View Single Post
Old 01-30-06 | 01:30 PM
  #327  
mrfreddy
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Jarery
See, this is what i been saying all long. The web is full of both sides of the argument. You keep pointing to "big fat lie". Have you searched lately? There is literaly 100 websites devoted to how he quoted out of context many of the people he uses to make his point. The folks he used to make his point totally furious with him in his way to rework their statements to do 180 degrees from what they beleive in order to support his personal views.

Histrionic distortions?

ya thats someone who I want to use as a reference and believe.

Im open to most everything. But i also dont beleive everything i read just because its in print on the internet. You seem to be very selective in the evidence you use. Even your diet, of 8% carbs, is contrary to many of the sites that promote the very things you do.
http://www.jigsawhealth.com/articles...rated_fat.html
They also promote saturated fats, but even they recognize that balance, somewhere around 40/30/30 carb/fat/prot is healthiest compared to either a low fat or low carb.

Re research your own sources. I had never heard of Gary Taubes untill you mentioned to 'google' him. I went looking with no pre conceived ideas. And my conclusion is he's a fraud. well maybe not a fraud, but someone with an agenda and will twist the truth and stats enough to prove his agenda. And thats the opnion of the very people he interviewed and quoted in his articles to make his own points.

I'll keep to my own conclusion, and that of say the Harvard site I linked, and even the above jigsawhealth link and keep to a balanced diet. Exact numbers, be they 40/30/30, or 50/30/20 are not critical, but they give a good range to shoot for.

The only thing still 'in the air' and unproven to me about a balanced diet, and all the fact/fiction regarding fats and cholesteral is saturated fat. To me this is the only area that needs definate studies. Ive read a crap load of sites that point to studies saying it should be reduced (not eliminated) and a couple sites saying its fine. Most sites that say its fine seem to ones pushing an agenda.

heck even your touted Mr Taubes has some interesting things about it you may have missed .
"" While some manipulations in his writing seem very carefully calculated - e.g., waiting until the next-to-last paragraph to include three major bombshells (that he is on the diet himself, that overconsumption of saturated fat can indeed shorten lifespan, and that "Atkins had suffered with heart troubles of his own")""

So i'll keep to a balanced diet, and a reduced sat fat intake. And maybe sometime before im dead they will have a definitive idea about sat fats.

you never heard of taubes? his article in the NY Times is what kicked off the whole low carb "craze." and fumento and co. can nitpick about irrelevant details, but the gist of taube's articles hold up (whether his interviewee's like it or not) - that the entire theory that fats are bad and should be restricted is based on extremely flimsy, even non-existant science. this has been borne out again and again,test after test, including tests created and designed to prove the opposite. Unfortunately, there are a LOT of people who have been duped by the low fat mantra, and a lot of people who have based their careers on it, so how can they turn around on a dime and admit they were wrong? they cant.

anyway, eat what you want, but you really need to knock off the attacks on people who do try low carb, you are on very thin ice, science wise, when you do.
mrfreddy is offline  
Reply