Interesting arcticle....

"Mirek Fídler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet%20ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight%20Watchers.html

I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown comparison
between atkins and ornish 🙂

Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right carbs/day
without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something I
think works best...

Mirek

What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.
Interesting to note that cholesterol improvement correlated with weight loss
rather than diet.

Anthony said:

"Mirek Fídler" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet%20ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight%20Watchers.html

I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown
comparison
between atkins and ornish 🙂

Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right
carbs/day
without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something I
think works best...

Mirek

What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the
AMA,
and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that
you
reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.
Interesting to note that cholesterol improvement correlated with weight
loss
rather than diet.

Although these people on all these diets really ate almost the same diet.

--
Bob in CT

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:40:13 -0500, Anthony <[email hidden]> wrote:

Although these people on all these diets really ate almost the same diet.

--
Bob in CT

Fair point. Useless study really.

Anthony said:

What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.

Things that are a waste of time:

Counting cals and carbs
Swiss balls
Atkins
Reading research unless you are qualified

Anthony said:

What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.

Things that are a waste of time:

Counting cals and carbs
Swiss balls
Atkins
Reading research unless you are qualified

Mirek Fídler said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet%20ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight%20Watchers.html

I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown comparison
between atkins and ornish 🙂

Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right carbs/day
without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something I think
works best...

Mirek

Weight loss isn't a diet. Successful weight loss is changing the way you
live and think.

The study apparently mainly shows that left to themselves, individuals
on the diet plans in the study fail to adhere well to the actual
guidelines, and actually end up losing much weight.

So, it doesn't matter much what diet plan they fail to follow, they just
fail in weight loss progress.

In reality, I think this reflects well the average experience of people
who attempt diets.

There are many who take a few steps..... and then gradually slide away.

You see a lot of that here too.

But, then too there are those who do really stick to the dietary
guidelines (Atkins, Ornish, Weightwatchers, South Beach) and lose quite
a nice amount of weight.

On Low Carb I went from 240 pounds to a low of 175 pounds over five
months. This included a lot of outdoor exercise.

Winter and a stress fracture of metatarsals led to a reduction of
outdoor exercise and the weight ballooned up to almost 190 pounds.

Rededication to the controlled eating, and adding a little more exercise
has knocked the weight down to 192 in one more month.

It is so easy to slide away and revert to old habitss. Which so many
here know from their own personal experience.

Weight loss isn't a diet. Successful weight loss is changing the way you
live and think.

MU said:

Anthony said:

What startled me is that this study was published in the journal of the AMA,
and so presumably has a good deal of credibility, yet the article that you
reference shows that the study was seriously flawed.

Things that are a waste of time:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Reading research unless you are qualified

This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.

Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things that are a waste of time:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Reading research unless you are qualified

jbuch said:

This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.

Thank you, thank you.

Quoted message said:

Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.

jbuch, it's very simple, data is only as good as the source and one's
educational ability to use that data.

99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.

Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things that are a waste of time:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Reading research unless you are qualified

jbuch said:

This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.

Thank you, thank you.

Quoted message said:

Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.

jbuch, it's very simple, data is only as good as the source and one's
educational ability to use that data.

99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.

Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.

Mirek Fídler said:

http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet%20ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight%20Watchers.html

Quoted message said:

I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown

comparison

Quoted message said:

between atkins and ornish 🙂

Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right

carbs/day

Quoted message said:

without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something

I think

Quoted message said:

works best...

Mirek

The "Omnivore's" review was misleading.

Of the 50% who stayed on the Ornish diet, average dietary fat intake
(as percent of calories) was 17%, not >30%, as "Omnivore" claimed.
Considering only the groups that continued with their assigned diets
(50% Ornish/Atkins; 65% Zone/Wt Watchers), Ornish is justified in
claiming "superiority," particularly in the area of cardiovascular risk
factors.

Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor. As
Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous
literature which supports this statement, and no study which
contradicts it, and it makes sense teleologically. And the reduction
of LDL cholesterol was, by far, the greatest on the Ornish diet (even
when imperfectly followed). As there were no other significant
differences between the diets, save for the differences in LDL
cholesterol (which WERE significant; although the authors regrettably
neglected to note this), then Ornish continues to be justified in
promoting his own particular dietary approach to cardiovascular disease
(an approach really pioneered by Pritikin). The primary focus of the
Ornish diet was as a preventative for coronary artery disease and not
as a weight loss diet, per se. The study shows that, in a real world
setting, where the dieters did not have "personal trainers" coaching
and encouraging them every step of the way, but were just given an
introduction, followed for two months, and then sent out into the world
on their own (which is the real world; not the situation which
"Omnivore" complains did not exist in the study, i.e. the "personal
trainer" scenario), that, even in this setting, a full 50% of the
participants stayed on a fat reduced diet and substantially reduced
their LDL cholesterol and, with it, their risk of coronary vascular
morbity.

- Larry Weisenthal

MU said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Things that are a waste of time:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Reading research unless you are qualified

jbuch said:

This is one of your really true and penetrating overvations.

Thank you, thank you.

Quoted message said:

Yesh, I know how easy it is for "Plain Common Sense" (which mostly
doesn't exist, or there would be far less intrapersonal conflict in the
world) to come to inappropriate conclusions.

jbuch, it's very simple, data is only as good as the source and one's
educational ability to use that data.

99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.

Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.

This is America.
(well, usenet is actually international).

One doesn't need to know a subject to talk endlessly about it, in
America (maybe some other nations also).

And I agree, few have appropriate credentials, and few know what
credentials are and how come they are important.

This is an EMOTIONAL group, not an intellectual one. But even more so,
America in an EMOTIONAL collection of people, not an intellectual
collection of people.

You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.

[email hidden] wrote:
| Mirek Fídler wrote:
||
|
http://www.theomnivore.com/Diet%20ShowdownAtkinsvsOrnishvsZonevsWeight%20Watchers.html
||
|| I especially like the part about final macronutrient breakdown
| comparison
|| between atkins and ornish 🙂
||
|| Anyway, I like many recommendations of that guy. ~100g of right
| carbs/day
|| without carb counting, finding your CCL, ketosis etc... is something
| I think
|| works best...
||
|| Mirek
|
| The "Omnivore's" review was misleading.
|
| Of the 50% who stayed on the Ornish diet, average dietary fat intake
| (as percent of calories) was 17%, not >30%, as "Omnivore" claimed.
| Considering only the groups that continued with their assigned diets
| (50% Ornish/Atkins; 65% Zone/Wt Watchers), Ornish is justified in
| claiming "superiority," particularly in the area of cardiovascular
| risk
| factors.
|
| Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor.
| As
| Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
| fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous
| literature which supports this statement, and no study which
| contradicts it, and it makes sense teleologically. And the reduction
| of LDL cholesterol was, by far, the greatest on the Ornish diet (even
| when imperfectly followed). As there were no other significant
| differences between the diets, save for the differences in LDL
| cholesterol (which WERE significant; although the authors regrettably
| neglected to note this), then Ornish continues to be justified in
| promoting his own particular dietary approach to cardiovascular
| disease
| (an approach really pioneered by Pritikin). The primary focus of the
| Ornish diet was as a preventative for coronary artery disease and not
| as a weight loss diet, per se. The study shows that, in a real world
| setting, where the dieters did not have "personal trainers" coaching
| and encouraging them every step of the way, but were just given an
| introduction, followed for two months, and then sent out into the
| world
| on their own (which is the real world; not the situation which
| "Omnivore" complains did not exist in the study, i.e. the "personal
| trainer" scenario), that, even in this setting, a full 50% of the
| participants stayed on a fat reduced diet and substantially reduced
| their LDL cholesterol and, with it, their risk of coronary vascular
| morbity.

1) one needs to consider more than just LDL
2) people are much more familair with low-fat diets than any of the others,
so it really should be easier for people to do low fat.

"jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.

But we're rich, happy and optimistic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

99.99% of the time, ppl who, on these newsgroups, carry on endlessly about
this study or that study don't even know if the source is credible. If you
can't validate the source, you can't validate the data.

Don't get me started on appropriate credentials. No one here has them.

jbuch said:

This is America.
(well, usenet is actually international).

One doesn't need to know a subject to talk endlessly about it, in
America (maybe some other nations also).

And I agree, few have appropriate credentials, and few know what
credentials are and how come they are important.

This is an EMOTIONAL group, not an intellectual one. But even more so,
America in an EMOTIONAL collection of people, not an intellectual
collection of people.

You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.

ime, it is not American thing but there is not much else I can disagree
with you.

Quoted message said:

Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor. As
Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous

This is what Ornish wants to believe. In reality, what really matters is
TC/HDL ratio. LDL number alone is much less predictive that this ratio. You
can try to google real numbers or graphs. This is reality.

Of course, if your LDL is low, you do not need to have high HDL to achieve
good ratio.

Even in face of your logic this also makes sense. Even if you would eat zero
saturated fat, your body will still produce LDL and you will still need
garbage trucks to clean it, just less of them.

Anyway, that was not the interesting part of article, I do not even remember
that lipids were discussed there.

Mirek

Quoted message said:

Firstly, in populations on low fat diets, HDL is not a risk factor. As
Ornish has said, when you aren't eating garbage (LDL-raising dietary
fat), you don't need garbage trucks (HDL). There is a voluminous

This is what Ornish wants to believe. In reality, what really matters is
TC/HDL ratio. LDL number alone is much less predictive that this ratio. You
can try to google real numbers or graphs. This is reality.

Of course, if your LDL is low, you do not need to have high HDL to achieve
good ratio.

Even in face of your logic this also makes sense. Even if you would eat zero
saturated fat, your body will still produce LDL and you will still need
garbage trucks to clean it, just less of them.

Anyway, that was not the interesting part of article, I do not even remember
that lipids were discussed there.

Mirek

"Anthony" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.

But we're rich, happy and optimistic.

American's are happy? You must not drive a car. I can't believe the way
people drive here in the US compared to just a few years ago. It is amazing
how aggressive people in these huge SUV's are. I don't think that shows we
are very happy. There was a time in the US that people looked at other
people as a possible friend. Now people look at other people with great
distrust and potential enemy. Happy? I am not seeing many smiling faces.
bush has made this whole thing so much worse as well. he promotes his fear
in everyone so he can take care of his agenda. He sure cost us lots of
money and I doubt we will ever recover from his poor leadership. But hay,
we are optimistic. lol I am optimistic that I will be moving out of the
country.

Curt

Anthony said:

"jbuch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You can easily see that America is quite low in science knowledge in the
developed countries ... But that fact falls on deaf ears, or dense ears.

But we're rich, happy and optimistic.

Standard childish kneejerk response.

You are probably proud of it?

Anthony said:

But we're rich, happy and optimistic.

WASP talk. Other worlds abound.