Skeptic Project

Because I find you annoying and hopelessly full of yourself

If we were arguing about this in person there's no way you could think that, you sound like a rude pretentious know-it all based on your posts to me, but maybe you aren't that way either. I only got pissed off when I post an article and then Rox said she didn't read it but still says Freedhoff agrees with the basic point when he didn't. Low carb is not just what Taubes is saying, its extremely limited and ignorant of what Freedhoff is saying to suggest that being low carb friendly means you must therefore agree with Taubes' underlying theory. That is also what got me frustrated. Why would I should arrogant ? Maybe because I'm already assuming I'm going to get the kind of stupid arguments and beliefs about food that I got on the McDonalds thread, which again I have to point out people were making completely contradictory claims to what Taubes says.

He does say theres something interesting in the basic theory

That would be a very superficial reading of what he wrote. I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, advocating low carb can mean very different things. Freedhoff qualifies what he means when he says he agrees partly with Taubes, saying he agrees "that we eat way too many carbs, that they in turn impact on our weights, and that weight-wise exercise isn't much to write home about". But that is only a small part of what Taubes is talking about and frankly irrelevant.

Your use of sources was juvenile and in no way fulfilling,

You assumed for some reason I was using it to prove something I wasn't, not my fault.

which is why everyone gets upset when you called them CTers.

They should not use arguments CTers use, it only made me think the issue was more black and white than it was.

But maybe next time I just wont get involved when you get into discussions with people whether I agree with you or not.

If you want to criticise me please do, if I'm wrong I want to know about it. You just seem to be extremely pedantic for no reason other than you want to argue and you're not fair about it when criticising others here.

Because I find you annoying and hopelessly full of yourself until there are enough sharp criticisms for you to start playing victim

When has that happened before? I'm still just as right in the McDonalds thread. Why was it I got so pissed off there? Because of how ridiculous the responses were.

Sure, everyone else trolls you badly and they don't make good arguments 90% of the time

I'll take this as a compliment, even though it wasn't intended.

i posted something that doesn't show?

@freeflyer

its a glitch whenever a thread runs over to page 6. repost it maybe?

That's the difference between a likeable pretentious know-it-all like Kaiser and an unlikeable pretentious know-it-all like Ed.

Thats only because you think he agrees with you, Matt. I challenge you on things like fast food.

I know why it is, Matt, because I didn't let it go on the McDonalds thread and I'm easy to troll.

I know why it is, Matt, because I didn't let it go on the McDonalds thread and I'm easy to troll.

Wrong answer.

Translation: Ed's wrong and rather than admit it he's going to lurk and hope freeflyer makes better points than he does.

Hey Kaiser, I did actually link to people that provided sources you ask for. Just to make that point in case anyone wants to go back and check. I wonder why kepp had such a different reaction to my post than you did, I guess he's just stupid.

@Matt: Since I'm sure Kaiser wont bother to go look at those links I posted I can probably leave it here

http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/abs/ejcn20094a.html</p>

The "paleolithic diet" has been pretty popular recently, and it relies on an increased dependence upon meat rather than carbohydrates. I don't know if anyone else can access the full article, but there is a summary of the results on the abstract page. I'm sure a discussion of the metabolic pathways in the full article, but I have to hop on my university proxy to get at it. Anyway, I suggest looking at the paleolithic diet as a possible testing ground for competing views. Its rather new science, but interesting none the less.

EDIT: I'd also call attention to the conclusions section regarding weight loss.

Also, I'm reading this article and its totally available as PDF. Here's the introduction and I recommend it as it really gets at this issue from an interesting angle.

Results of several recent studies show that high-protein, low-carbohydrate weight loss diets indeed
have their benefits. However, agencies such as the American Heart Association (AHA) have some
concerns about possible health risks. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the scientific validity
of AHA Nutrition Committee´s statement on dietary protein and weight reduction (St. Jeor ST et al.
Circulation 2001;104:1869-1874), which states: “Individuals who follow these [high-protein] diets
are risk for… potential cardiac, renal, bone, and liver abnormalities overall.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-1-1-45.pdf</p>

Can't vouch for its rigor yet, but its easy reading.

EDIT: Relevant section here

For example, Butterfield has shown
that feeding as much as 2 g protein/kg/day to
men running 5 or 10 miles per day at 65% to
75% of their VO2max is insufficient to maintain
nitrogen balance when energy intake is
inadequate by as little as 100 kcal/day.30 Thus,
when trying to lose weight, it is important to
keep protein levels moderately high. The
reduction in calories needed to lose weight
should be at the expense of saturated fats and
carbohydrates, not protein.

Essentially, calories must be reduced, but calories come from many different sources. There is the suggestion that limiting carbohydrates and saturated fats are critical, but reducing protein intake can be adverse to health (which is specifically outlined throughout the rest of the article). Cutting calories is supported, but so is cutting carbohydrates and saturated fats. Seems logically sound, and theres some convincing evidence that keeping protein high has some health benefits. I'll poke around a little more tonight.

weight gain = f(genes,calories,carbs,protein,fat)

While this may take into consideration most of the important factors, the placement of them into a mathematical formula seems a bit wrong right now.

Since weight is obviously measured in [kilos, grams, pounds, ounces] then the organisiation of the component parts would have to ammount to the summation on the other side. For me this equation looks unlikley to be correct since calories are measured in kilojoules, a multiplier of thousands would would equal extremely high numbers if all the other components were positive scaled numbers. The only way this would be combatted would be if the genetic value was a ratio based on predetermined scales of genetic energy expenditure. Since there is no value to slip into it based on any measurement system I am aware of this has to be a hypothetical equation.

Edit:

My bad you are just stating its a function of the component parts, rather than saying they are all a top line equation. Assuming that there may be division and subtraction in there this could work out. Though I know of no equation that takes all these into consideration right now ?

The only weight gain/loss equations i keep seeing are a value of energy in and energy out which are extremely oversimplified.

Yeah the only way I can see genetics being in there would be based off a statistical breakdown from researching peoples body mass indexes and food consumption habits, using the data to construct a percentage value system of genetic make up to typical BMI, and then substituting that value of 0-10 or 0.00 - 1.00 into there as a standard average for the individual being calculated.

Thats the only way mathematically I can see it operating. In other words using it as a coefficient.

@anticultist that would be a stretch, in my view, for that variable. I mean, it would assume linear relationships between genetics and their expression, which isn't the case. Wouldn't a varying coefficient also cause perpetual discrepancies in the equation?

Why has math failed us!?