[PERKDOUG]

I have read many many of these research reports relating to low fat, high fat ect. Most, but not all, have a fatal flaw and that is compliance of the test subjects. Look at BlueSky's graph above. As time goes on the test subjects begin to regain the weight. Why is that? I think nearly all the test subjects are cheating as the trial progresses. The trial went 24 months. There are very few people that can maintain a low carb diet for more than a few weeks without "letting up" due to craving for carbohydrates. There are very few people that can maintain a low fat, calorie restricted diet due to the constant hunger that accompanies that type of diet. It would be interesting to apply a polygraph test on the subjects at the end of the trial. But the polygraph results might render the research data worthless and unworthy of publication. And the where would the money for the next research grant come from? This type of research is interesting and worthy of discussion on the Forums but I question the validity of most of it due to compliance of the test subjects and the bias of the researchers. It still makes for some fun in discussion.
Thanks guys and gals, I have enjoyed the discussion on this thread.

[fgummett]

Why is there this need for Moderators to step in whenever the low-carb side actually seems to be making some headway? If I was a cynic I might suspect that this forum was sponsored by the sugar industry

I did just go back and re-read the whole thread... I think it is a measured, reasoned, polite and respectful discussion with give and take on both sides.

I'll assume that I am considered among the "fanatical" when it comes to low-carb. In my defense I will just say that clearly low-carb is viewed as "fringe"... with the weight of the media, food industry and health establishment ably promoting and defending it's "rival"... the low-fat diet... if I can in any way redress a small part of that balance and try to focus on plain facts, as opposed to rhetoric, scare tactics, emotion and conjecture, then I plan to continue doing so

[notme]

Originally Posted by fgummett

Why is there this need for Moderators to step in whenever the low-carb side actually seems to be making some headway? If I was a cynic I might suspect that this forum was sponsored by the sugar industry

LC'ing was not making "headway" frank. The posters that opposed your thoughts were out shouted and they stopped posting. That is a far cry from making headway.

I actually believe in low carb. I do NOT believe that eating fats is good for my body. I will eat limited fats, but will not resort to adding high fat to replace carbohydrates. So far that thought process has kept my weight down and my triglycerides excellent. I was told at my last appointment that I did not need medication for cholesterol. I think I will continue to do what is working for me as I am sure you will also.

I don't want you to stop posting your thoughts. Your ideas are thought provoking and gives a different perspective than some may have now. I just want to make sure that less "exuberant" people have a say also without fear of being outshouted.

[shiny!]

Which two member's claimed to feel ganged up on? Who is not being given the chance to give their opinion? It has not been my intention to be rude or sarcastic, just to give *my* opinion - and I don't see how that stops anyone from feeling like theirs is valid.

[shiny!]

[quote=notme;388482] The posters that opposed your thoughts were out shouted and they stopped posting.

QUOTE]


And you know this how????

I was suspecting the same thing that Frank was, that LC was
not the WOE for the mod's who chimed in...

[notme]

Your last two posts are exactly what I am talking about. Not helpful at all and only made to incite and argument. I rest my case.

Lets go back to the subject.

If you have a problem with the way things are moderated, please contact admin and make your complaints.

[fgummett]

Thanks Nancy I have sincerely been trying to tone it down and was brought up to be polite and respectful... unless provoked. Perhaps it it my condescending British attitude that rubs people the wrong way

I'm not so certain that any folks went away because they felt "out shouted"... did anyone PM you to say that?

I have recently really started to question blanket statements and half-truths based on something heard on TV or from a friend of a friend or read on the interweb. It is frustrating how many people simple go along with these, without questioning them or doing any fact-checking for themselves. If somebody has a point to make I say make it.. but if if doesn't stand up to scrutiny be prepared for someone to call you on it.. I expect the same of anything I post and I at least try to be gracious and open to new ideas.

My sincere apologies for straying whatever the OP topic really was anyway

[shiny!]

Originally Posted by notme

Your last two posts are exactly what I am talking about. Not helpful at all and only made to incite and argument. I rest my case.

My last two posts have been sincere, rational questions or comments. Just short and to the point. Nothing inciteful or argumentative. Again, just my opinions, which you don't agree with. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm really gettiing weary of being scolded like a naughty child.

[notme]

Shiny please feel free to pm me with your questions.

back to the regularly scheduled program.......

[shiny!]

????? Any questions I had, I asked. (which you didn't answer, btw) I don't feel any need to pm you.

And as for the getting back to the "regularly scheduled program", I'd love to, but it's been successfully brought to a halt.

Since this (what *I* thought was though-provoking and stimulating) thread has turned, for me, into nothing more than a "tit-for-tat", I will now bow out.

[Jan B]

Originally Posted by shiny!

????? Any questions I had, I asked. (which you didn't answer, btw) I don't feel any need to pm you.

And as for the getting back to the "regularly scheduled program", I'd love to, but it's been successfully brought to a halt.

Since this (what *I* thought was though-provoking and stimulating) thread has turned, for me, into nothing more than a "tit-for-tat", I will now bow out.

Right now I wish I could be a moderator. Love you Nancy . . . .

Then I would turn it back over in 5 minutes!!

[REDLAN]

The modest benefit shown here by the Israeli for Atkins style diet is an atypical result. The typical pattern is initial weight loss and regain is greatest for the Atkins group, and there to be no significant difference between diets at the 2 year mark.

and the question from Frank

Can you please quote a study or two to back up this statement? If you read posts above like the recent one of Yannah you will see that the "significant difference" is a singular lack of hunger cravings on a low-carb diet.

well here is one

Effects of low-carbohydrate vs low-fat diets on we...[Arch Intern Med. 2006] - PubMed Result

this one is a review of 5 studies comparing low carb versus low fat diets, and considered to be of sufficient quality to be included in the review. THe authors conclude

After 6 months, individuals assigned to low-carbohydrate diets had lost more weight than individuals randomized to low-fat diets (weighted mean difference, -3.3 kg; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.3 to -1.4 kg). This difference was no longer obvious after 12 months (weighted mean difference, -1.0 kg; 95% CI, -3.5 to 1.5 kg).

there are more, but I liked this one, because it was a review and the researchers had already filtered out the poor quality ones.

Personally speaking I have no objection to reasoned argument. Science is not a democracy, or a consensus. 4, 10 15 or a hundred posts saying the same thing does not necessarily make it so. It is the quality of the argument that matters. Short curt or rude posts are simply that - short curt or rude, and it is important that when we disagree with other posters we ensure our answers remain courteous, and we do not allow personal differences of opinion to spill over into a lack of respect for another's point of view.

And as I said before using lower carbs as a treatment regime for people with diabetes is a perfectly rational response to limit insulin requirements.

[fgummett]

Thanks REDLAN... I asked for a study and you responded with 5 in one

I have previously heard of the Cochrane Collaboration approach and it is my understanding that it sets a high standard on any trials it will consider for review.

The conclusion is indeed as you say:

Low-carbohydrate, non-energy-restricted diets appear to be at least as effective as low-fat, energy-restricted diets in inducing weight loss for up to 1 year.

to paraphrase... this review of 5 studies shows that the unrestricted low-carb approach seems better in the first 6 months, as compared to the low-fat calorie-restricted diet... but is on par by 12 months. So no bad thing... it is at least as effective as the standard prescribed approach. But I agree with you that low-carb coming out ahead on weight, over a two year study in Israel, was atypical of studies done so far.

Like in Israel, this study goes on to report more favourable HDL-Cholesterol and Triglyceride levels on the low-carb diets, BUT cautions that the LDL-Cholesterol and Total Cholesterol are better on the low-fat. So which is more significant... HDL-C and Trigs or LDL-C and TC? I now believe that a high HDL-C and low Trigs far outweigh any risk associated with a high LDL-C and it has to do with the LDL particle sizes... "large and fluffy" being relatively harmless while "small and dense" being the ones that carry the risk. As LDL-C is just a measurement of volume, the implication of the particle size is that someone with an "high" LDL-C can actually be at a lower risk than someone else with a "low" LDL-C. If you haven't already, you can read about it in this PDF Beyond Routine Cholesterol Testing: The Role of LDL Particle Size Assessment...

---

At the risk of getting "shouty" I also wanted to point out that I agree with you that the Israel study was flawed - as were the ones cited above - especially in allowing the low-carb to be calorie unrestricted... it leaves unanswered questions, such as: is it the low-carb or low-calories that lead to the improved health markers?
I think it important to realise that just about any dietary study cannot help but be less than perfect - and a reminder that I am speaking as a layman and not a scientist - but my understanding is that the the "gold standard" for the scientific method is: a double-blind, controlled study, subject to full peer review, where only one variable is changed between the control group and the study group, where none of the participants (or anyone interacting with them) know which group they are in.
In the case of a diet study, it is hard to disguise the difference between say, a steak, a three-bean salad, and a bowl of pasta. It is also impossible to alter only one variable at a time... if you set out to maintain the same calories, you cannot decrease fat without increasing carbs or protein to compensate, and in doing so you also change the relative proportion of each nutrient. Dietary studies also need to be long-running and most frustratingly they rely on humans... who are notoriously unpredictable

[PERKDOUG]

Originally Posted by Harold

Does anyone here in the last 18 posts remember what the topic was originally? This is why LC'ers get a bad rap. You all get on your soap boxes and drive everyone crazy with your fanaticism. Besides I am with owlyn on this thread.

Harold, I think we all had a lot of fun on this thread. As for the original post, I read it 3 times and still don't get it.

[Harold]

Originally Posted by fgummett

Why is there this need for Moderators to step in whenever the low-carb side actually seems to be making some headway? If I was a cynic I might suspect that this forum was sponsored by the sugar industry

I did just go back and re-read the whole thread... I think it is a measured, reasoned, polite and respectful discussion with give and take on both sides.

I'll assume that I am considered among the "fanatical" when it comes to low-carb. In my defense I will just say that clearly low-carb is viewed as "fringe"... with the weight of the media, food industry and health establishment ably promoting and defending it's "rival"... the low-fat diet... if I can in any way redress a small part of that balance and try to focus on plain facts, as opposed to rhetoric, scare tactics, emotion and conjecture, then I plan to continue doing so

Originally Posted by fgummett

Thanks Nancy I have sincerely been trying to tone it down and was brought up to be polite and respectful... unless provoked. Perhaps it it my condescending British attitude that rubs people the wrong way

I'm not so certain that any folks went away because they felt "out shouted"... did anyone PM you to say that?

I have recently really started to question blanket statements and half-truths based on something heard on TV or from a friend of a friend or read on the interweb. It is frustrating how many people simple go along with these, without questioning them or doing any fact-checking for themselves. If somebody has a point to make I say make it.. but if if doesn't stand up to scrutiny be prepared for someone to call you on it.. I expect the same of anything I post and I at least try to be gracious and open to new ideas.

My sincere apologies for straying whatever the OP topic really was anyway

The OP had NOTHING to do with low carbing. Yes, we have had many complaints and members leave because of the antics of low carbers changing every thread, no matter the topic. Would you please inform the rest of us why low carbers do this. It seems suspicious to me the time and energy they spend on justifying their diet to themselves.

Originally Posted by PERKDOUG

Harold, I think we all had a lot of fun on this thread. As for the original post, I read it 3 times and still don't get it.

The popular myth that all type 2's brought it on themselves because they were way over weight or obese along with being sedentary is not true. Many way over weight and obese people never become diabetic. Those that do exhibit a reversal when the fat is removed. However there is a large number of type 2's that were only a few points over their BMI for many years and never have any problem until. Until they all of a sudden in a two to four year period gain 30 to 50 pounds with no change in diet or activity levels, and can not lose it. Then they go to a doctor and the doctor interprets it as caused by the fat. For these type 2's in hindsight, realize their problems started before the onset of weight. Even when these people loose the weight they still have diabetes. Loosing control for them means gaining weight rapidly. I beleive this was what the OP was referring to. However like owlyn stated about the OP I was looking for the sales pitch to follow after a few posts.