Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.
David Harmon wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:57:22 +0000 (UTC) in rec.food.cooking, > (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. > OP is a context sensitive short that can mean 'Other Person' or 'Original Poster'. The text of the post (which has been trimmed) made it extremely clear I was talking of a poster in another group, not this one. It was specifically stated. ImStillMags got confused because the message she replied to was trimmed and probably didn't see the first one. -- |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
The Low Fat High Carb-cholesterol is scary mantra.
In article >,
(Steve Pope) wrote: > 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". Perhaps "OP" can mean "Other Person" on some other newsgroup that Carol uses, but I've never seen it on any newsgroup that I've ever used. It either means "Original Poster" or "Original Post". -- Dan Abel Petaluma, California USA |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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.... |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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). |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... |
Posted to rec.food.cooking
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
high protein, low carb pasta | General Cooking | |||
A high-carb food - too much for most of you | Diabetic | |||
Help! Newly diagnosed with diabetes AND high cholesterol! | General Cooking | |||
Dr. Greger's ( vegan md ) new book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truthabout America's Low-Carb Craze | Vegan | |||
Low Fat, Low Carb, High YUM | Diabetic |