-
[QUOTE=Stabby;228676]...up the crazy tree with all of the other squirrels...[/QUOTE]
Objection on behalf of squirrels in general, which are omnivores.
-
Thank you research raccoon!
I really hope that this kind of information continues to get published. I want to be an MD and focus on human nutrition, so hopefully by the time I am in school there will be less resistance to these ideas.
-
Here's another thing that happens when you base your dietary recommendations on pseudoscience and bias (also when you get Kelloggs to sponsor your studies): you create [URL="http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480701240752"]a study like this[/URL], which I found linked from [URL="http://lowcarbage.com/blog/2010/10/04/twilight-zone-of-diet-studies/"]here[/URL]:
[QUOTE][B]Moderate-carbohydrate low-fat versus low-carbohydrate high-fat meal replacements for weight loss[/B]
[B]Objectives:[/B] To compare the efficacy of a low-carbohydrate high-fat versus a moderate-carbohydrate low-fat diet for weight loss and cardiovascular risk reduction.
[B]Methods:[/B] In a prospective clinical trial, 137 participants (body mass index =25 kg/m2) were randomly assigned to Control (46 randomized, 44 completed), Low Carbohydrate (45 randomized, 42 completed), or Moderate Carbohydrate (46 randomized, 40 completed) groups. Outcomes included measures of body size and composition and blood chemistries.
[B]Results:[/B] Both the Low and Moderate Carbohydrate groups lost significantly more weight as well as inches from their waists and thighs than the Control group, while the Low Carbohydrate group lost a greater percentage of body fat. Although the Moderate Carbohydrate group showed significant reductions in serum cholesterol, the Low Carbohydrate group showed the greatest improvements in serum cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and very-low-density lipoprotein.[/QUOTE]
All making sense so far, right? So then you post your conclusions:
[QUOTE][B]Conclusions:[/B] Moderate approaches to weight loss such as a moderate-carbohydrate low-fat diet may be prudent.[/QUOTE]
OK. Anyone else feeling the need for more emoticons on this board?
-
:mad: + :rolleyes: + :confused: + :( + :mad: = what we need.
-
The concluding paragraph of thearticle states: "We ask whether it would be preferable to convene an impartial panel of scientists consisting of biochemists, anthropologists, geneticists, physicists, etc., who are not directly tied to nutritional policy. Such a panel would be able to hear all sides in the debate with few preconceived notions. "
this is laudable. However, I think that the notion that fat is bad is so deeply ingrained in our conventional view of the world that it would be impossible to get a panel that did not have this as a preconceived notion. We should find a panel that is willing to suspend disbelief and look at the actual evidence and question the assumptions that have no evidence behind them.
OneDeltaTenTango, over and out
-
[QUOTE=Hilary;228978]Here's another thing that happens when you base your dietary recommendations on pseudoscience and bias (also when you get Kelloggs to sponsor your studies): you create [URL="http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09637480701240752"]a study like this[/URL], which I found linked from [URL="http://lowcarbage.com/blog/2010/10/04/twilight-zone-of-diet-studies/"]here[/URL]:
All making sense so far, right? So then you post your conclusions:
OK. Anyone else feeling the need for more emoticons on this board?[/QUOTE]
Is there an emoticon for "What the F%$K!!"
-
I totally posted this on sparkpeople. I couldn't' help myself. I know I should have refrained. :x
