Popular diet study

yo! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thanks, that was a better report, all others seem to hide the fact that the atkins was the WORST
diet and that Ornish was the best in terms of insulin, LDL AND weight loss.++I'm not sure why the
media is off to hiding this the++difference is obvious and stands out.

-------------- ÀÎÅÍ³Ý Ä«¸®½º¸¶ KORNET -------------

This study raises a lot of questions. First and foremost is how Dr. Dansinger and Dr. Ornish are
connected. Why did they field questions together? What did Ornish have to do with this study that he
was involved presenting the thing to the press?

Other questions... What about a control group?.... What proportion of weight loss was fat, water,
protein, etc? ... How were the levels of insulin measured? and how often?... Why are these stats
given to us in
% and not in real numbers?

I cannot see how any scientifically minded individual can look at this study and come to any
conclusions based on what was presented at a press conference. We will all have to read the study
and its real numbers before anything can be made of this.

TC

For an extensive look at the research:

medscape.com464193Open ↗

tcomeau said:

yo! <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thanks, that was a better report, all others seem to hide the fact that the atkins was the WORST
diet and that Ornish was the best in terms of insulin, LDL AND weight loss.++I'm not sure why the
media is off to hiding this the++difference is obvious and stands out.

-------------- ÀÎÅÍ³Ý Ä«¸®½º¸¶ KORNET -------------

This study raises a lot of questions. First and foremost is how Dr. Dansinger and Dr. Ornish are
connected. Why did they field questions together? What did Ornish have to do with this study that
he was involved presenting the thing to the press?

I think that he was just at the conference so they talked to him. That's my impression anyway

Quoted message said:

Other questions... What about a control group?.... What proportion of weight loss was fat, water,
protein, etc? ... How were the levels of insulin measured? and how often?... Why are these stats
given to us in
% and not in real numbers?

We'll have to wait for the study to be published. As you know, they have only presented a paper on
it at this point.

Quoted message said:

I cannot see how any scientifically minded individual can look at this study

What study? It has not been published.

Quoted message said:

and come to any conclusions based on what was presented at a press conference. We will all have to
read the study and its real numbers before anything can be made of this.

TC, I have to ask <vbg> -- what does this mean to your "calorie theory?" ;-)

--
jmk in NC

jmk <[email hidden]> wrote in message

<snip>

Quoted message said:

TC, I have to ask <vbg> -- what does this mean to your "calorie theory?" ;-)

Not much. I've noticed that many nutritionists are now adding some new language to their
recommendations, notably where they would just say cut fats and calories, they are now saying cuts
fats, sugars and calories. Same kinda thing is happening with the low-fat diet gurus, they used to
obsess about fats and calories, now they talk about cutting fats and refined carbs such as sugars.
Or they suggest that people cut fats and change their carbs to wholegrain or wholefood carbs. Its a
major and not-so-subtle shift that confirms that Atkins was in fact right and the mainstream is now
trying its damnedest to use what methods work, ie. low-carb, without publicly admitting they were
wrong all these years.

It is not *my* calorie theory, and counting calories, by themselves, is still not a practical method
to predict weight loss or gain.

TC