Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

When I started reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I breezed though over
100 pages. Then I realized that very little of what had been said was in
memory, and the only solution was to begin again and take notes or write
comments in the book and underline or circle text.

I'm on page 9.

{Snip}

Quoted message said:

I haven't got the slightest idea of how I could ever explain much of this
information to someone who hasn't read the book.

Yeah. Good luck with that!

Jim said:

When I started reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I breezed though
over 100 pages. Then I realized that very little of what had been said
was in memory, and the only solution was to begin again and take notes
or write comments in the book and underline or circle text.

I'm really not that far along yet, but I am astonished at the lack of
scientific principles that have been revealed in this older medical
research.

They pick the variable they think is the solution, and ignore everything
else. "My way, or the highway" is a good saying, but on the other hand
it shows astonishingly lousy science.

The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
"researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of fields.

I have never read of such a bunch of self centered individuals vying for
control of the minds of collages and the public ... well, I forgot
Congress.... Sorry.

Maybe that up above explains WHY it became such a mess.

At any rate, part of the slowness is needed because I often have to stop
and reconsider my own overly simplified biases I have developed over the
last two or three years of reading based on my desire to learn best
how to reduce weight and become healthier.

I can see why Taubes spent the better part of five years bringing all of
this together.

The story is complex, but repetitive. Certain things happen over and
over, namely that facts will distort themselves somehow around the Keys
hypotheses of the decade. The past large dollar amounts spent on Keys
inspired "research" will continue to be "validated" and all kinds of
compromises will be made to allow this out of control ship to keep
lumbering on.

I haven't got the slightest idea of how I could ever explain much of
this information to someone who hasn't read the book.

Here's a synopsis by ole Taubsie:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3654291&page=1

Quoted message said:

From what he's written, it seems the subtitle of this book should be "

The Ultimate Irrefutable DANDR."

Go TEAM

c
Team Whoosh

Jim said:

When I started reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I breezed though
over 100 pages. Then I realized that very little of what had been said
was in memory, and the only solution was to begin again and take notes
or write comments in the book and underline or circle text.

Quoted message said:

I'm really not that far along yet, but I am astonished at the lack of
scientific principles that have been revealed in this older medical
research.

Yeah, it's sad to think I'm still naive at 38 years old, but until I
started reading Taubes's work, I just assumed that research - at least
the kind of research that gets reported in reputable journals and news
outlets - followed basic scientific principles. I figured they were
generally double-blind, or at least did their best to isolate the
factors being studied.

Instead, it turns out that a lot of research behind the "X has been
found to cause Y" reports is really nothing more than surveys -- pick
out a group of people, measure things about them and ask them questions,
and look for correlations (often with certain ones in mind already) and
call them causations. That's the kind of "research" that's used to sell
shady products like breast enlargement pills on late-night TV, but it
turns out we're using the same quality of research to make everyday
health decisions. Amazing.

Quoted message said:

They pick the variable they think is the solution, and ignore
everything else. "My way, or the highway" is a good saying, but on
the other hand it shows astonishingly lousy science.

Quoted message said:

The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
"researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of
fields.

Another good (but depressing) book along these lines is "Inventing the
AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. He explains how and why the entire
medical establishment can go stampeding down the same path to a single
theory with very little evidence, ignoring any contrary facts, when it
supports what they already believe and what will boost their careers.
It's happened several times over the last century or so; but the
low-fat/cholesterol example has probably hurt the largest number of
people.

Quoted message said:

I have never read of such a bunch of self centered individuals vying
for control of the minds of collages and the public ... well, I forgot
Congress.... Sorry.

Quoted message said:

Maybe that up above explains WHY it became such a mess.

Yeah. In general, when Congress steps in where the Constitution didn't
specifically give it responsibility....look out.

One thing I notice about all this stuff is that, to paraphrase Fox
Mulder, the truth was always out there. Dr. Mike Eades recently quoted
from McGovern's Congressional sessions that produced the 1977 anti-fat
edict, pointing out that at least one expert stood up and presented the
evidence behind the low-carb case, but McGovern just said that wasn't
what his doctor told him, and that was the end of that. They had an
agenda, driving by a frighteningly small number of true believers, and
it wasn't going to be derailed.

Quoted message said:

I haven't got the slightest idea of how I could ever explain much of
this information to someone who hasn't read the book.

Heck, it's hard enough to explain low-carb to people who have only
spoken low-fat all their lives, let alone an entire book of research
that overturns everything they believe. Just a couple weeks ago, I was
told *by a diabetic*, "Oh, it won't hurt you any to have one spoonful of
mashed potatoes!" Where do you start? Dive into a lecture about the
role of insulin in the body and watch their eyes glaze over? Even if
you explain it well and they listen, they won't believe it anyway. You
can't change their minds with evidence and logic, because those aren't
what those beliefs are based on in the first place. I usually opt for
friendly sarcasm: "Yes it will! If I eat that, my foot will fall right
off."

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Jim said:

I'm really not that far along yet, but I am astonished at the lack of
scientific principles that have been revealed in this older medical
research.

Yesterday's Science section of the NYT had a very good piece
on the book. The title was "Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of
Mistaken Consensus"

A good cut and paste:

"Mr. Taubes told me he especially admired the iconoclasm of
Dr. Edward H. Ahrens Jr., a lipids researcher who spoke out
against the McGovern committee’s report. Mr. McGovern
subsequently asked him at a hearing to reconcile his
skepticism with a survey showing that the low-fat
recommendations were endorsed by 92 percent of “the world’s
leading doctors.”

“Senator McGovern, I recognize the disadvantage of being in
the minority,” Dr. Ahrens replied. Then he pointed out that
most of the doctors in the survey were relying on secondhand
knowledge because they didn’t work in this field themselves.

“This is a matter,” he continued, “of such enormous social,
economic and medical importance that it must be evaluated
with our eyes completely open. Thus I would hate to see this
issue settled by anything that smacks of a Gallup poll.” Or
a cascade."

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

Aaron Baugher said:

Jim said:

Quoted message said:

The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
"researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of
fields.

Another good (but depressing) book along these lines is "Inventing the
AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. He explains how and why the entire
medical establishment can go stampeding down the same path to a single
theory with very little evidence, ignoring any contrary facts, when it
supports what they already believe and what will boost their careers.
It's happened several times over the last century or so; but the
low-fat/cholesterol example has probably hurt the largest number of
people.

Quoted message said:

Aristotle had a great reputation as an intellectual authoority, and a
dedicated following for quite a long time.

His work was first lost and then rediscovered and reintroduced to the
West by the Arabs.

Following his reintroduction to the western scholars, for some time, the
definition of a "scientific heretic" was anything that went against his
teachings.

His whole "physics" was wrong, but it wasn't until the work of Galileo
and Newton and others that it was fully set aside as ancient theories
made in the absence of modern controlled experiments - repeatable by others.

There have been those that claim that this "Great Authority" set back
Physics by over a thousand years, but I would argue that it was only
about 500 or so years that his writings set back Physics. It wouldn't be
fair to count the centuries in which his work had been lost to the West.

Tentatively, I postulate that Ancel Keys set the diet/cardiac and
chronic disease community back about 50 years or so. However, those
have been the most expensive 50 years of research.

However, he didn't do it alone. The bulk of the medical reseach
community helped greatly to "stay the course" of the Fat/Cholesterol
hypothesis as fact.

Jim wrote:
:: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::: Jim <[email hidden]> writes:
::::
:::
:::: The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
:::: "researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of
:::: fields.
:::
:::
::: Another good (but depressing) book along these lines is "Inventing
::: the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. He explains how and why the
::: entire medical establishment can go stampeding down the same path
::: to a single theory with very little evidence, ignoring any contrary
::: facts, when it supports what they already believe and what will
::: boost their careers. It's happened several times over the last
::: century or so; but the low-fat/cholesterol example has probably
::: hurt the largest number of people.
::::
:::
::
:: Aristotle had a great reputation as an intellectual authoority, and a
:: dedicated following for quite a long time.
::
:: His work was first lost and then rediscovered and reintroduced to the
:: West by the Arabs.
::
:: Following his reintroduction to the western scholars, for some time,
:: the definition of a "scientific heretic" was anything that went
:: against his teachings.
::
:: His whole "physics" was wrong, but it wasn't until the work of
:: Galileo
:: and Newton and others that it was fully set aside as ancient theories
:: made in the absence of modern controlled experiments - repeatable by
:: others.
::
:: There have been those that claim that this "Great Authority" set back
:: Physics by over a thousand years, but I would argue that it was only
:: about 500 or so years that his writings set back Physics. It
:: wouldn't be fair to count the centuries in which his work had been
:: lost to the West.

Being the disagreeable soul that I am, I would claim that poor old Aristotle
put forth notions that seemed reasonable to him. Others, supposedly being
of sound mind and body, had many, many years to formulate and offer up
alternative notions, based on what seemed reasonable to them, and based on
what could be measured or proven by the math. Hence, one cannot blame poor
old Aristotle that no one was able to displace his wrong notions with
theirs. It's the totality of mankind who is at fault there, if there is
fault.

::
:: Tentatively, I postulate that Ancel Keys set the diet/cardiac and
:: chronic disease community back about 50 years or so. However, those
:: have been the most expensive 50 years of research.

Same deal. Keys was wrong, but he cannot be blamed for the incredible
failing of those coming after him. In fact, it would appear that Keys could
have easily been debunked even at the time he put forth his notions. The
fact that he was not - speaks volumes - IMO.

::
:: However, he didn't do it alone. The bulk of the medical reseach
:: community helped greatly to "stay the course" of the Fat/Cholesterol
:: hypothesis as fact.

Absolutely. This has to be the greatest failure of "science" that we have
known to date, because it is not as if the opposing facts weren't in
existence. This is a situation where greed is at the core, IMO.

Roger Zoul said:

Jim wrote:
:: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::: Jim <[email hidden]> writes:
::::
:::
:::: The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
:::: "researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of
:::: fields.
:::
:::
::: Another good (but depressing) book along these lines is "Inventing
::: the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. He explains how and why the
::: entire medical establishment can go stampeding down the same path
::: to a single theory with very little evidence, ignoring any contrary
::: facts, when it supports what they already believe and what will
::: boost their careers. It's happened several times over the last
::: century or so; but the low-fat/cholesterol example has probably
::: hurt the largest number of people.
::::
:::
::
:: Aristotle had a great reputation as an intellectual authoority, and a
:: dedicated following for quite a long time.
::
:: His work was first lost and then rediscovered and reintroduced to the
:: West by the Arabs.
::
:: Following his reintroduction to the western scholars, for some time,
:: the definition of a "scientific heretic" was anything that went
:: against his teachings.
::
:: His whole "physics" was wrong, but it wasn't until the work of
:: Galileo
:: and Newton and others that it was fully set aside as ancient theories
:: made in the absence of modern controlled experiments - repeatable by
:: others.
::
:: There have been those that claim that this "Great Authority" set back
:: Physics by over a thousand years, but I would argue that it was only
:: about 500 or so years that his writings set back Physics. It
:: wouldn't be fair to count the centuries in which his work had been
:: lost to the West.

Being the disagreeable soul that I am, I would claim that poor old Aristotle
put forth notions that seemed reasonable to him.

Yes, he put plain old "common sense" and some speculation into play. He,
and the scientific or intellectual group of his day would almost always
refuse to actually dirty their hands with "expeiements".

Modern science is complicated because "common sense" has been found
inadequate.

The "common sense" of "fat and/or cholesterol causeing
cholesterol/plaque buildup in atheroscherosis" has not held up to modern
experiment, but the simplicity of the idea of this "common sense" seems
to refuse to die.

Quoted message said:

Others, supposedly being
of sound mind and body, had many, many years to formulate and offer up
alternative notions, based on what seemed reasonable to them, and based on
what could be measured or proven by the math. Hence, one cannot blame poor
old Aristotle that no one was able to displace his wrong notions with
theirs. It's the totality of mankind who is at fault there, if there is
fault.

::
:: Tentatively, I postulate that Ancel Keys set the diet/cardiac and
:: chronic disease community back about 50 years or so. However, those
:: have been the most expensive 50 years of research.

Same deal. Keys was wrong, but he cannot be blamed for the incredible
failing of those coming after him. In fact, it would appear that Keys could
have easily been debunked even at the time he put forth his notions. The
fact that he was not - speaks volumes - IMO.

::
:: However, he didn't do it alone. The bulk of the medical reseach
:: community helped greatly to "stay the course" of the Fat/Cholesterol
:: hypothesis as fact.

Absolutely. This has to be the greatest failure of "science" that we have
known to date, because it is not as if the opposing facts weren't in
existence. This is a situation where greed is at the core, IMO.

Sounds like a good summary to me. :-)

Jim wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Jim wrote:
::::: Aaron Baugher wrote:
:::::: Jim <[email hidden]> writes:
:::::::
::::::
::::::: The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
::::::: "researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders
::::::: of fields.
::::::
::::::
:::::: Another good (but depressing) book along these lines is
:::::: "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. He explains how
:::::: and why the entire medical establishment can go stampeding down
:::::: the same path to a single theory with very little evidence,
:::::: ignoring any contrary facts, when it supports what they already
:::::: believe and what will boost their careers. It's happened several
:::::: times over the last century or so; but the low-fat/cholesterol
:::::: example has probably hurt the largest number of people.
:::::::
::::::
:::::
::::: Aristotle had a great reputation as an intellectual authoority,
::::: and a dedicated following for quite a long time.
:::::
::::: His work was first lost and then rediscovered and reintroduced to
::::: the West by the Arabs.
:::::
::::: Following his reintroduction to the western scholars, for some
::::: time, the definition of a "scientific heretic" was anything that
::::: went against his teachings.
:::::
::::: His whole "physics" was wrong, but it wasn't until the work of
::::: Galileo
::::: and Newton and others that it was fully set aside as ancient
::::: theories made in the absence of modern controlled experiments -
::::: repeatable by others.
:::::
::::: There have been those that claim that this "Great Authority" set
::::: back Physics by over a thousand years, but I would argue that it
::::: was only about 500 or so years that his writings set back
::::: Physics. It wouldn't be fair to count the centuries in which his
::::: work had been lost to the West.
:::
::: Being the disagreeable soul that I am, I would claim that poor old
::: Aristotle put forth notions that seemed reasonable to him.
::
:: Yes, he put plain old "common sense" and some speculation into play.
:: He, and the scientific or intellectual group of his day would almost
:: always refuse to actually dirty their hands with "expeiements".
::
:: Modern science is complicated because "common sense" has been found
:: inadequate.
::
:: The "common sense" of "fat and/or cholesterol causeing
:: cholesterol/plaque buildup in atheroscherosis" has not held up to
:: modern experiment, but the simplicity of the idea of this "common
:: sense" seems to refuse to die.
::

Ah...but...the "common sense" that should have prevailed would say that fat
was ok and the starches and sweet things were not. Hence, the "fat and/or
cholesterol" notion was actually anti-"common sense" {and downright evil,
IMO} if you consider the era in which it sprung forth. Today, yeah, that's
pretty much "common sense" because it has been banged into our heads! 🙂

Someone threw some juju our way to see if they could wipe us out. Might
still, too!!! 🙂

::
::
::: Others, supposedly being
::: of sound mind and body, had many, many years to formulate and offer
::: up alternative notions, based on what seemed reasonable to them,
::: and based on what could be measured or proven by the math. Hence,
::: one cannot blame poor old Aristotle that no one was able to
::: displace his wrong notions with theirs. It's the totality of
::: mankind who is at fault there, if there is fault.
:::
:::::
::::: Tentatively, I postulate that Ancel Keys set the diet/cardiac and
::::: chronic disease community back about 50 years or so. However,
::::: those have been the most expensive 50 years of research.
:::
::: Same deal. Keys was wrong, but he cannot be blamed for the
::: incredible failing of those coming after him. In fact, it would
::: appear that Keys could have easily been debunked even at the time
::: he put forth his notions. The fact that he was not - speaks
::: volumes - IMO.
:::
:::::
::::: However, he didn't do it alone. The bulk of the medical reseach
::::: community helped greatly to "stay the course" of the
::::: Fat/Cholesterol hypothesis as fact.
:::
::: Absolutely. This has to be the greatest failure of "science" that
::: we have known to date, because it is not as if the opposing facts
::: weren't in existence. This is a situation where greed is at the
::: core, IMO.
:::
:::
:: Sounds like a good summary to me. :-)

Quoted message said:

Yeah, it's sad to think I'm still naive at 38 years old, but until I
started reading Taubes's work, I just assumed that research - at least
the kind of research that gets reported in reputable journals and news
outlets - followed basic scientific principles. I figured they were
generally double-blind, or at least did their best to isolate the
factors being studied.

I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

Every time, I was either fooled by some new groundbreaking book that
told me to eat white bread and skittles and run fifty miles a week; or
some Miracle Weight Loss plan that inevitably included running fifty
miles a week. Or some skinny person who lived on tootsie rolls, or
somene serenly claiming that eating meat was the source of violent
behavior and a cheeseburger would ruin my karma for twenty subsequent
lives.

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

c

are twinkies food?

Losertown USA wrote:

:: are twinkies food?

If you run 50 miles a week, maybe.

Jim said:

When I started reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I breezed though
over 100 pages. Then I realized that very little of what had been said
was in memory, and the only solution was to begin again and take notes
or write comments in the book and underline or circle text.

I'm really not that far along yet, but I am astonished at the lack of
scientific principles that have been revealed in this older medical
research.

They pick the variable they think is the solution, and ignore everything
else. "My way, or the highway" is a good saying, but on the other hand
it shows astonishingly lousy science.

The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious
"researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of fields.

I have never read of such a bunch of self centered individuals vying for
control of the minds of collages and the public ... well, I forgot
Congress.... Sorry.

Maybe that up above explains WHY it became such a mess.

At any rate, part of the slowness is needed because I often have to stop
and reconsider my own overly simplified biases I have developed over the
last two or three years of reading based on my desire to learn best
how to reduce weight and become healthier.

I can see why Taubes spent the better part of five years bringing all of
this together.

The story is complex, but repetitive. Certain things happen over and
over, namely that facts will distort themselves somehow around the Keys
hypotheses of the decade. The past large dollar amounts spent on Keys
inspired "research" will continue to be "validated" and all kinds of
compromises will be made to allow this out of control ship to keep
lumbering on.

I haven't got the slightest idea of how I could ever explain much of
this information to someone who hasn't read the book.

Okay, I just finished this thing. I wouldn't even call it a book.
It's the only fully cited research paper likely to hit Barnes and
Noble this year.

The newspapers probably all have some asthmatic intern who's been
assigned to summarize New Diet Books. Unluckily for the intern, there
is no way to do that. The book *is* the summary. Gary Taubes doesn't
strike me as a genius or anything but no one can say his Conclusions
are Unsupported.

Nothing published in the past five years has made me more confident
that we're all beset by The Sugar Jeebies.

c

don't hold your breath for the graphic novel

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

The newspapers probably all have some asthmatic intern who's been
assigned to summarize New Diet Books. Unluckily for the intern, there
is no way to do that. The book *is* the summary. Gary Taubes doesn't
strike me as a genius or anything but no one can say his Conclusions
are Unsupported.

Nothing published in the past five years has made me more confident
that we're all beset by The Sugar Jeebies.

I haven't read the book, but if his conclusion about obesity and IR is
that insulin is THE culprit, his conclusion isn't supportable.

It's also the cortisol, and its effects on thyroid and the growth hormone.

Susan

Losertown USA said:

I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when
and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any
one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook
changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives
on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even
when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die
Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I
think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression
from all that, but I can understand how people with different
backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.

Quoted message said:

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight.
I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack
of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto
those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood
sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a
poisonous drug for me.

When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an
alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk
pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun.
For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even
told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I
dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me,
alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view
sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.

Quoted message said:

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
"complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining
ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the
truth does eventually win out.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Aaron Baugher said:

Losertown USA said:

I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when
and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any
one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook
changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives
on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even
when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die
Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I
think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression
from all that, but I can understand how people with different
backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.

Quoted message said:

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight.
I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack
of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto
those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood
sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a
poisonous drug for me.

When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an
alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk
pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun.
For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even
told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I
dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me,
alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view
sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.

Quoted message said:

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
"complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining
ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the
truth does eventually win out.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

🙂. Hi Aaron, nice to meet you.

Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who
make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the
Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300
dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective
carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually
*saying* so.

I grew up with old-world Ukrainians. Same thing. All there was for
dinner when I was growing up was pork chops. Once in a while there
would be a beet. Wonderbread was what American kids had to eat
because their grandmas didn't love them.

c
Pima by any other name

Quoted message said:

Aaron Baugher said:

Losertown USA said:

I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always
ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and
always eventually came right around and cut carbs.

Quoted message said:

I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when
and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any
one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook
changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives
on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even
when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die
Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I
think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression
from all that, but I can understand how people with different
backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti
turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start
again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to
the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people
believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight.
I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack
of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto
those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood
sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a
poisonous drug for me.

Quoted message said:

When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an
alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk
pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun.
For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even
told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I
dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me,
alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view
sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow
carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.

Quoted message said:

I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
"complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining
ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the
truth does eventually win out.

Quoted message said:

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

🙂. Hi Aaron, nice to meet you.

Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who
make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the
Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300
dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective
carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually
*saying* so.

As I get deeper into Taubes, my reading is (and this is maybe Taubes
point) is that Atkins did a great service to some of us (the folks who
bought the book and who it resonated for) and he did a greater
disservice
to us by antagonizing the establishment to where it had to be with him
or against him, even though the LC diet goes back long before him and
had a lot of science for it that he wasn't up on. Mike Eades's blog
for
yesterday (I think) was about the story on Taubes's story and cascades
in the NY Times. Seems reasonable.

So, maybe what we need is a new Dr. Atkins, only one who gets
along with people. Like, I dunno, Tom Hanks.

The important thing, the info is out there, you just have to look a
little,
and it works for most folks if they actually do it.

Hollywood wrote:
:: On Oct 11, 3:41 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
::: On Oct 11, 10:23 am, Aaron Baugher <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::
:::
:::
:::: Losertown USA <[email hidden]> writes:
::::: I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right,
::::: always ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried
::::: something else, and always eventually came right around and cut
::::: carbs.
:::
:::: I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could
:::: remember when and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't
:::: think there was any one Eureka moment when I read or heard
:::: something and had my outlook changed. Growing up on a farm and
:::: having ancestors who lived long lives on lots of fatty pork, I
:::: never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even when they were
:::: pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die Young"
:::: introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet
:::: without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again,
:::: I think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly
:::: processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural
:::: progression from all that, but I can understand how people with
:::: different backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary.
:::
::::: A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and
::::: spaghetti turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would
::::: have to start again, weighing it all, researching it all, and
::::: coaxing myself back to the inevitable conclusion that whatever
::::: the hell these people believed, MY body thiought sugar in all
::::: forms was slow cyanide.
:::
:::: Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose
:::: weight. I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the
:::: complete lack of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease
:::: off it and hang onto those benefits. This time around, thanks in
:::: part to testing my blood sugar, I realize it has to be for the
:::: long haul, and sugar is a poisonous drug for me.
:::
:::: When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered
:::: myself an alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of
:::: people who got drunk pretty much every night after work -- that's
:::: just what we did for fun. For me it was a way to get my shy self
:::: to loosen up. One friend even told me he thought I might be an
:::: alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I dropped alcohol entirely on
:::: the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me, alcohol was a much
:::: easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view sugar that
:::: way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one
:::: drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble.
:::
::::: I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree,
::::: Slow carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept.
:::
:::: I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and
:::: "complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're
:::: gaining ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to
:::: believing that the truth does eventually win out.
:::
:::: --
:::: Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz
:::
::: 🙂. Hi Aaron, nice to meet you.
:::
::: Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people
::: who make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part
::: of the Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a
::: new 300 dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty
::: effective carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without
::: actually *saying* so.
::
:: As I get deeper into Taubes, my reading is (and this is maybe Taubes
:: point) is that Atkins did a great service to some of us (the folks
:: who bought the book and who it resonated for) and he did a greater
:: disservice
:: to us by antagonizing the establishment to where it had to be with
:: him or against him, even though the LC diet goes back long before
:: him and had a lot of science for it that he wasn't up on.

Well, that's an interesting POV. Did (or could) Atkins really [censored] the
establishment so much that they had rebel so strongly as to essentially
condem LC to hell?

Mike
:: Eades's blog for
:: yesterday (I think) was about the story on Taubes's story and
:: cascades in the NY Times. Seems reasonable.
::
:: So, maybe what we need is a new Dr. Atkins, only one who gets
:: along with people. Like, I dunno, Tom Hanks.
::
:: The important thing, the info is out there, you just have to look a
:: little,
:: and it works for most folks if they actually do it.

Roger Zoul said:

Well, that's an interesting POV. Did (or could) Atkins really [censored] the
establishment so much that they had rebel so strongly as to essentially
condem LC to hell?

It's in the chapter entitled "The Fattening Carbohydrate Disappears."
Up
in the 400's. Read it on the bus today. One of the low fat cognoscenti
of
the 70's pretty much admitted in an interview with Taubes that that's
what
happened.

Mike Eades seems to back it up (consistently will cite Atkins the man
as a royal jerk who was insufferable).

I have never read the original Diet Revolution, only the last version
of
DANDR before he died. From that, between the lines, you get that he's
a rebel against the system that's shut him out for 20+ years. The
anger
always came through for me. I might've misread the cause.

Quoted message said:

Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who
make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the
Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300
dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective
carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually
*saying* so.

I've noticed that too. Even the low-fat packaged meals are quietly
dropping in carbs. You don't exactly see them pushing a lot of baked
potatoes anymore. Of course, I don't think those companies *really*
want people to be lose all the weight and keep it off, but they do need
people to have a little success, or they won't keep paying. A diet
that's reduced enough in carbs to cause some weight loss, while still
having enough carbs to cause cravings, would be just the ticket -- but
I'm not sure even I'm cynical enough to think that's the plan.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

Hollywood said:

Mike Eades seems to back it up (consistently will cite Atkins the man
as a royal jerk who was insufferable).

In a recent blog post, he talked about Atkins's statement that his diet
"seemed" to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, and said that that
"claim" set low-carbing back 50 years. I think that's a little harsh,
because Atkins didn't claim to have repealed anything; he said it
*seems* that way when you first get into it. Also, people who were
willing to condemn a whole field of research because of one bombastic
statement from one man had to already be headed that direction anyway.
If it hadn't been that line, it would have been something else.

Still, he's probably right that Atkins wasn't the best spokesman when it
came to gaining the respect of the elites -- although the same qualities
that hurt him there probably helped him sell to the general public.

--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz