39
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,122
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

We are now experiencing the equivalent of an election campaign.
Reply With Quote
  #42   ^
Old Mon, Mar-12-18, 12:50
khrussva's Avatar
khrussva khrussva is offline
Posts: 7,602
 
Plan: My own - < 30 net carbs
Stats: 440/213/210 Male 5' 11"
BF:Energy Unleashed
Progress: 99%
Location: Central Virginia - USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
... Tried to submit my long comment...full of links of course, but they do not appear as links. And did not see anyone else with links either. Someone reading could copy and place into a browser, but what a pain, so I closed my comment.
Re-thinking it all.

Keep in mind that you can upload and attach up to 10 documents in addition to the comment box area provided. I printed my success story and 1000 days of healthy eating to PDF files and attached them to my submission along with 3 photos. By printing to a file my PDF lost any ability to have a clickable link. But if you put your comments into an MS Word document and save it to a PDF then the links will be clickable. At least they are in my MS Office 2013 version of MS Word.
Reply With Quote
  #43   ^
Old Mon, Mar-12-18, 17:42
dcc0455 dcc0455 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 166
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 230/165/160 Male 67
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default

Regardless of your position on the guidelines, I applaud anyone who takes the time to participate, but the skeptic in me questions weather comments will actually influence the results. To take it a step further, I am not sure I would want the guidelines to based on comments, and hope that they take an objective look at the science. I am curious how open they are with the decision making process.
Reply With Quote
  #44   ^
Old Tue, Mar-13-18, 03:28
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,215
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

I sucked it up yesterday and moved the links into a separate document of references, and added titles and citations if a study. Good thing have the time and it was snowing anyway

At this first phase they are only seeking what issues the public sees as important. https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines The issues may inform their choices for the Science Committee. They may finally have a low carb researcher on that (I can recycle the nomination made five years ago )
Unlikely anyone would bother to read references now but they will be there in an attachment. Most comments are brief story about how LC helped someone lose weight or regain health, or eating saturated fats improved tests...it does not have to be elaborate.

Last edited by JEY100 : Tue, Mar-13-18 at 03:41.
Reply With Quote
  #45   ^
Old Tue, Mar-13-18, 06:40
LebenRedux LebenRedux is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 106
 
Plan: Dr. Westman
Stats: 242/225/150 Female 5' 5.5"
BF:39%/39%/24%
Progress: 18%
Location: Knoxville, TN (USA)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcc0455
Regardless of your position on the guidelines, I applaud anyone who takes the time to participate, but the skeptic in me questions weather comments will actually influence the results. To take it a step further, I am not sure I would want the guidelines to based on comments, and hope that they take an objective look at the science. I am curious how open they are with the decision making process.



I agree that the DGAs should not be changed on the basis of comments. But I also do not think that that's what we're advocating here.

Surely, laypersons who offer "only" anecdotal accounts of healing with LCHF can hope that the sheer volume of such accounts will persuade those who will be making the final decisions (those who may be, by training or peer pressure among their colleagues, biased against this way of eating and so automatically ignoring/discounting the scientific evidence) to take a second look at that evidence.

Our role is to get them to take that second look, form the question "wait, why are we getting all of these accounts? how did this happen?" and open their minds a little with a sense of genuine inquiry.

Then, with that second examination of the evidence put forth by such brilliant minds and careful researchers as ___(you know who they are, fill in the blank) at least SOME will be convinced by the facts.

Eventually LCHF will get the majority on the weight of that evidence alone. If not this time around then... But hopefully this time around. The sooner we get the DGAs changed, the sooner lives will be saved. So let's beat this drum loudly, LCHF-ers.
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 20:04.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.