[quote]therajraj wrote:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/24/4585238/as-california-ban-on-foie-gras.html
California banning foie gras[/quote]
Yum… food porn.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/24/4585238/as-california-ban-on-foie-gras.html
California banning foie gras[/quote]
I am confused, is the ban specifically against foie gras, or the force feeding of animals?
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
Having good teachers for introductory calculus and physics is an absolute must, especially these days where kids are coming out of high school knowing much less about math then was required even 10 years ago. Freshmen and sophomore students need a good teacher and mentor to help them learn those crucial subjects and to help them learn the problem solving and critical thinking skills that are needed. Unfortunately, by the time professors are at the point where they are really good at teaching the course and explaining things to students, they are senior enough to get out of teaching those classes and push it off on a less experienced professor. It is starting to become a real problem because students struggle so much with those classes and with developing the math and problem solving skills that should have been taught in high school that they give up and switch to another major that does not require the more advanced math skills like computer science or engineering. This is leading to an increasingly noticeable shortage of physicists and mathematicians.
[/quote]
So completely true. Much credit is due to my high school calculus teacher for the ease with which I attained my mathematics degree, and for even setting me on that path. This is especially true considering the amount of interest (or lack thereof) most of my professors had in making sure we actually understood the material. You know, the kind that just come into the room, scrawl a bunch of formulas on the board and assign some homework. Anyways, he was by far the most influential teacher I ever had. He just had a way of keeping you interested, making everything seem so elementary, and most importantly, making you believe that you could fully own a concept.
[quote]anonym wrote:
- “Obese patients confined to the hospital, allowed the freedom of the ward and receiving diets of from basal minus 30 per cent to basal minus 48 per cent calories lose weight equally well when these diets contain 90 or 13 Gm. of protein.”
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/INTEMED/14192/archinte_55_2_006.pdf
- "…we found that subjects lost weight more rapidly during the low-calorie ketogenic diet period than during the mixed diet period (Fig. 1). However, the increment in weight loss exhibited during the ketogenic diet period was due solely to excretion of excess water.
- “…it appears obvious that under conditions of precise consistency of caloric intake, and essentially constant physical activity, qualitative modification of the diet with respect to the amount or kind of fat, amount of carbohydrate, and amount of protein, makes little or no difference in the rate of weight loss.”
- “After this initial loss of [salt and water] weight as measured by the scales, continued and sustained loss of adipose tissue depends in the final analysis on prolonged restriction of calories, regardless of whether these are derived from fat, carbohydrate, or protein.”
- “The higher protein content of tlmis study did not affect the prior conclusion that any difference in time rate of weight loss between fat and carbohydrate containing diets was due to the sodium and fluid-retaining capacity of dietary carbohydrate.”
- “The present work confirms earlier reports, however, that the only metabolic advantage offered by a low-carbohydrate diet is its dehydrating potential.”
- “The diet which consisted almost entirely of protein did not spare body protein better or induce a greater rate of weight loss than did the mixture of protein and carbohydrate.”
- “The results of this study show that similar weight losses can be achieved by obese subjects on VLCD of either mixed nutrients (CD) or pure protein (PP).”
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS,
Again, all of these studies meet the requirement I outlined earlier – the same standard I am holding you to. I can TRIPLE this list before I am through, all with the same conclusions.
Now – put up, or shut up. I don’t care about your half-baked, spit-balling theories about what SHOULD happen because a JOURNALIST said so; I care about what ACTUALLY happens when people are tested under the strictest conditions possible.
I don’t care about your “theories” – I care about the results.[/quote]
But what happens to the human metabolism after a becoming fully keto-adapted?
Phinney, S.D., et al., The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: physical and biological adaptation. Metablism, 1983. 32(8): p 757-68
Volek, J.S., et al., Carbohydrate restriction has a more favorable imapact on metabolic syndrome than a low fat diet. Lipids, 2009. 44(4) p 297-309.
Krieger, J.W. et al., Effects of variation in protein and carbohydrate intake on body mass and composition during energy restriction: a meta-regression, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2006. 83(2): p. 260-274.
Volek, J.S., E.E. Quann, and C.E.Forsythe, Low carbohydrate diets promote a more favorable body composition than low fat diets. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 2010. 32(1): p 42-47.
Quite frankly, I just wasted my time because you won’t read them. And let’s face it, the research is biased to favor the established opinions because the money for research comes from government lobby groups.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But what happens to the human metabolism after a becoming fully keto-adapted?[/quote]
What do YOU think happens?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Quite frankly, I just wasted my time because you won’t read them.[/quote]
No, I will. Though, tbh, given that you posted completely formatted citations without the courtesy of providing links, I think it’s EXTREMELY likely you just copy/pasted those from some other site without reading them yourself.
Hey anonym,
Do you have access to scholarly sites? There’s a few studies relating to our discussion on abortion and I was hoping to post them in the thread. Not paste the whole thing, just the conclusion and methodology.
Would you be able to do that?
The abstract for the first paper BEGINS WITH: “To study the metabolic effects of ketosis without weight loss”.
In fact, the abstract makes no mention of weight loss in any subject, whatsoever.
As my campus subscription to Metabolism only goes back to 1985, you will have to FIRST explain, yourself, what relevance this study has to our discussion and THEN provide me with a link to the complete piece.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I would like to say that that would lead you to throw every epidemiological study into the dustbin, but they are of course totally peer reviewed.
Garbage, nonetheless.
Because, correlation does not mean causation, never has, never will, and for next to insignificant correlation in nutritional studies that is twice as true as it would otherwise be.
It works for overwhelming correlations, as in cholera is related to polluted water, but in the case of macronutritients and all kinds of diseases, not so much.
A hypothetical: If people who digest more fiber are healthier, does that mean that fiber is good for you?
If you answer is not a resounding “No! Not necessarily!” you are part of the problem.
That would be, at best, the basis of a clinical study, specifically a ward study, where you substitute with fiber and do nothing else.
Then you would have a point, but that is not how it is done.
What is done is that 90% of the money for such studies is granted by organizations that totally buy into the lipid hypothesis and you either swallow it or you become a cab driver.
You deal with these people on a daily basis, what are they going to choose?
[/quote]
I will be the first to say that the peer review process is not perfect. I see studies all the time that pass peer review and contain major flaws in methodology and conclusions, but it is better than nothing and does make it easier to sort through bullshit claims. Most reputable journals are fairly devoid of bias, at least in physics. That may not be the case in the biological science, but my fiance tells me it is not all that big of an issue and I believe her. Now, scientists working for a company are most definitely biased and their claims should always be taken with a grain of salt. For instance, a study done by a corn farming organization that shows that high fructose corn syrup is healthy should surprise no one, but should be considered suspect no matter what. One of the reasons that we have a tenure system and such things as unrestricted grants is to prevent things like what you describe. It is not fool-proof, but it is mostly effective. I was told once that the health issues caused by hydrogenated oils were known back in the 60’s or 70’s, but major companies managed to convince the FDA to allow their unrestricted use anyway. I don’t know if this is true or not, but stuff like that does happen.
One major problem with scientific research, though, is not so much the research itself, but the way people use the conclusions of that research. Scientific studies, by necessity, tend to be narrowly focused and use very stringent controls and one needs to be careful about claims made by third parties citing that study.
Using your fiber example, let’s say that a supplement cites that study in an article promoting a fiber supplement and let’s assume that the study did show a health benefit from an increase in fiber. What was the health benefit? A person who is thinking about buying that supplement should look into the study and see if the parameters under which the added fiber increased the health of the subjects are applicable to that person. If the study was done on people who had been fiber deficient for a long period of time, the the health benefits would be more pronounced then in a person who already takes in an adequate amount of fiber and thus would not need that supplement. The article did not necessarily lie if it did not lay out the conditions under which their product would be helpful, but supplement articles tend to be very misleading with the scientific evidence for the benefit of their products
EDIT: the mods spend a lot of time breaking up my long ass posts into smaller, easier to read paragraphs so I figured I would do it myself for once.[/quote]
The whole fiber thing is not as simple as that.
Or maybe it it is, if that is all you want to answer, but the point is that less fiber signalizes a whole shift in nutrition.
Less fruit, less vegetables, more processed food high in both fat and sugar.
So, does it correlate very much with some sorts of cancers and heart disease and whatnot?
Yes?
But what did it?
Lack of phytochemicals and antioxidants, less fiber or more fat or sugar, maybe the vegetable fairy did not bestow her blessings on you.
The point is, we dont know, and yet, people act like they do.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I posted a video which contains many sources of info if you are not lazy enough to watch them all.
What do you want me to do summarize the videos and post the cited research?
You, GTFO![/quote]
You posted a video of Gary Taubes talking. I must have missed the part where he provided specific references (authors, dates, etc) for his assertions.
Gary Taubes, himself, is not a peer-reviewed journal article. Him saying something is true doesn’t make it a source.
I have stated that there is no difference in fat loss between low fat diets and low carb diets when calories are controlled for. I backed this up with, so far, twenty-one peer-reviewed journal papers conducted in metabolic wards that attest to this.
You are claiming there is some sort of “metabolic advantage” to low carb/high fat diets that make them superior to higher carbohydrate diets for weight loss. I have asked you to return the favor and back this up with research of equal quality.
You are completely incorrect about the existence of an advantage and you are completely incorrect about fat requiring carbohydrates to be stored. My asking for references isn’t so much to see if you are right, but to show that you are wrong.
Because, as I thought, you’ve got nothing.
Thanks for the shit-tier debate. At least Dr. Matt chimed in so I learned SOMETHING from this.[/quote]
I would also like to point out that Gary Taubs is an engineer and a journalist (MS in aerospace engineering and MS in Journalism) by training. He doesn’t even have a PhD in anything, let alone biology. He is by no means an expert in the field of nutrition at all. He is probably smart enough to read through a study and understand some of it, but by no means is his ability to interpret biological studies comprehensive. It is like a philosopher trying to read a study on an experiment involving String Theory and pretending to understand it, or me trying to read and fully understand a study in the field of chemistry. We can understand some, maybe in some cases most of the information, but we would be kidding ourselves if we did more then just read someone else’s conclusion based on the evidence and parrot it without understanding if it is a valid conclusion or if there were some flaws in the study. His opinion on nutrition is about as meaningful as anyone else’s opinion who is not an expert in the field. He is just able to use his writing and persuasion skills to convince people that also are not knowledgeable in that particular field that he is right, and of course very few people will actually read or be able to actually understand the studies that he may have used to draw his conclusions from if he even provides them.[/quote]
Well, to be fair, a philosopher could probably tell you what you fucked up methodologically and why and he does not have to understand a single word you are saying other then the premises and the conclusion.
Because if there is one thing philosophers are good at it is formal logic, which applies, whether they know what the topic is or not.
I kid you not.
The last one posted appears to be a review article. I am not going to waste time reading it just to have to hunt down the references it cites in order to examine how each study was conducted.
I’ll take a closer look at the middle two later, but it is abundantly clear to me that you haven’t actually read the shit you’re posting as evidence.
So far, I’d give your “rebuttal” a ‘cool story, bro’ rating.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey anonym,
Do you have access to scholarly sites? There’s a few studies relating to our discussion on abortion and I was hoping to post them in the thread. Not paste the whole thing, just the conclusion and methodology.
Would you be able to do that? [/quote]
Yeah, definitely.
PM me the studies and I’ll see what I can do.
Second reference:
No explicit instructions were provided regarding caloric intake for either diet to allow expression of any noncognitive aspects on food intake. Subjects received weekly follow-up counseling during which body mass was measured, compliance was assessed, and further dietetic education was provided. Seven-day weighed food records were kept during weeks 1, 6, and 12 of the intervention…
So, let me see if I got this right, lifty:
This is a study relying on self-reporting food intake where NO GUIDELINES were given for caloric intake and food logs were only analyzed THREE out of the TWELVE weeks of the study?
But, let’s say for the sake of argument that it IS pretty accurate. Now, I’m not that great with the whole +/- aspects of the measurements, so I’ll just take the averages until someone explains what I’m missing.
The CRD group dropped calories by, on average, 847 (2351 - 1504). The LFD group dropped calories by, on average, 604 (2082 - 1478). Table 1.
So, right off the bat, the low carb group, on average, had a daily caloric deficit of 243 calories (847 - 604 = 243) GREATER than the low fat group? Over twelve weeks, this would equal 20,412 extra calories burned, right (243 x 7 x 12)? AKA, an extra 5.8 pounds of fat?
Well, NO WONDER THEY LOST MORE WEIGHT.
Note that, while the low carbers lost more fat mass, they ALSO lost more LBM and the net change in body fat percent was roughly the same at the end of the study. Table 2.
What is this supposed to prove, again?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And let’s face it, the research is biased to favor the established opinions because the money for research comes from government lobby groups.[/quote]
Don’t tell me it’s biased – SHOW me it’s biased.
I have given you TWENTY-ONE high-grade studies to pick apart. You have yet to do so.
I have already dismissed one of yours as irrelevant, one as being poorly conducted and another as being a review article and not a piece of primary literature (NTTAWWT, just that it shows you probably didn’t read it).
The final study is a meta-regression. I’ll take a look at it later, but I am not a statistician and am typically wary of researchers who use complex statistical tools and software to “control” for numerous variables in their analysis.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey anonym,
Do you have access to scholarly sites? There’s a few studies relating to our discussion on abortion and I was hoping to post them in the thread. Not paste the whole thing, just the conclusion and methodology.
Would you be able to do that? [/quote]
Yeah, definitely.
PM me the studies and I’ll see what I can do.[/quote]
Thanks!
Unfortunately I did something stoopid and now my PMs are disabled.
Here they are:
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(08)00369-7/abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/248/4951/41
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2135437?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21100875050661
I’m not sure how this should be done… perhaps a temporary storage location for download?
What is the easiest way this could be handled?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Hey anonym,
Do you have access to scholarly sites? There’s a few studies relating to our discussion on abortion and I was hoping to post them in the thread. Not paste the whole thing, just the conclusion and methodology.
Would you be able to do that? [/quote]
Yeah, definitely.
PM me the studies and I’ll see what I can do.[/quote]
Thanks!
Unfortunately I did something stoopid and now my PMs are disabled.
Here they are:
http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(08)00369-7/abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/248/4951/41
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2135437?uid=3739448&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21100875050661
I’m not sure how this should be done… perhaps a temporary storage location for download?
What is the easiest way this could be handled?[/quote]
Everyone gets his PMs disabled but me…
Am I not radical enough?
It makes me wonder…
I got the first three, but I don’t have access to the final journal (J Psychiatr Pract).
I don’t know anything about temporary storage locations, but if you tell me what to do I’ll set it up.
upload them to sendspace.com then share the link.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
upload them to sendspace.com then share the link. [/quote]
Easy enough. Here ya go:
If you need any more, feel free to ask.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
upload them to sendspace.com then share the link. [/quote]
Easy enough. Here ya go:
If you need any more, feel free to ask.[/quote]
Cool thanks, I got them and reposted in the abortion thread.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-27/calories-low-carb-weight-loss/55843134/1
Low-carb diet burns the most calories in small study
After 6 weeks in keto I’m firmly in the LCHF camp.