Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > Low-Carb War Zone
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 18:52
2bthinner!'s Avatar
2bthinner! 2bthinner! is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,371
 
Plan: Intermittent Fasting, LC
Stats: 242/215/130 Female 5'7.5"
BF:too/dang/much
Progress: 24%
Location: Florida
Default

Quote:
One thing I've considered is that maybe supersized people actually need a lot more of certain nutrients, for whatever reason (god only knows).
It was quoted/stated on another forum that obesity is internal starvation.

I hope you find a level that makes you feel good again!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 19:28
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
No need to take me, yourself, or the banter of the forum so seriously!

As I noted, I've mentioned the MTHFR previously....I took the time to go into much greater detail since you haven't said anything that leads me to believe you've read up on it, were concerned it may be a factor for some people, or that you'd even noted what role it plays in our metabolic pathways.

That, and other folks are reading the thread and should be, IMO, aware that adopting an all-meat diet may reduce their intake of folate and if they carry an MTHFR gene mutation, doing that may put their health at risk if their folate status declines and their homocysteine rises.

And, quite frankly, I do not think a moderator would need to "intervene" since I don't tend toward ad hominem in my replies.....I didn't above and I don't plan to change that in the future.

Is my stating that you "like to point to the Inuit" a personal attack or out-of-bounds for the war zone? Heck no - you do, repeatedly, in your posts.

Is my saying that something "...should give you pause, but doesn't seem to." inappropriate or improper? Heck no - I'm stating my observation after posting previously about the issue that you've seemed to ignore/dismiss.

Now if you really do want to have a discussion - how about you present data refuting what I posted.....or ask questions if you have them.....scolding me, while amusing, isn't contributing to the topic at hand, is it?

It's obvious you won't change your tone. So I will change mine. But only towards you. Indeed, if you consider the warzone a place for legitimate ad hominems, it's only fair that I act as you expect of me.
Reply With Quote
  #78   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 19:35
LessLiz's Avatar
LessLiz LessLiz is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,938
 
Plan: who knows
Stats: 337/204/180 Female 67 inches
BF:100% pure
Progress: 85%
Location: Pacific NW
Default

I didn't realize that pointing out one is not responding to the other side of a debate is an ad hominem.
Reply With Quote
  #79   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 19:53
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessLiz
I didn't realize that pointing out one is not responding to the other side of a debate is an ad hominem.


Amusing, isn't it?
Reply With Quote
  #80   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 20:20
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
It's easy to make declarations such as the above when you believe what you're saying is true, but repeating something again and again does not make it true.

Martin, you're continuing to miss/dismiss things that influence health outcomes when someone adopts a particular dietary approach

that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to.

Now you do like to point to the Inuit as being a population we can learn from, that they eat an animal-based diet and have good health. You like to cite Steffanson, the Bellevue study and other things to support your belief that eating just meat can provide and/or restore good health.

But guess what?

Why am I pointing this out?

and one reason I really think it's irresponsible to make blanket declarations that eating a diet that's just meat (and fat) is beneficial to all.

So....seriously.....think before you make blanket statements!

From now on, I will only address impertinent content of your posts. Let it be a lesson on maturity.

It's easy to make ad hominems when we have no clue who we're speaking to or what they know. This says very little about out target but it says a lot about ourselves. It says, for instance, that we are not above using ad hominem to make our point. It says that we only intend to win an argument and not, for example, discuss a topic or even learn about it. It says we don't actually know our subject or that our arguments are weak at best and must resort to fallacious arguments and tactics in order to win the argument. Least but not last, it says that we have no respect for the person we are speaking to. Merit does not apply in any event. Regina, your arguments have no merit.

We can bring something new then claim the arguer should have known about it before (i.e. should give you pause, but doesn't seem). The idea is to establish ignorance of the arguer in order to elevate ourselves by comparison, and establish our own knowledge thereby elevating us further. This tactic is only intended to appease one's ego. Regina, you have an ego that needs appeasing. Please take it up with your husband and leave me alone.

Another tactic is to claim that the arguer missed and dismissed things that should otherwise be considered in our view. The intent is to establish a lack of ability to argue of the arguer. It can't refute the argument nor can it amplify our own argument. We can do this if indeed the arguer lacks ability but we must do it plainly. This way we establish that we want to continue the discussion but with an arguer who knows what he's talking about and not merely win an argument through a fault of the arguer. Regina, you lack the ability to discuss the subject. Take time to learn about it and come back when you're more able.

I'm instruction you in the fallacious argument tactics, Regina. Pay attention please.

One tactic is to claim the arguer makes blanket statements by making a blanket statement ourselves i.e. "you make blanket statements". Regina, you make blanket statements.

Another tactic is to make the arguer responsible for the actions of others after having read the arguer's arguments. As if the arguer had control over the actions of others through his arguments. This is a little contradictory. First, it establishes that the arguer has a lot of power over people. Thank you Regina, I didn't know you held me in such high regard. But then it implies that others i.e. those who read the arguments are somehow stupid. That makes you look bad, Regina.

So seriously, Regina, think twice before posting fallacious arguments. In the end, it only makes you look like an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #81   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 21:12
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LessLiz
I didn't realize that pointing out one is not responding to the other side of a debate is an ad hominem.

It's not an ad hominem. But then can you find the reference to MTHFR that Regina says she mentioned before in this thread? No, you can't? That's where the ad hominem comes from. If she mentioned it elsewhere, it's not an ad hominem, it's a simple mistake on her part to which she should now admit. Then offer an apology for having implied that I was too stupid to even consider this supposedly important knowledge. If it was so important, she would have made sure of when and where she mentioned it. Now, she just looks less and less honest for it.
Reply With Quote
  #82   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 21:22
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Martin, for godssakes. Eat some carbs if it'll help.
Reply With Quote
  #83   ^
Old Thu, Jan-15-09, 21:24
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rightnow
Martin, for godssakes. Eat some carbs if it'll help.

Hehe! Maybe I should.
Reply With Quote
  #84   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 00:18
LessLiz's Avatar
LessLiz LessLiz is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,938
 
Plan: who knows
Stats: 337/204/180 Female 67 inches
BF:100% pure
Progress: 85%
Location: Pacific NW
Default

Martin, while I disagree with your conclusions about the ad hominem I appreciate you taking the time to explain what your statement.
Reply With Quote
  #85   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 10:31
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
It's easy to make ad hominems when we have no clue who we're speaking to or what they know.


Perhaps that's why you chose to present your reply as one long-winded argumentum ad hominem rather than attempt refutation of the information I posted?
Reply With Quote
  #86   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 10:37
Cajunboy47 Cajunboy47 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,900
 
Plan: Eat Fat, Get Thin
Stats: 212/162/155 Male 68 "
BF:32/23.5/23.5
Progress: 88%
Location: Breaux Bridge, La
Default

It all sounds more like "ad nauseam" to me...
Reply With Quote
  #87   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 10:42
LessLiz's Avatar
LessLiz LessLiz is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 6,938
 
Plan: who knows
Stats: 337/204/180 Female 67 inches
BF:100% pure
Progress: 85%
Location: Pacific NW
Default

Rotflmao!!!
Reply With Quote
  #88   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 10:48
ReginaW's Avatar
ReginaW ReginaW is offline
Contrarian
Posts: 2,759
 
Plan: Atkins/Controlled Carb
Stats: 275/190/190 Female 72
BF:Not a clue!
Progress: 100%
Location: Missouri
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
It's not an ad hominem. But then can you find the reference to MTHFR that Regina says she mentioned before in this thread? No, you can't? That's where the ad hominem comes from. If she mentioned it elsewhere, it's not an ad hominem, it's a simple mistake on her part to which she should now admit. Then offer an apology for having implied that I was too stupid to even consider this supposedly important knowledge. If it was so important, she would have made sure of when and where she mentioned it. Now, she just looks less and less honest for it.


Perhaps it is you who need apologize?

You see, I didn't say I'd mentioned MTHFR on this thread, I said "Tackling just one, that I've mentioned before, MTHFR gene mutations....this one thing alone offers a view about the nutrient requirement differences between populations and individuals....that should give you pause, but doesn't seem to."

Now granted, it might be considered that your read that and felt it implied that I'd posted here on this thread about MTHFR....however, without specificity, it is your mistake to extrapolate my intent/meaning since my words merely communicated that I'd mentioned it previously without noting where.

That said, I did pause and wonder....hmmm....was Martin really reading and replying in threads where I've mentioned MTHFR as a piece of the puzzle from a genetic pov? Thinking that if you were not, then maybe I do need to apologize, that maybe I was mistaken.

Handy feature of this forum is "search" - and a quick search for MTHFR with my userID quickly gave me the posts in which I'd mentioned MTHFR polymorphisms.

Notable was an exchange that you and I had - very recently - in the thread titled Severely Restricted Diet Linked To Physical Fitness Into Old Age - in which, on January 3rd (about two weeks ago) you replied to something I posted.

Here is the exchange:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReginaW
It's obvious you have not read the IOM documentation on the hows and whys of DRI recommendations. For one thing, many are established based on diseases of deficiency - at what level is overt symptoms presented? For others, they're established by body weight (ie. protein requirements). And for still others, they're best guesses and admitted as such. Some nutrients are contentious and that contention is indeed discussed in the documentation (ie. vitamin C) and then other things we've learned an excess leads to issues of toxicity (ie. supplemental folic acid - not folate in foods). They're based on population wide estimates though, so they're flawed in some ways, but do hold value since we do know that deficiency and/or excess causes problems. What they do need to still hone in on is the genetic variables we're learning about that take an individual's need for a particular nutrient or set of nutrients outside the norm.....like someone who has an MTHFR mutation requires much more folate, B12 and B6 along with a steady diet of choline, B2 and betaine too. The DRI's don't address that population and probably won't for decades. [emphasis mine for this post]

Martin replied:

Whether I read it or not makes little difference. Their recommendations are still based on a high carb, low fat calorie restricted diet. In fact, they are based on the national dietary recommendation i.e. the food pyramid in the US. It can't be otherwise. It's established using a single weight and calorie value then extrapolated to other weights and calorie values using various formulas. Anything else is not relevant here. Except perhaps that since it is based on current dietary guidelines and these guidelines are by all accounts erroneous and promote a deficient diet, it follows that any recommendation based on this is also erroneous and promote a deficient diet. In other words, this system works to destroy itself.

How can we claim that the DRI is valid when we can't make it work by following the dietary guidelines on which DRI is based? And in order to make it work, we have to act against the guidelines by cutting carbs. If we act against the guidelines, we act against the DRI.

------------------------

In that thread we also discussed NTD's and went round and round about the role of folate, to which you said that you did not believe that folate was the issue, but that "folate deficiency is probably caused by a high carb, low fat, restricted calorie diet. The folate/NTD is an association. I made another association by hypothesizing that since the SAD causes so many deficiencies, it might as well cause a folate deficiency thus it might as well be associated with NTD too. There is not a single disease that I'm aware of where the SAD is not involved in some way."

Post address for that is here: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...46&postcount=80

-------------------------

And if anyone wonders where my view that you believe an all-meat diet translates to flesh and fat, that organs and other parts rich with nutrients are unnecessary, you'll find that here:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...17&postcount=97

Martin Posted:
No, let me spell it out better. Muscle meat and fat is enough.

------------------------

Now then, shall we resume, or would you prefer to continue your lessons on maturity and logical fallacies?
Reply With Quote
  #89   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 10:55
ShesGG ShesGG is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 296
 
Plan: Atkins Carb Counter
Stats: 000/000/130 Female 5'-7
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: NW Ohio
Default

I actually do zero carbs occasionally but I get very bored with it and it makes me start fantasizing about bread, chips, etc..

You can still lose weight and stay healthy while adding a few carbs but mostly, it adds interest to your meals. Some carbs help you stick to the low carb lifestyle..
Reply With Quote
  #90   ^
Old Fri, Jan-16-09, 11:07
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cajunboy47
It all sounds more like "ad nauseam" to me...

me too!

Quote:
AD NAUSEAM: As cognitive bias and logical fallacy

Quote:
Ad nauseam arguments are logical fallacies that rely upon the repetition of a single argument while ignoring other valid arguments, to counter those other arguments. This tactic relies on the use of intentional obfuscation, in which other logic and rationality is intentionally ignored in favor of preconceived, and ultimately, subjective modes of reasoning and rationality.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:35.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.