Re: 15 Year Study - Fast Food , Obesity and Insulin Resistance

  • Thread starter Daniel Hoffmeister
  • Start date



D

Daniel Hoffmeister

Guest
Dominic Shields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:34:42 -0600, jbuch <[email protected]>
> wrote:


> >15-year study shows strong link between fast food, obesity and insulin
> >resistance


> Can we look forward to the results on similar studies into
> The defecatory habits of Bears in a forest environment.
> The religious convictions of Karol Joseph Wojtyla.
> Whether Glenn Miller can be safely posted as "missing".


Studies that show what we consider obvious are easy to make fun of, but
it's very important that they are being done since this is what it takes
to get people's attention and shift conventional thinking.

Dan
325/192/190
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes
 
D

Daniel Hoffmeister

Guest
Dominic Shields <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Hoffmeister
> <[email protected]> wrote:


> >Studies that show what we consider obvious are easy to make fun of, but
> >it's very important that they are being done since this is what it takes
> >to get people's attention and shift conventional thinking.


> Its utterly obvious that taking in more calories than are expended
> results in an increase in weight, but the fad diet industry and their
> followers pretend that this is not true. People are highly selective
> in what they treat as obvious.


It's the mix of calories in fast food that particularly dangerous (high
sugar, high 'complex' carb, high fat). If people were overeating a
healthier balance, the negative health results wouldn't be nearly as dire.

I would be very interested to see what percentage of calories were drunk
vs. eaten in this study. The volume of sugar-filled soft drinks kids will
consume if left to themselves is truly frightening. Our boys were all
very active and they got away with it without getting fat, but they all
found that their teenage drinking habits got them in trouble as they got
older and they've all dropped sugary soft drinks now.

Dan
325/192/190
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
"Dominic Shields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 23:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Daniel Hoffmeister
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Studies that show what we consider obvious are easy to make fun of, but
> >it's very important that they are being done since this is what it takes
> >to get people's attention and shift conventional thinking.

>
> Its utterly obvious that taking in more calories than are expended
> results in an increase in weight, but the fad diet industry and their
> followers pretend that this is not true. People are highly selective
> in what they treat as obvious.


Explain the second part of the first sentence, please. You're claiming that
the so-called fad diet industry and their followers prentend that a person
won't gain weight if they eat more calories than they expend? Kindly,
provide some examples of this.
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
"Dominic Shields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:38:52 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Explain the second part of the first sentence, please. You're claiming

that
> >the so-called fad diet industry and their followers prentend that a

person
> >won't gain weight if they eat more calories than they expend? Kindly,
> >provide some examples of this.

>
> The claims I have read fall into two camps, firstly the idea that
> certain kinds of foods or combinations of foods have some kind of
> "calorific advantage" and dodge the issue that you may lose weight
> folowing this plan due to the fact that there are actually less
> calories in the food.


I personally am not familiar with this camp, so I won't comment.

> The second kind of claim is that if you cut out certain food groups,
> you can "lose weight while eating all you want", pseudoscientific
> mumbo-jumbo is often employed to explain why one food group is "bad".
> All the mumbo-jumbo attempts to do is conceal that given less choice,
> if followed you will take in fewer calories.


Those who lose weight on low carb have plenty of choice, they simply eat
less to lose weight. They eat less because they want less. It is not at all
about less choice, because people can always eat whatever the hell they want
and they can eat all they want, too.

Low carbers generally don't make claims that one food group is 'bad', but
claims are made for certain so-called "food" beings bad.

I think you speak from the POV of someone who has no first-hand experience
with low carb. Is that true?
 
M

marengo

Guest
"Dominic Shields" <[email protected]> wrote in message

|| The claims I have read fall into two camps, firstly the idea that
|| certain kinds of foods or combinations of foods have some kind of
|| "calorific advantage" and dodge the issue that you may lose weight
|| folowing this plan due to the fact that there are actually less
|| calories in the food.
|| The second kind of claim is that if you cut out certain food groups,
|| you can "lose weight while eating all you want", pseudoscientific
|| mumbo-jumbo is often employed to explain why one food group is "bad".
|| All the mumbo-jumbo attempts to do is conceal that given less choice,
|| if followed you will take in fewer calories.


The advantage of low-carb eating is that the appetite is suppressed due to
the constant source of fuel provided by ketosis. So when someone reduces
their carbohydrate intake they do not get hungy, eat less and lose weight.

The advantage in eating a diet low in a carbohydrates has nothing to do with
pretending that "a person won't gain weight if they eat more calories than
they expend" as you mistakenly stated. And I have never seen any statement
by anyone promoting a low carb diet that "if you cut out certain food groups
you can lose weight while eating all you want." Your stating this in a
low-carb newsgroup leads me to believe that either
(a) you are a troll, purposely misstating the facts,
(b) you are grossly ignorant and need to educate yourself, or
(c) you are extremely gullible and believe anything you hear without
checking the facts, or
(c) you are too stupid to understand the true facts that are
well-established

We who lose weight and enjoy the multiple health benefits of a low-carb way
of eating know that the benefits are ultimately from eating fewwer
calories.
Of course.
--
Peter
270/219/180
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
 
R

revek

Guest
marengo wrote:

And I have
> never seen any statement by anyone promoting a low carb diet that "if
> you cut out certain food groups you can lose weight while eating all
> you want."


Nanny-types tend to equate "eat until satisfied" with "all you want" or
"gorging". They're afraid that without externally imposed limits nobody
(who needs to diet) will behave sensibly. Which says a lot more about them
than those they purport to care about. Plus, as you note further on, it
signals a lack of familiarity with lowcarb and how it works.

--
revek
There are three types of people in the world. Those that are good at
math and those that are not.
 
J

jbuch

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:51:03 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I think you speak from the POV of someone who has no first-hand experience
>>with low carb. Is that true?

>
>
> Absolutely, just as I speak about the health benefits of not smoking
> from the POV of someone who has never once even held a cigarette




Your viewpoint on quitting smoking would be that of a "virgin", and
would be rightly discounted by amokers.... who would prefer to hear a
personal story of how another individual had finally managed to quit
smoking.... and atay quit.

"Quitting smoking is easy, I've done it hundreds of times". Mark Twain.
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
"Dominic Shields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:51:03 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I think you speak from the POV of someone who has no first-hand

experience
> >with low carb. Is that true?

>
> Absolutely, just as I speak about the health benefits of not smoking
> from the POV of someone who has never once even held a cigarette


Which, of course, means you're completely ignorant of low carb and basing
your opinion only upon anti-low carb propaganda spewed forth by those who
feel they have something to lose.
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
"Dominic Shields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:25:54 -0600, jbuch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Your viewpoint on quitting smoking would be that of a "virgin", and
> >would be rightly discounted by amokers

>
> So does it follow from that that smoking is not harmful to anyone if
> someone who has never smoked thinks it is ?


Perhaps not. But it does follow that you are ignorant about low carb diets
and simply repeat ******** you've heard before.
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
"Dominic Shields" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:13:31 -0500, "marengo" <[email protected] cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >(a) you are a troll, purposely misstating the facts,
> >(b) you are grossly ignorant and need to educate yourself, or
> >(c) you are extremely gullible and believe anything you hear without
> >checking the facts, or
> >(c) you are too stupid to understand the true facts that are
> >well-established

>
> None of the above, I am interested in why people believe things they
> do. If you think that the things I have said are fabrications that
> don't represent the kind of things that the fad diet industry say ,
> just put the gist of them into Google and see what you find.
> It has been interesting to see the backtracking that has occurred
> recently.
>
> Ask yourself if I was a troll why am I not obeying the troller's
> golden rule - which is "Start trouble then disappear".


Trollers don't start trouble and disappear anymore. They like to hang
around and stoke the flames.
I personally don't consider you a troll, though. I think (b) and/or (c)
describes you as far as low carb is concerned.
 
M

marengo

Guest
"revek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
|| marengo wrote:
||
|| And I have
||| never seen any statement by anyone promoting a low carb diet that
||| "if you cut out certain food groups you can lose weight while
||| eating all you want."
||
|| Nanny-types tend to equate "eat until satisfied" with "all you want"
|| or "gorging". They're afraid that without externally imposed limits
|| nobody (who needs to diet) will behave sensibly. Which says a lot
|| more about them than those they purport to care about. Plus, as you
|| note further on, it signals a lack of familiarity with lowcarb and
|| how it works.
||
|| --
|| revek
|| There are three types of people in the world. Those that are good at
|| math and those that are not.


It sounded so much nicer when you said it! :)
--
Peter
270/219/180
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
 
M

marengo

Guest
"revek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
|| marengo wrote:
||
|| And I have
||| never seen any statement by anyone promoting a low carb diet that
||| "if you cut out certain food groups you can lose weight while
||| eating all you want."
||
|| Nanny-types tend to equate "eat until satisfied" with "all you want"
|| or "gorging". They're afraid that without externally imposed limits
|| nobody (who needs to diet) will behave sensibly. Which says a lot
|| more about them than those they purport to care about. Plus, as you
|| note further on, it signals a lack of familiarity with lowcarb and
|| how it works.
||
|| --
|| revek
|| There are three types of people in the world. Those that are good at
|| math and those that are not.


It sounded so much nicer when you said it! :)
--
Peter
270/219/180
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
 
J

jbuch

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:

> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:25:54 -0600, jbuch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Your viewpoint on quitting smoking would be that of a "virgin", and
>>would be rightly discounted by amokers

>
>
> So does it follow from that that smoking is not harmful to anyone if
> someone who has never smoked thinks it is ?





It follows from what you say, that your logic is deranged and distorted
to proving ..... whatever.

It has been some time since I encountered someone as cionsistent in
distorting words as you.

You should be proud of yourself. No one else is.
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:
|| On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 07:55:19 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Perhaps not. But it does follow that you are ignorant about low
||| carb diets and simply repeat ******** you've heard before.
||
|| I think we've established its ********, the question is still, why do
|| people continue to push it through magazines and books ?

Well, at lot of those people simply pass on what they've read elsewhere.
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:
|| On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 08:25:27 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| I think (b) and/or (c)
||| describes you as far as low carb is concerned.
||
|| So BBC's Horizon programme on Atkins where Ketosis for example was
|| shown to be hokum would have been a good place to start ?

Sorry, I don't follow your question. However, if that program was trying to
make the point that ketosis is nonsense or there is no benefit to it or that
it is somehow harmful, then it was spewing BS. But I haven't seen that
program so I really can't comment one way or another. Perhaps you can
enlighten me as to its content or message.
 
R

revek

Guest
marengo wrote:

>
> It sounded so much nicer when you said it! :)


I was in generous mood. ;)

--
revek
Engage Romulan .sig cloaking device....
 
R

revek

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:53:41 -0600, jbuch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > It follows from what you say, that your logic is deranged and
> > distorted to proving ..... whatever.

>
> Explain this to me. it seemed to follow from the argument that as a
> someone who never smoked, nothing I had to say on the subject was
> going to be correct. I have actually watched my father die from cancer
> caused by pipe smoking.


Your shifting of the goal posts is noted.

The argument was that as a non smoker, your advice on how to quit as far
less value than a smoker who has successfully quit.

--
revek
it's tough being a common-sense-based lifeform around here -- Queen of
Cans and Jars
 
J

jbuch

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:53:41 -0600, jbuch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>It follows from what you say, that your logic is deranged and distorted
>>to proving ..... whatever.

>
>
> Explain this to me. it seemed to follow from the argument that as a
> someone who never smoked, nothing I had to say on the subject was
> going to be correct. I have actually watched my father die from cancer
> caused by pipe smoking.



I NEVER said that nothing you had to say on the subject would be correct.

This is an example of your mental distortions.



--
................................


Keepsake gift for young girls.
Unique and personal one-of-a-kind.
Builds strong minds 12 ways.
Guaranteed satisfaction
- courteous money back
- keep bonus gifts

http://www.alicebook.com
 
R

Roger Zoul

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:
|| On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:37:13 -0500, "Roger Zoul"
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Perhaps you can
||| enlighten me as to its content or message.
||
|| Absolutely, here is the BBC page with links to the transcript for the
|| programme in question
|| http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2004/atkins.shtml

It's no wonder that you've got screwed up ideas about Atkins from that show.
Just consider this one example from the transcript:

"NARRATOR: And it worked, the results were stunning. Dr Atkins patients lost
weight quickly and easily. He began to realise there was something very
special about this diet. It seemed you could eat as much as you want as
often as you want and still lose weight. There appeared to be no need to
worry about calories. This was the heart of the Atkins diet mystery. How
could people eat lots of food without counting calories and become thin?"

These are the narrator's words. Note how this person turned one truthful
phrase around and converted it to ********:

"It seemed you could eat as much as you want as often as you want and still
lose weight."

The the narrator says: "There appeared to be no need to worry about
calories." and later "How could people eat lots of food without counting
calories and become thin?"

Now, the first truthful statement is truthful because people on Atkins, who
are eating a diet typically high in fat, but only moderated in protein, are
actually eating less food than they were eating. They are instructed to eat
until you're satisfied, which means eat all you want, not all you can.

But the narrator turns it all around. "There appared to be no need to worry
about calories." Well, that is often true. But what is more true is that
calories typically don't have to be counted because decreased appetite
results, for the typical overweight person, in eating less. That doesn't
mean that calories aren't important, but that if one removes the effects of
excessive carbs on an overweight person, they tend to get normal appetite,
rather than an abnormal appetite.

The, this last statement is just completely nuts. "How could people eat lots
of food without counting calories and become thing?" Geez....who said
anything about eating lots of food? And why is is a mystery that people can
lose weight without counting calories? Since when is counting calories the
only way to become thin? There are zillions of normal weight people around
who are thin and don't count calories.

But, the article does seem balanced except there the narrator makes such
silly statements. It make the entire idea seem silly. Of course, this
notion of Aktins having to do with the metabolic advantage I think is junk.
I don't find that one exists. I think most people just don't realize how
many calories people were eating compared to how many they eat after
starting the plan. That difference makes a difference.

Then, after these people lose all this weight and see all of their health
markers improve, medical researchers start asking questions about long-term
effects. Well, we know that the prospects for long-term of those overweight
folks were had that not lost weight. But now we cast FUD on these long-term
prospects in light of further research. IMO, that's total ****. We need
mankind to figure out what we should eat, rather than just eating what would
be available to us without the fruits of run-away technology. Yeah, what
that tells me is that we are our own worst enemies.

Gotta go to the gym.
 
J

jbuch

Guest
Dominic Shields wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 17:12:57 -0600, jbuch <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I NEVER said that nothing you had to say on the subject would be correct.

>
>
> Then could you clarify what you meant, interesting to note your
> attempts to portray me as unbalanced, projection perhaps ?



No, I am tired of dealing with you. Look how you snuggled two distinct
thoughts into one sentence.

Really an expert at distortions.