Interesting arcticle....

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Mirek Fídler, Jan 13, 2005.

  1. Tags:


  2. Anthony

    Anthony Guest

    "Mirek Fídler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight Watchers.html
    >
    > I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown comparison
    > between atkins and ornish :)
    >
    > Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right carbs/day
    > without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something I
    > think works best...
    >
    > Mirek

    What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
    and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
    reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.
    Interesting to note that cholesterol improvement correlated with weight loss
    rather than diet.
     
  3. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:13 -0500, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Mirek Fídler" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight Watchers.html
    >>
    >> I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown
    >> comparison
    >> between atkins and ornish :)
    >>
    >> Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right
    >> carbs/day
    >> without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something I
    >> think works best...
    >>
    >> Mirek

    > What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the
    > AMA,
    > and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that
    > you
    > reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.
    > Interesting to note that cholesterol improvement correlated with weight
    > loss
    > rather than diet.
    >
    >


    Although these people on all these diets really ate almost the same diet.

    --
    Bob in CT
     
  4. Anthony

    Anthony Guest

    "Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:13 -0500, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > Although these people on all these diets really ate almost the same diet.
    >
    > --
    > Bob in CT


    Fair point. Useless study really.
     
  5. MU

    MU Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:13 -0500, Anthony wrote:

    > What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
    > and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
    > reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.


    Things that are a waste of time:

    Counting cals and carbs
    Swiss balls
    Atkins
    Reading research unless you are qualified
     
  6. MU

    MU Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:13 -0500, Anthony wrote:

    > What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
    > and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
    > reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.


    Things that are a waste of time:

    Counting cals and carbs
    Swiss balls
    Atkins
    Reading research unless you are qualified
     
  7. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    Mirek Fídler wrote:

    > http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight Watchers.html
    >
    > I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown comparison
    > between atkins and ornish :)
    >
    > Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right carbs/day
    > without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something I think
    > works best...
    >
    > Mirek
    >
    >

    Weight loss isn't a diet. Successful weight loss is changing the way you
    live and think.



    The study apparently mainly shows that left to themselves, individuals
    on the diet plans in the study fail to adhere well to the actual
    guidelines, and actually end up losing much weight.

    So, it doesn't matter much what diet plan they fail to follow, they just
    fail in weight loss progress.

    In reality, I think this reflects well the average experience of people
    who attempt diets.

    There are many who take a few steps..... and then gradually slide away.

    You see a lot of that here too.

    But, then too there are those who do really stick to the dietary
    guidelines (Atkins, Ornish, Weightwatchers, South Beach) and lose quite
    a nice amount of weight.

    On Low Carb I went from 240 pounds to a low of 175 pounds over five
    months. This included a lot of outdoor exercise.

    Winter and a stress fracture of metatarsals led to a reduction of
    outdoor exercise and the weight ballooned up to almost 190 pounds.

    Rededication to the controlled eating, and adding a little more exercise
    has knocked the weight down to 192 in one more month.

    It is so easy to slide away and revert to old habitss. Which so many
    here know from their own personal experience.

    Weight loss isn't a diet. Successful weight loss is changing the way you
    live and think.
     
  8. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    MU wrote:

    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:13 -0500, Anthony wrote:
    >
    >
    >>What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
    >>and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
    >>reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.

    >
    >
    > Things that are a waste of time:

    <snip>

    > Reading research unless you are qualified



    This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.

    Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
    doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
    world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.
     
  9. MU

    MU Guest


    >> Things that are a waste of time:

    > <snip>
    >
    >> Reading research unless you are qualified


    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:26:36 -0600, jbuch wrote:

    > This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.


    Thank you, thank you.

    > Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
    > doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
    > world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.


    jbuch, it's very simple, data is only as good as the source and one's
    educational ability to use that data.

    99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
    this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
    can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.

    Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.
     
  10. MU

    MU Guest


    >> Things that are a waste of time:

    > <snip>
    >
    >> Reading research unless you are qualified


    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:26:36 -0600, jbuch wrote:

    > This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.


    Thank you, thank you.

    > Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
    > doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
    > world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.


    jbuch, it's very simple, data is only as good as the source and one's
    educational ability to use that data.

    99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
    this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
    can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.

    Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.
     
  11. Mirek Fídler wrote:
    >

    http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight Watchers.html
    >
    > I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown

    comparison
    > between atkins and ornish :)
    >
    > Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right

    carbs/day
    > without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something

    I think
    > works best...
    >
    > Mirek


    The "Omnivore's" review was misleading.

    Of the 50% who stayed on the Ornish diet, average dietary fat intake
    (as percent of calories) was 17%, not >30%, as "Omnivore" claimed.
    Considering only the groups that continued with their assigned diets
    (50% Ornish/Atkins; 65% Zone/Wt Watchers), Ornish is justified in
    claiming "superiority," particularly in the area of cardiovascular risk
    factors.

    Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor. As
    Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
    fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous
    literature which supports this statement, and no study which
    contradicts it, and it makes sense teleologically. And the reduction
    of LDL cholesterol was, by far, the greatest on the Ornish diet (even
    when imperfectly followed). As there were no other significant
    differences between the diets, save for the differences in LDL
    cholesterol (which WERE significant; although the authors regrettably
    neglected to note this), then Ornish continues to be justified in
    promoting his own particular dietary approach to cardiovascular disease
    (an approach really pioneered by Pritikin). The primary focus of the
    Ornish diet was as a preventative for coronary artery disease and not
    as a weight loss diet, per se. The study shows that, in a real world
    setting, where the dieters did not have "personal trainers" coaching
    and encouraging them every step of the way, but were just given an
    introduction, followed for two months, and then sent out into the world
    on their own (which is the real world; not the situation which
    "Omnivore" complains did not exist in the study, i.e. the "personal
    trainer" scenario), that, even in this setting, a full 50% of the
    participants stayed on a fat reduced diet and substantially reduced
    their LDL cholesterol and, with it, their risk of coronary vascular
    morbity.

    - Larry Weisenthal
     
  12. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    MU wrote:
    >
    >>>Things that are a waste of time:

    >>
    >><snip>
    >>
    >>>Reading research unless you are qualified

    >
    >
    > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:26:36 -0600, jbuch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.

    >
    >
    > Thank you, thank you.
    >
    >
    >>Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
    >>doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
    >>world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.

    >
    >
    > jbuch, it's very simple, data is only as good as the source and one's
    > educational ability to use that data.
    >
    > 99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
    > this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
    > can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.
    >
    > Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.


    This is America.
    (well, usenet is actually international).

    One doesn't need to know a subject to talk endlessly about it, in
    America (maybe some other nations also).

    And I agree, few have appropriate credentials, and few know what
    credentials are and how come they are important.

    This is an EMOTIONAL group, not an intellectual one. But even more so,
    America in an EMOTIONAL collection of people, not an intellectual
    collection of people.

    You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
    developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.
     
  13. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    | Mirek Fídler wrote:
    ||
    |
    http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight Watchers.html
    ||
    || I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown
    | comparison
    || between atkins and ornish :)
    ||
    || Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right
    | carbs/day
    || without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something
    | I think
    || works best...
    ||
    || Mirek
    |
    | The "Omnivore's" review was misleading.
    |
    | Of the 50% who stayed on the Ornish diet, average dietary fat intake
    | (as percent of calories) was 17%, not >30%, as "Omnivore" claimed.
    | Considering only the groups that continued with their assigned diets
    | (50% Ornish/Atkins; 65% Zone/Wt Watchers), Ornish is justified in
    | claiming "superiority," particularly in the area of cardiovascular
    | risk
    | factors.
    |
    | Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor.
    | As
    | Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
    | fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous
    | literature which supports this statement, and no study which
    | contradicts it, and it makes sense teleologically. And the reduction
    | of LDL cholesterol was, by far, the greatest on the Ornish diet (even
    | when imperfectly followed). As there were no other significant
    | differences between the diets, save for the differences in LDL
    | cholesterol (which WERE significant; although the authors regrettably
    | neglected to note this), then Ornish continues to be justified in
    | promoting his own particular dietary approach to cardiovascular
    | disease
    | (an approach really pioneered by Pritikin). The primary focus of the
    | Ornish diet was as a preventative for coronary artery disease and not
    | as a weight loss diet, per se. The study shows that, in a real world
    | setting, where the dieters did not have "personal trainers" coaching
    | and encouraging them every step of the way, but were just given an
    | introduction, followed for two months, and then sent out into the
    | world
    | on their own (which is the real world; not the situation which
    | "Omnivore" complains did not exist in the study, i.e. the "personal
    | trainer" scenario), that, even in this setting, a full 50% of the
    | participants stayed on a fat reduced diet and substantially reduced
    | their LDL cholesterol and, with it, their risk of coronary vascular
    | morbity.

    1) one needs to consider more than just LDL
    2) people are much more familair with low-fat diets than any of the others,
    so it really should be easier for people to do low fat.
     
  14. Anthony

    Anthony Guest

    "jbuch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
    > developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.
    >


    But we're rich, happy and optimistic.
     
  15. MU

    MU Guest


    >> 99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
    >> this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
    >> can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.
    >>
    >> Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.


    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:01:08 -0600, jbuch wrote:

    > This is America.
    > (well, usenet is actually international).
    >
    > One doesn't need to know a subject to talk endlessly about it, in
    > America (maybe some other nations also).
    >
    > And I agree, few have appropriate credentials, and few know what
    > credentials are and how come they are important.
    >
    > This is an EMOTIONAL group, not an intellectual one. But even more so,
    > America in an EMOTIONAL collection of people, not an intellectual
    > collection of people.
    >
    > You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
    > developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.


    ime, it is not American thing but there is not much else I can disagree
    with you.
     
  16. > Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor. As
    > Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
    > fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous


    This is what Ornish wants to believe. In reality, what really matters is
    TC/HDL ratio. LDL number alone is much less predictive that this ratio. You
    can try to google real numbers or graphs. This is reality.

    Of course, if your LDL is low, you do not need to have high HDL to achieve
    good ratio.

    Even in face of your logic this also makes sense. Even if you would eat zero
    saturated fat, your body will still produce LDL and you will still need
    garbage trucks to clean it, just less of them.

    Anyway, that was not the interesting part of article, I do not even remember
    that lipids were discussed there.

    Mirek
     
  17. > Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor. As
    > Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
    > fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous


    This is what Ornish wants to believe. In reality, what really matters is
    TC/HDL ratio. LDL number alone is much less predictive that this ratio. You
    can try to google real numbers or graphs. This is reality.

    Of course, if your LDL is low, you do not need to have high HDL to achieve
    good ratio.

    Even in face of your logic this also makes sense. Even if you would eat zero
    saturated fat, your body will still produce LDL and you will still need
    garbage trucks to clean it, just less of them.

    Anyway, that was not the interesting part of article, I do not even remember
    that lipids were discussed there.

    Mirek
     
  18. curt

    curt Guest

    "Anthony" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "jbuch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
    > > developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.
    > >

    >
    > But we're rich, happy and optimistic.
    >


    American's are happy? You must not drive a car. I can't believe the way
    people drive here in the US compared to just a few years ago. It is amazing
    how aggressive people in these huge SUV's are. I don't think that shows we
    are very happy. There was a time in the US that people looked at other
    people as a possible friend. Now people look at other people with great
    distrust and potential enemy. Happy? I am not seeing many smiling faces.
    bush has made this whole thing so much worse as well. he promotes his fear
    in everyone so he can take care of his agenda. He sure cost us lots of
    money and I doubt we will ever recover from his poor leadership. But hay,
    we are optimistic. lol I am optimistic that I will be moving out of the
    country.

    Curt
     
  19. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    Anthony wrote:

    > "jbuch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
    >>developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.
    >>

    >
    >
    > But we're rich, happy and optimistic.
    >
    >



    Standard childish kneejerk response.

    You are probably proud of it?
     
  20. MU

    MU Guest

    On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 21:14:01 -0500, Anthony wrote:

    > But we're rich, happy and optimistic.


    WASP talk. Other worlds abound.
     
Loading...