Be fair! She stayed on a reduced calorie diet for six whole weeks before determining that it was too hard. And she was on her no-carb diet for almost a week before cheating! She has dedication!
It’s not my fault though- it’s my genetics. I have a genetic predisposition to that and you need to stop judging me and my ways.
Too bad it wasn’t a law book.
Regards,
Shodan
And yet, when Stoid originally stated that she was halfway through the book, she took a lot of shit for daring to believe that she could reach any valid conclusions from just reading half of a book! Half a book! What an idiot! And she thought people were going to take her seriously?? Haahhahahahahahahaha!!!
Christ, you really are as dumb as curlcoat, aren’t you?
Stoid read half a book that agreed with her original opinion and started making grand pronouncements like:
You don’t get to be that smug and self righteous after reading half of a shitty book. At least not without getting made fun of.
Point is, if you want people to accept this paradigm shift that goes against all common wisdom, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. If you want to refer to that paradigm shift as ‘getting an education’ and put down other people for not seeing the light, you better have a damn lot of proof. Half a book is a tad insufficient, to put it lightly.
You don’t need the same amount of proof or reading to determine that some crackpot is spewing bullshit. Especially if you make it clear that you are just expressing your opinion about said shitty book, and not espousing some grand theory about what all overweight people should do. I don’t need to read every word of Answers in Genesis to know that I think creationism is bullshit. Besides which, I and others provided links to independent reviews and other cites to support our case - something which Stoid almost never does.
[QUOTE=Meyer6;13579427
Stoid read half a book that agreed with her original opinion
You don’t get to be that smug and self righteous after reading half of a shitty book. At least not without getting made fun of.
[/QUOTE]
Right - she’s not like you at all. :rolleyes: Well, except for the part where she read the whole book…oh wait, that’s not like you either…
I would like to state again, for the record, most low-carb advocates recognize that it’s the appetite-suppressant nature of a reduced-carbohydrate diet that enables people to lower their calorie intake and lose weight after an initial burst of significant weightloss that is completely due to water and glycogen loss.
In other words, it doesn’t defy physics, it isn’t magical meat fairy dust, and if you don’t make some real changes in the way you relate to food you’ll be just as fat, or fatter, shortly.
I fully agree with this assessment of low-carb diets, and have been careful to point that out numerous times in both this thread and Stoids thread. I think Stoid is chosing to ignore that and act like we’re all denying that low-carb can work at all, which is pretty dishonest.
**LilyoftheField **- I take it you didn’t understand my point about burden of proof. So I’ll tell you basically what I told Stoid in the other thread: You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to think that opinion is stupid. And those of us who don’t buy what The Book is selling have a right to point out its numerous flaws.
I’d still like to know why you think that the poor success rate of traditional diets is a point in favour of Taubes.
Maybe you read different halves!
I also agree with jsgoddess as far as the appetite suppressant effect of low carb dieting.
See, Meyer? It’s possible for us to actually agree on something!
My understanding of Taubes’ premise is that ‘all calories are not created equal’. Some calories (fat? protein?) are apparently easier for the body to convert to energy and others (carbs?) are easier for the body to convert to fat. This effect tends to vary for individuals. Why DO low carb diets have this appetite suppressant effect? So many people in this thread seem to have the attitude that ‘it’s just appetite suppression - no big deal…it’s still all about calories’. Even if that’s true and that is the only effect - that’s not a small thing! People often take drugs just to get this same effect! That’s big! You can change your diet and get the same effect that motivates so many people to take ‘diet pills’.
A person can eat 1500 calories on a low cal diet and be hungry all the time, or eat only 1000 calories on a low carb diet,and be satisfied and not obsess about the next meal. That makes a huge difference in how successful an individual will be in sticking to the ‘diet’. Which translates to weight loss.
It’s ridiculous to state that ‘calories in, calories out’ in and of itself is the answer. Maybe its equally ridiculous to think that ‘low carb’ is in and of itself the answer also.
But to think that nothing else matters - its only calories? No, it’s not. Hormones effect weight gain. You get pregnant, you’re going to gain weight even if you don’t increase your caloric intake - there’s a difference in your basic biology. You’re post menopausal, chances are you are going to gain weight, even though your diet hasn’t changed. Your thyroid goes wonky, you’re going to gain weight, regardless of your caloric intake. You have to take steroids to treat an illness? Get ready to get fat. Your physiology makes a difference! You can sneer at someone for blaming their hormones for weight gain, because you believe that’s ‘rare’ and ‘unusual’, but you don’t know! You can’t know what applies to any particular individual. But most of us have no compunctions about condemning fat people for just being ‘weak’ or ‘lazy’ or ‘gluttonous’. We don’t know - but we’re going to go with what we believe is ‘probably’ true.
I don’t think that Taubes is wrong just because you don’t agree with his conclusion.
I also don’t think that he’s necessarily right just because I do agree. There are a boatload of ‘experts’ in both camps. As far as ‘cherry picking’ the evidence goes, I doubt that Taubes does that anymore than any other expert. If you tried to present all the documentation and science and literature on weight loss and obesity, it would probably consume your entire life and result in a tome that would make ‘War and Peace’ read like preschool literature.
And unfortunately, this thread is not going to give us the ‘right’ answer.
I may not know much about genetic science, but I’m pretty sure aliens or ray gun technology aren’t involved.
I think that some people are genetically inclined to be thin, and the rest are not. Genetics is a complicated science, and all sorts of things are affected by it, including weight, that doesn’t necessarily follow obvious rules.
But I fervently believe that it’s always possible for any overweight person to get into a healthy BMI range, if they make the right changes to their diet and exercise for an extended, and possibly permanent, length of time. Hopefully without sacrificing the pleasures of life to do it.
Have you even read this thread? What about the Stoid thread?
Because the whole point is that very few people disagree with the idea that lower calories will equal weight loss. And very few people disagree with the idea that cutting carbs might be a good way to go about that. Most of what people disagree with are Taubes’ (and Stoids) other ideas - things like: you can eat absolutely as many calories as you want if they’re not carbs, it would be impossible for anyone to stick to a specific limited calorie count over time so there must be something else going on, fat people are all faithfully following traditional diet advice but still not losing weight, etc.
I also don’t see anyone saying that nothing but calories in-calories out matters - if anything, people are criticizing Taubes for ridiculously simplifying weight gain and loss. He ignores emotional eating, stress and changing situations in peoples lives (eg. less time to work out due to job). And as I said before - the poor record of regular diet and exercise regimes means absolutely bupkis unless and until there is evidence that low-carb dieters are any better at maintaining weight loss over the long term.
I don’t know why you’re arguing about this and insulting people for not reading the book when you clearly haven’t read either of the threads or the book itself. Either that or you’ve massively misunderstood the point.
Wait, what? ‘Insulting people’? :eek: Who have I insulted for not reading the book? I never even claimed to have read the book myself. I can only assume that by ‘people’ you mean you - and the closest I even came to that was ragging on you for just reading half the book - the same thing that Stoid got ragged on for and I don’t recall you objecting to that. But, as you pointed out - it’s different for you! At least I read enough of the thread to know that Stoid actually read the whole book. And you didn’t. Of course, YOU didn’t need to to read the whole book to know it was crap. You’re special. I’m sure we all understand that.
I think I’ll go for massively misunderstanding human speech at this point.
I think I’ll go for massive.
I think I’ll go for…a big mac!
Yes, I think I can agree with that.
I didn’t realize that expressing an opinion about something meant that I think that I’m ‘special’. You learn something new every day.
I’d wanted to reply to this last night, but well, home has games (…and porn) so I tend to forget all about the board…sheepish, so this is now a bit of a hijack.
Your comment made me think about a sitcom revolving around Stoid, Curlcoat and ZPG Zealot living together, ‘Sunny in Philadelphia’ style. It’d be hilarious!
Episode one:
Stoids court case is upon her! She’s hammered her opinion again and again, but has not yet won over the obviously dense judge, jury and courtroom, but luckily, she has a back up plan! A little vintage porn waits to surprise the judge back in his office!
Waiting back at the hotel, curlcoat has snuck her dog into a dog free hotel room. After all, if she paid an extra $10 it could potentially be used against her will for a hotel minion’s health care! It’s an afternoon of laughs in true ‘Two and a Half Men’ style as she cleverly evades hotel staff and the grubby hands of other people’s disease ridden children alike. Will waving around her husband’s old business credit card save the day or will she be forced onto the street to live on napkins yet again?
Meanwhile, back at home, ZPG Zealots quest to save the world from unwanted babies is back on track! This time, she has cleverly infiltrated the maternity ward of a local hospital, hanger in hand. Unfortunately, the only doctor she could find to help her is NOT OF HER ETHNICITY! Is her quest doomed to failure, or will love bloom in the janitors supply cabinet?
Either our genes were altered by alien ray guns or there is something behind the obesity epidemic in the U.S. other than genetics. (Scroll down to the graphic and watch the animation to see the percentages race up–if it’s already on 2009 by the time you get there, scroll back through the previous slides.) People do *not *become drastically fatter in a 20-year period because of their DNA alone. (And, even bad DNA is overcome by lifestyle.)
I support this idea.
Incidentally, Taubes has a piece in Slate, commenting on Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign. Summation: