Tue, May-26-15, 04:40
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
So, the low-carb group did best in everything measured, but none of that matters cuz it's all about insulin. Here's a few tidbits that illustrates well what these guys think (parenthesis my comments):
Quote:
"In the 1910's, before the discovery of insulin, most of the diets were tried against diabetes with varying degrees of success : fasting, low calorie diet, high fat diet, etc. What the diabetes doctors missed was probably the whole philosophy of T Colin Campbell."
(Yeah, cuz you know, Campbell wasn't born yet.)
---
"You can control blood sugar by not putting any sugars in your body. An asinine approach. Besides the various deleterious effects of such a diet, you compromise your body's ability to control sugars naturally, with insulin. So if you do put sugars into your body later, you have a problem."
(Yeah, that's the plan. Don't eat sugar now to get rid of problems now, just to get those problems again when we eat sugar later.)
---
"What does it profit these patients if they improve their glucose readings as they increase their risks for CHD and CVD, etc."
(Below your post, arugula, another guy linked a study that completely refutes what you just said about CHD/CVD.)
---
"I know a friend who has tried to control his type 2 diabetes with a low carb diet. I don't know what his blood sugars have been, but he's had a few other problems crop up that might be related to the excessive meat eating- kidney stones, gall stones, intestinal problems, etc.
I don't think these low carbers really have a wholisitic view of health- they focus like a laser beam on blood sugar levels, and the digestive system be damned."
(Of course, a single anecdote you know little about gives you reason to condemn an entire group.)
---
"It's hard for me to picture someone who eats oatmeal and greens for breakfast, brown rice and veggies for lunch, and steamed veggies and bean and kale soup for dinner suffering from diabetes complications, while the person that eats bacon, cheese and butter suffers no complications at all."
(Mais oui, it's hard for you to imagine. Especially if you believe foods that contain zero sugar can somehow cause complications for diabetes. It's hard for me to imagine how you could believe that.)
---
"For a low carb diet to be healthiest for diabetics, we'd essentially have to throw out the collective wisdom of mankind since Biblical times (and maybe from before that), that wealthy people who eat excessive amounts of meats and cheese's suffer from 'rich man's diseases'. We'd have to then conclude it wasn't that pile of sausages that caused the diseases, but that little crust of bread eaten with the sausages that is the true culprit :-).
And of course, we'd have to ignore the anecdotal evidence I suspect most of us have all seen in our lifetime- the relatively healthy people, for the most part, didn't drink, smoke or eat excessive amount of food, especially meats, cheeses, junk food, soda. Yes, most of us knew as kids that vegetarians were generally more healthy than the rest of the populations- we've just 'unlearned it' ever since the Atkins Revolution."
(No. You just have to throw out a lengthy list of diet experiments - such as the one linked two posts below yours - that show low-carb is best for everything measured. Then hope nobody notices.)
---
"And let the haters inject insulin with their brie."
(That's funny. Really. Experiments show eating fat reduces the post-prandial BG spike in a dose-dependent fashion, thereby implying a reduced need for insulin, also dose-dependent, confirmed by Dr Bernstein's own data, whom you guys seem to know quite a bit about.)
---
"Will somebody please explain how these people had 500 kcal/day deficits for an entire year but lost only 1.8 kg on the "low-fat" diet and 5.3 kg on the "low-carbohydrate" diet?
By my calculations, if the subjects were adherent, it would have been 23.6 kg lost either way.
Also, look at their starting points: approx 98kg starting weight. How is it possible that their baseline kcal intakes are only 2000 kcal/day? They need at least 3000 kcal/day to maintain that bodyweight."
(Your calculations are wrong. Get over it.)
|
OK, I lied. It's much more than just a few tidbits. Well, that just shows it ain't just tidbits, it's everything. They don't like science, facts, or reason. They prefer anecdotes, charisma, and physical appearance.
|
|
Linear Mode
