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 > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Mon, Oct-18-21, 09:35
chicachyna chicachyna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 232
 
Plan: my own LC
Stats: 179/141/145 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 112%
Location: Tucson
Default

Thank you, Bob, for such a level headed comment.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Wed, Oct-20-21, 04:38
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 823
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/175/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

Rob, the only organization that could fund such a study is the United States Department of Health, department of medical research.
It would be enormously expensive so requires a national body to fund
I would suggest a replication study of the Standford project
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Wed, Oct-20-21, 16:01
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,770
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
Rob, the only organization that could fund such a study is the United States Department of Health, department of medical research.
It would be enormously expensive so requires a national body to fund
I would suggest a replication study of the Standford project

And the USDA has been infiltrated by Big Ag sponsored scientists who get zillion dollar do-nothing jobs when they retire if the favorably skew their reports to benefit their benefactors.

In a capitalist/corporationalist world, everything is for sale, including our government (sorry to be so cynical, but the evidence bears this out).

That's why everything you read must be read with a critical eye, everything you hear must be listened to with a critical ear. Cui Bono ("to whom is it a benefit?") has always been a good guide. It's been around at least since the ancient Romans.

So when the study says spinach is a superfood, investigate to see if the spinach farmers had a hand in it.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Thu, Oct-21-21, 03:23
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 823
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/175/175 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

I agree with your assessment of big government corruption Bob, but I was answering a different question, which was

Who could afford to launch a large-scale study on diet?
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Thu, Oct-21-21, 06:39
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,532
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkloots
Almost as annoying as doctors who have never been fat saying "All you have to do is eat less and exercise more."

~snip~



Or hearing the same sort of thing from friends who have been stick-thin their entire lives, have never had anything out-of-the-ordinary about their metabolism, who were never even attracted to addictive types of foods, but their way of exercising is the best for everyone, their way of eating is the best for everyone, because it works for them.







I'm old enough to remember the Mamas and the Papas. Did anyone else ever notice that it was obese Cass Elliot who danced the entire time they were singing? I mean the woman never stopped moving, while she was belting out song after song. She was not even getting out of breath while dancing and singing.



Beside her, Michelle, John, and Denny were barely moving, if at all. Ultra thin Michelle moved bit more than the guys, but Cass was always dancing up a storm. There's lots of You Tube videos of them performing on You Tube, and even one video where Michelle and Cass are seated on studio props, Michelle barely moves a muscle through that entire song - but Cass - whose feet are just hanging there while she sit on this big prop - Cass is bouncing her knee up and down the entire time. Do you realize how difficult it is to lift your leg like that while sitting on something so high that your feet are nowhere near the ground? And to keep lifting that leg in time to the music for even the span of a relatively short 60's era song? Especially a leg that is as heavy as her legs were?



But from what I've read about Cass's diet history, she was always told to "Eat less and exercise more". Cass was definitely exercising. While singing. And not even getting winded or breaking a sweat (at least not visibly) while doing it.


If "eat less and exercise more" had any real validity to it, Michelle would have been the obese one, and Cass would have been the thin one.
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Thu, Oct-21-21, 08:48
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 9,955
 
Plan: LC/HiProtein
Stats: 195/161/150 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

This morning, in an event of serendipity, an article surfaced in my desktop (the real one) pile. Everything You Know About Obesity is Wrong, published in The Huffington Post around 9/22/18 (at least that's when I printed it).

The gist of the article: Fat bodies are a normal variation in human beings. Not all fat people are sick or debilitated, let alone ignorant and slothful. "Fat shaming"--not to mention actual discrimination--is a national shame, especially from the medical establishment.

(Entertainment seems to be a field where fatness is not a disqualifying characteristic for success.)

I will try to track down a link online. Edit: Here it is. That didn't take long.
Everything You Know...


All of us here have reasons and motives for devoting ourselves to weight management. Vanity is certainly one of mine (can I still be vain at 75? Yes!) Thrift is another (I want to wear the clothes I already own!). Good health is a bit farther down my list, because I don't have any fat-related issues (eg. diabetes). But I know a lot about nutrition that's helpful for aging gracefully.

So...being fat is "not your fault." Some things you can do about it, some things you can't. No reason why you cannot live, love, and be loved.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Thu, Oct-21-21, 08:50
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,753
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benay
Rob, the only organization that could fund such a study is the United States Department of Health, department of medical research.
It would be enormously expensive so requires a national body to fund
I would suggest a replication study of the Standford project

Benay, that would be one where we, citizen taxpayers, would actually fund the study. We have a couple large studies such as the Framingham Heart Study and NHANES; yet, they haven't really discovered or linked symptoms to real root causes. However, they have largely influenced how medicine views human health today.

While I refuse to engage in the ineffective and speculative political conversation of charges of corruption, the evils of capitalism, and the like, I firmly believe that people in every country where the health systems are failing to keep up with disease are learning other methods to counter this. Unfortunately, science is not always accurate, and therefore, not always helpful. The one thing we have going for us is that in many countries people were healthier (less diabetes, less heart disease, fewer cases of cancer, less obesity) in the past than they are today. That's a major clue for us to focus on and use to correct current issues. What has changed since then that we can recapture? If we can wade through the many contradictory and conflicting agendas to reach what is true for the individual, adoption of this knowledge will follow. It would be nice to have an all-encompassing, definitive study to cite, but you and others who are active in this forum are getting there in a different way. Not ideal, but it works.

Last edited by GRB5111 : Thu, Oct-21-21 at 09:08.
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 14:31.


Copyright © 2000-2021 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.