General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

David Harmon > wrote:

(Steve Pope) wrote,


>>ImStillMags > wrote:
>>
>>>On Aug 18, 10:59*am, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sure Steve, over vaccination can be an issue. *This OP though doesnt
>>>> believe in *any* *ever*.
>>>>
>>>Where in the world did you see me say that? I've never advocated no
>>>vaccinations at all.

>>
>>Carol meant "other person" (someone she knows from elsewhere), not
>>"original poster".

>
>No, she wrote "OP". OP = Original Poster, not other person.
>But, when in doubt spell it out.


I look at it like this. If there are two possible meanings,
and one of them makes sense and the other does not, the
writer probably meant the first of these.

You're right that by convention OP means Original Poster ina
a usenet context, however that did not make any sense in this case.


Steve
  #123 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

cshenk > wrote:

>OP is a context sensitive short that can mean 'Other Person' or
>'Original Poster'.


I will offer the opinion (just my own opinion) that in a Usenet
discussion, it normally mean "original poster".

Steve
  #125 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,619
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

two points, the more proccessed the more empty of nutrients, and second, i
contend there is no one size fits all diet, even leaving allergies nd health
issues out, some people do better with carbs and some better with protien,
trick is to find what works best for you and then stick with it, Lee
"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
> So.....let's discuss the way the American public has been advertised,
> browbeaten and 'advised' into eating a low fat, high carb, cholesterol
> is scary diet for the past 30 years......and that correlation to the
> obesity epidemic and accompanying health problems.
>
> Real food, meat, veggies, fruits, and little or no grains ....in other
> words a primal or ancestral diet is way better for the human animal
> than the convenience proccessed stuff people eat today.
>
>
> I know there are people on both sides of the fence here, but in MY
> life the primal-paleo-ancestral diet is
> doing amazing things for me weight wise and health wise.
>
> chime in....





  #126 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,619
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

the migrain planet, as much as it tastes good, i am at risk for a killer if
i do it, so its very rare, Lee
"Hackmatack" > wrote in message
...
> "Ophelia" > wrote:
>> "ImStillMags" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> BTW if you guys haven't discovered the Oopsie rolls, they are a hoot
>>> to make and actually really good, they are quite bread like and hold
>>> up exceptionally well to sandwich making. Of course I came up with
>>> my own version which I like MUCH better than the original recipe. I
>>> will share both recipes if anyone is interested.

>>
>> YES Please!!!
>>
>>> yada yada, etc.etc........on the food lies......the bottom line for me
>>> is that I have lost over 50 pounds and still dropping, I eat GREAT, I
>>> have no more joint pain, back pain, I sleep like a baby, I feel really
>>> good, younger, more sprightly, etc.
>>>
>>> I still enjoy a glass of wine and a square of dark chocolate as well !

>>
>> Well done!!!

>
> Red wine and dark chocolate are not supposed to mix, according to the
> experts (too many potential strong inter-reactions between complexities,
> or
> something like that). It's such a great pairing it makes you wonder what
> planet they live on.



  #127 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,619
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

we died younger trying to get the dairy out of the wrong nozzel, Lee
"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 17, 10:40 am, Serene Vannoy > wrote:

> And we died by the time we were 40. :-)



That is the usual argument. The reason people died at a younger age
was this.......medicine and the advances in medical practice.

Life was a bit harder. We were still hunter gatherers. If someone
was injured while hunting, or got a cut infected, or broke a bone or a
tooth, too bad. Only so much the medicine man or witch doctor or
wise woman could do.

Longevity increased as medicine progressed.


  #128 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,619
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

wonder how the asians made it all these years? Lee
"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
On Aug 17, 12:38 pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
> On 08/17/2011 11:18 AM, ImStillMags wrote:
>
> > On Aug 17, 10:40 am, Serene > wrote:

>
> >> And we died by the time we were 40. :-)

>
> > That is the usual argument. The reason people died at a younger age
> > was this.......medicine and the advances in medical practice.

>
> > Life was a bit harder. We were still hunter gatherers. If someone
> > was injured while hunting, or got a cut infected, or broke a bone or a
> > tooth, too bad. Only so much the medicine man or witch doctor or
> > wise woman could do.

>
> > Longevity increased as medicine progressed.

>
> Sure, and it's still meaningless to say that we should eat what we ate
> way back then, when life was completely different and our bodies did
> completely different things.
>
> Serene
>
> --http://www.momfoodproject.com


Well, we are not going to eat the same exact things we at as cavemen,
but the principal has not changed as our genetics have not changed
since then. Fresh vegetables, fruit and meats are still the best
building blocks for the human body. Grains not so much.


  #129 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Storrmmee > wrote:

>Well, we are not going to eat the same exact things we at as cavemen,
>but the principal has not changed as our genetics have not changed
>since then.


Why would you say our genetics has not changed since then?

Think of the following. All humans are descended from a population
of fewer than 10,000 individuals, possibly as few as 2,000, just
150,000 years ago. Since then, genetically different humans
with different food metabolisms have evolved in various areas around
the world. Thus there are Asians more subject to lactose intolerance,
Mediterraneans more subject to favism, and Native Americans with the
"thrifty gene" that makes them more subject to diabetes under a modern
diet. Most of these metabolic divergences can't be more than a
few tens of thousands of years old, and furthermore geneticists
have identified specific genetic shifts that occured after civilization
itself, relating to grain-alcohol consumption, communicable diseases,
and other factors.

It's very difficult to believe that there have not been adaptations
directly traceable to the onset of agriculture 10,000 years ago.
We are certainly much different genetically than the beginning of
the paleolithic period (750,000 years ago, or when the first stone
tool were used).

Steve
  #130 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Ranee at Arabian Knits > wrote:

> Doug Freyburger > wrote:


>> Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again
>> and expecting the same results. People who push eating less and
>> exercising more suggest the same thing over and over and expect the
>> results to be different the next time. Yes, whatever eventually the
>> solution is will include something that causes less hunger and thus less
>> eating. Yes, whatever eventually the solution is will include more
>> exercise than was done before the start of the obesity epidemic. Oh
>> right, people already do that part.


> I'm not so sure about that. People sit most of the time now. They
>sit at work, they sit in their cars, they sit on the bus or train, they
>sit at home. People don't cook their own food from scratch, relying
>instead on restaurants and packaged foods which are laden with sugars,
>starches, fats and salt. They drink more calories than was ever common
>in the past. They don't work as hard on their lawns, their yards, their
>gardens (if they have those), they don't work as hard to clean house, or
>even clean as much. They have fewer children and aren't chasing after
>them. They don't work in jobs that require much in the way of physical
>exertion. Are there exceptions to these generalizations? Absolutely.
>But western society, and especially American society, does not either
>eat less or exercise more.


Yes, I agree, as I posted upthread Americans consume 157 grams of
fat per day instead of the 65 grams of fat per day the NIH is
telling them to consume. Whatever the reason for the so-called
American obesity epidemic, it is definitely not that they are following
the possibly flawed advice of consuming 65 grams of fat per day, because
they are not following it.

Doug does have a point about Einstein's truism because the data
suggests that about 70% of Americans who attempt sustained weight-loss
do not achieve it, and these individuals repeat this behavior at
at a rate of perhaps 2.5 attempts per year. It is probably not
difficult to find individuals who "go on a diet" at something
like this frequency throughout most of their adult life. This
leads to the often-quoted statistic that 90% of 95% of weight-loss
attempts fail.

Steve


  #131 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Ranée at Arabian Knits > wrote:

> Serene Vannoy > wrote:


>> And we died by the time we were 40. :-)


> Says who? All those average life expectancy numbers are heavily
> weighed down by high infant mortality and childhood death.


The modern treatment is to exclude mortality prior to one year
of age when discussing life expectancies.

For archaeological treatments one has to troll through papers.
One of the best datasets is from the excavation at Pecos,
where Kidder unearthed something like 1800 skeletons (his
terminology; he was old-school) and determined the age of death of about
600 individuals. That I recall, about 20% of them were infants and
100% of them were age 30 and under. But there are still debates as to
biases in the data.

I think Serene's statement that paleolithic peoples did not live
beyond 40 is pretty sound.

Another finding from the Southwest and elsewhere in the world is
that in times of famine, the female relics show much worse
evidence of malnutrition than the male relics. Apparently
paleolithic guys were not very good about sharing.

Steve
  #132 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Doug does have a point about Einstein's truism because the data
> suggests that about 70% of Americans who attempt sustained weight-loss
> do not achieve it, and these individuals repeat this behavior at
> at a rate of perhaps 2.5 attempts per year. It is probably not
> difficult to find individuals who "go on a diet" at something
> like this frequency throughout most of their adult life. This
> leads to the often-quoted statistic that 90% of 95% of weight-loss
> attempts fail.


About 6 months ago there was a Scientific Amercian article about
dieting. It pointed out that there is plenty of medical research about
losing fat but no progress *at all* has been made is keeping it off. No
progress at all in the last several decades. Which is why common
dieting statements can be safely ignored as false. People who say
something about losing fat and keeping it off have zero idea of how it
is actually done by the few who manage it. Many are simply lucky they
never got fat in the first place. Glancing at what thin people eat
makes that clear. It's like gambling where most lose but some win.

There is a National Weight Loss Registry that keeps data on folks who
managed to keep their loss off for 2+ years. Those are people who
actually know the topic and the data on them is very revealing. The
problem I had with them is when I read their questionaire it was not
possible to tell them I had lost my weight low carbing and kept it off
low carbing so I declined to answer knowing I would just become more
data on how low fat works. I have not checked their questionaire in
years. I hope they have changed that issue.

The best I know of is dieting plans that trigger fat loss without
hunger, that only work until the last 10-20 pounds. And they are all
unstable during their maintenance phase. Go off the plan and no matter
that you weren't hungry before eating the wrong thing you are after
eating the wrong thing. Most plans are nowhere near that effective.
Many depend on constant unending hunger and focus on losing as fast as
possible ignoring what happens during maintenance. Some use Weight
Watchers as their maintenance phase (which is a good thing compared to
most plans).

Setting aside the problem of not including low carbers, what does the
registry say about people who have kept it off for 2+ years? (Among
other things the fact that they need to go with a time period that short
is not a good sign. The odds don't favor keeping it off until it's been
kept off for 5+ years.) They eat breakfast (an ounce of preventing
hunger is worth a pound of curing hunger). They exercise (given that a
pound of fat is a marathon this says exercise is good at preventing
regain). They were in no hurry to lose the weight (the reverse of
money, with fat it's easy go, easy come back). They used every program
listed on the questionaire (everyone is different).
  #133 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:


>> Doug does have a point about Einstein's truism because the data
>> suggests that about 70% of Americans who attempt sustained weight-loss
>> do not achieve it, and these individuals repeat this behavior at
>> at a rate of perhaps 2.5 attempts per year. It is probably not
>> difficult to find individuals who "go on a diet" at something
>> like this frequency throughout most of their adult life. This
>> leads to the often-quoted statistic that 90% of 95% of weight-loss
>> attempts fail.


>Setting aside the problem of not including low carbers, what does the
>registry say about people who have kept it off for 2+ years? (Among
>other things the fact that they need to go with a time period that short
>is not a good sign. The odds don't favor keeping it off until it's been
>kept off for 5+ years.)


So given your research, what is your estimate of the fraction
of deliberate weight-loss attempters who, at some point in their
life, maintain a weight that is less than their previous lifetime
maximum for 5+ years? (Not counting those who have lost weight
due to chronic illness.)

I think it's around 20% to 30% but it's a difficult number to pull
out of the studies. I know of no research that has directly tried
to answer this question.

One often hears statements that hardly anybody ever does this
(suggesting 5% or fewer), but those are clearly false once you
start looking at the data.

Steve
  #134 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>Setting aside the problem of not including low carbers, what does the
>>registry say about people who have kept it off for 2+ years? (Among
>>other things the fact that they need to go with a time period that short
>>is not a good sign. The odds don't favor keeping it off until it's been
>>kept off for 5+ years.)

>
> So given your research, what is your estimate of the fraction
> of deliberate weight-loss attempters who, at some point in their
> life, maintain a weight that is less than their previous lifetime
> maximum for 5+ years? (Not counting those who have lost weight
> due to chronic illness.)
>
> I think it's around 20% to 30% but it's a difficult number to pull
> out of the studies. I know of no research that has directly tried
> to answer this question.
>
> One often hears statements that hardly anybody ever does this
> (suggesting 5% or fewer), but those are clearly false once you
> start looking at the data.


Given what I've seen the 5% estimate does seem far better than your
higher numbers. Is that because of the popularity of plans without
maintenance phases (my first criterion for a fad diet)? Partially.

It remains that the best I've seen is an unstable maintenance that is
easy to fall off and as hard to get back on as it was to start the diet
plan in the first place. And most aren't that good. Any diet that
makes the diet still be hungry during maintenance is a diet that *will*
fail for well over 99% of the people who try it while they are in
maintenance. In western civilization there is nearly unlimited food
available at all time and who can resist that and stay hungry forever?

Many lose. Few keep it off. Most consider what they ate when they got
fat to be "normal" eating and they want to return to "normal" as soon as
they hit their goal weight. Simple cause and effect says that all of
the dieters who do this will return to their peak weight again. Eat
what caused you to get fat and you'll get fat all over again.
  #135 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:


>> So given your research, what is your estimate of the fraction
>> of deliberate weight-loss attempters who, at some point in their
>> life, maintain a weight that is less than their previous lifetime
>> maximum for 5+ years? (Not counting those who have lost weight
>> due to chronic illness.)
>>
>> I think it's around 20% to 30% but it's a difficult number to pull
>> out of the studies. I know of no research that has directly tried
>> to answer this question.
>>
>> One often hears statements that hardly anybody ever does this
>> (suggesting 5% or fewer), but those are clearly false once you
>> start looking at the data.


>Given what I've seen the 5% estimate does seem far better than your
>higher numbers. Is that because of the popularity of plans without
>maintenance phases (my first criterion for a fad diet)? Partially.


Here's why I believe the 5% number is low:

Studies show that about 95% of weight loss attempts fail to
achieve sustained (5+ year) weight loss. Let us suppose this
number is 95%. But, because many people attempt weight loss multiple
times (said by some sources to average over two attempts per year), the
number of individuals who fail has got to be significantly smaller
than 95%. There is no other way to fit the data.

In rough terms the fraction of people who are succeeding is going to
be greater than 5% by a factor that's on the order of the typical
number of attempts in a five-year interval.

What I frequently see is commentators sliding between "95% of
weight-loss attempts fail" and "95% of persons attempting weight-loss
fail" but obviously these are two very different statistics.
If the first number is correct, the second number is very incorrect.

Another thing I see from commentators is discounting successful
weight loss attempts unless the magnitude of weight lost
exceeds some value (which is often not stated).
So a statement such as "95% of persons who attempt sustained weight
loss of at least 40 pounds fail" could be true, while at the same
time the statement "95% of persons who attempt sustained weight loss
of at least 10 pounds fail" could be false.

That is my perspective. I haven't seen anything that contradicts
the 20% to 30% numbers, but I'm open to seeing such data if
it exists.

Steve


  #136 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> In rough terms the fraction of people who are succeeding is going to
> be greater than 5% by a factor that's on the order of the typical
> number of attempts in a five-year interval.
>
> What I frequently see is commentators sliding between "95% of
> weight-loss attempts fail" and "95% of persons attempting weight-loss
> fail" but obviously these are two very different statistics.
> If the first number is correct, the second number is very incorrect.


Right. Either 5% of dieters eventually succeed or 5% of diets
eventually succeed. I think it's dieters but I do not have the data to
know that for sure. Lacking the data my guess in one direction is no
better than your guess in the other direction.

> Another thing I see from commentators is discounting successful
> weight loss attempts unless the magnitude of weight lost
> exceeds some value (which is often not stated).
> So a statement such as "95% of persons who attempt sustained weight
> loss of at least 40 pounds fail" could be true, while at the same
> time the statement "95% of persons who attempt sustained weight loss
> of at least 10 pounds fail" could be false.


The case of 10 pounds does matter. Loss is some combination of water
(icludes glycogen carbs stored by dissolving it in water), fat, lean,
bone and so on. Of course the loss that nearly everyone wants is fat.
The problem is water loss is easy to acheive, nearly impossible to
retain and is as much as 10 pounds in some people. When I managed to
estimate my water retention swing during maintenance it appeared to be 6
pounds that randomly comes and goes without any sign of fat lost or
gained. The chosen threshold for sustained loss must be large enough
that it can not be water.

> That is my perspective. I haven't seen anything that contradicts
> the 20% to 30% numbers, but I'm open to seeing such data if
> it exists.


I would love to see data that tells which of our guesses is closer.
Until then we're stuck with our guesses and our guesses disagree.
  #137 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:


>> What I frequently see is commentators sliding between "95% of
>> weight-loss attempts fail" and "95% of persons attempting weight-loss
>> fail" but obviously these are two very different statistics.
>> If the first number is correct, the second number is very incorrect.


>Right. Either 5% of dieters eventually succeed or 5% of diets
>eventually succeed. I think it's dieters but I do not have the data to
>know that for sure. Lacking the data my guess in one direction is no
>better than your guess in the other direction.


It shouldn't be necessary to guess; it should at least be possible
to extrapolate a number after studying the research. An extrapolation
is better than a guess.

One meta-study (I could probably find it if necessary) concluded
20% of attempters sustain a 10% weight loss for one year. That's believable
but it's not really the statistic I'm looking for as one year is
too short, whereas the 10% of weight criterion excludes a lot of people
who have definitely achieved some sustained loss.

>> Another thing I see from commentators is discounting successful
>> weight loss attempts unless the magnitude of weight lost
>> exceeds some value (which is often not stated).
>> So a statement such as "95% of persons who attempt sustained weight
>> loss of at least 40 pounds fail" could be true, while at the same
>> time the statement "95% of persons who attempt sustained weight loss
>> of at least 10 pounds fail" could be false.

>
>The case of 10 pounds does matter. Loss is some combination of water
>(icludes glycogen carbs stored by dissolving it in water), fat, lean,
>bone and so on. Of course the loss that nearly everyone wants is fat.
>The problem is water loss is easy to acheive, nearly impossible to
>retain and is as much as 10 pounds in some people. When I managed to
>estimate my water retention swing during maintenance it appeared to be 6
>pounds that randomly comes and goes without any sign of fat lost or
>gained.


I have observed 3 lb immediate weigh gain if I eat overly-salty food.
The weight goes away the next day. So 6 lbs water gain/loss is
easy to believe.

>The chosen threshold for sustained loss must be large enough
>that it can not be water.


Yes, or control for it by some other means (possibly by controlling
sodium intake for a day or two before measuring weight).

Steve
  #138 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>The case of 10 pounds does matter. Loss is some combination of water
>>(icludes glycogen carbs stored by dissolving it in water), fat, lean,
>>bone and so on. Of course the loss that nearly everyone wants is fat.
>>The problem is water loss is easy to acheive, nearly impossible to
>>retain and is as much as 10 pounds in some people. When I managed to
>>estimate my water retention swing during maintenance it appeared to be 6
>>pounds that randomly comes and goes without any sign of fat lost or
>>gained.

>
>>The chosen threshold for sustained loss must be large enough
>>that it can not be water.

>
> Yes, or control for it by some other means (possibly by controlling
> sodium intake for a day or two before measuring weight).


The problem with water retention is it has sources other than sodium.
Fighting water retention is like fighting the tides. It feels good when
the tides are receeding because you tend to think what you did caused
that. But then the tides come back in again and no matter how hard you
work you can't stop it.
  #139 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>The problem with water retention is it has sources other than sodium.
>Fighting water retention is like fighting the tides. It feels good when
>the tides are receeding because you tend to think what you did caused
>that. But then the tides come back in again and no matter how hard you
>work you can't stop it.


Right.

Shouldn't a large enough study average out these effects?

S.
  #140 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,415
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Steve Pope wrote:
> Doug Freyburger > wrote:
>
>>The problem with water retention is it has sources other than sodium.

>
> Shouldn't a large enough study average out these effects?


With the result being the first N pounds of loss needs to be ignored.
Find the water retention swing of a lot of people and pick a value a few
standard deviations out. That's why I suggested the first 10 needs to
be ignored.

Still pondering how to do a metastudy that shows what percentage of
dieters keep it off versus what percent of diets continue to work.
Since the vast majority of diets are uncontrolled how to get accurate
data ...


  #141 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.cooking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,635
Default The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.

Doug Freyburger > wrote:

>Still pondering how to do a metastudy that shows what percentage of
>dieters keep it off versus what percent of diets continue to work.
>Since the vast majority of diets are uncontrolled how to get accurate
>data ...


Well, first off the study would have to be considerably longer
than five years in duration. You could measure self-reported
"weight loss attempts" and you could measure weight. You'd
have to screen for chronic diseases that cause weight loss
on their own.

The CDC data suggests that what you would find is a large
population of persons engaging in multiple repeated weight
loss attemps but not losing weight, and a smaller population
of persons who initiate such attempts much less frequently and
who successfully reduce weight on a sustained basis.

In 2001 I spent some time studying all the CDC data then
available. From that I then concluded a value for the latter
group in the 20% to 30% range was the only possible fit for
the data. Since that time, I've sporadically looked at some
of the newer data that comes along, looking for confirmation or
contradiction of this estimate, but nothing stunning one way or
the other has presented itself. I haven't done a grounds-up
study of a large amount of available data very recently, which was my
main reason for asking you if you'd looked at it.

One problem (with respect to just the above question) is that much
weight-loss research focuses pretty quickly into being a comparison
of different approaches, as opposed to an investigation of whether
it can succeed long-term in the first place. These differential
studies tend to be pretty short term, like one or two years.
Once you throw out the short-term studies there is not a lot
of data left.

Steve
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
high protein, low carb pasta Cheri[_3_] General Cooking 1 05-04-2017 06:41 PM
A high-carb food - too much for most of you Robert Miles Diabetic 4 20-10-2008 07:34 AM
Help! Newly diagnosed with diabetes AND high cholesterol! jem General Cooking 87 09-03-2005 03:02 PM
Dr. Greger's ( vegan md ) new book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truthabout America's Low-Carb Craze Steve Vegan 0 05-03-2005 05:45 PM
Low Fat, Low Carb, High YUM Jennifer Diabetic 4 28-12-2004 02:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"