Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:14:01 -0500 in article
<
[email protected]> Mu_n Over Eugenia
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:16:07 +0200, Matti Narkia <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>None of which specifically lists Atkins.
>
>>How could these studies, which _predate_ Atkins' publication of his diet, mention anything
>>about Atkins?
>
>They don't. You listed the ones that you claimed did. Grow up.
>
Do you have a comprehension problem or are you deliberately lying? As anyone can check I wrote:
"Dr Atkins first published his diet plan in 1972. At that time there were already several
studies about low-carbohydrate diets. Below references to some of these studies: "
Now where is the claim that these referenced studies would mention Atkins' diet or would be about
Atkin's version of low-carbohydrate diet? That would indeed have been a little difficult unless the
researchers were clairvoyants, because Atkins hadn't come out his diet when these studies were
published.
>
>>You implied in your earlier post that Atkins' diet was not based on science.
>
>I implied nothing of the sort.
>
You mentioned, among other things, that Atkins' and some other diets came out they were not under
any research and were "totally untested"", in other words they in your opinion hardly could have
been based on science. However, the references I listed suggest that not only had low-carbohydrate
diets been "under research" for many years before Atkin's published his diet, but there also had
been some preliminary testing of these diets.
>
>>My references prove otherwise. There were a number of low-carbodydrate studies on which Atkins
>>could base his diet.
>
>Exactly and I will not repeat myself again. I asked for the science that showed ATKINS DIET to be
>effective. You keep claiming that the 2PDiet has no science behind it. I agree. Neither did ATKINS
>specific DIET which is not just "a low carb diet", have any science behind it specifically
>regarding the ATKINS DIET.
>
Atkins' diet is just a version of low-carbohydrate diet, and there are variations even in the
application of Atkins' diet. Later there have been studies also specifically about the Atkins'
version of low-carbohydrate. I see no reason to get fixated onto Atkin's version when we talk about
low carbohydrate diets. But when designing his version of low-carbohydrate diet, Atkins could
benefit from the existing research about these diets.
>
>>Ah, but how do you know what Chung and Hall "see", and how do you verify what they "see", daily?
>
>Grow up. We live in the same town.
>
Perhaps you even live in the same house and wear same shoes? ;-)
>>>Scales.
>
>>So do you weigh these people?
>
>Yes.
>
>>If you do in what capacity you do that?
>
>Strength trainer.
>
>>What exactly is your role in their weight loss program?
>
>To put them on the 2PDiet if their obesity is an issue to their health or sports success.
>
And if they happen to lose weight, you attribute weight loss to 2PD and not to excercise? Do you
realize that, if you want prove anything at all about 2PD, you should have a matching control group
with the same level of exercise, but with a different diet.
>>And why should we believe anything you say? Hey, you cannot even prove who you are for god's
>>sake!;-).
>
>Because I don't use references in light of truthful, documented observations.
>
>>In other words you have no proof whatsoever for anything you have said.
>
>None that I care to give you.
>
How nice and convincing.
>I have asked you several times what your qualifications, education, expertise are and you have yet
>to answer me. My posts are all over Google so have at them.
>
Hey, you anonymous troll, you don't give even your name. For whatever I claim I provide documented
evidence, usually in the form of peer-reviewed studies, available to everyone. These have nothing to
do with my qualifications, education, expertise etc... These personal details would add absolutely
nothing to the quality of evidence and would provide no relevant information for the subjects we
_should_ discuss in this ng. You are requesting strictly off-topic personal details while cowardly
hiding _your_ real identity.
>So, what is your real name, qualifications (outside of being a Medline Search Freak), etc.
>
>If you have no answers again, this conversation is over.
>
I have no intention to continue reading you messages on regular basis, so I just hope you are man
enough to stick to your word.
--
Matti Narkia
