Have a laugh at the Journal of the American College of Nutrition
O.k. In our Low-Carb Studies section, we have placed a request for any links to research proving low-carb diets to be unhealthy.
Well, a user sent me a very patronizing email, cannot quote it since I don't have his/her permission. They essentially said all you need is to use a search engine! and supplied this link: http://www.uky.edu/PR/UK_News/lifestyles112000.html Quote:
Now, reading this, I though wow! How could I have missed this! A study on "patients" proving Atkins and PP raise bad cholestrol. So, I did a search for the original study this article is quoting, and here's what the "study" is about: http://www.am-coll-nutr.org/jacn/vol_19/no_5/pg578.htm Quote:
I made in bold the key points. But to emphasize it, here's what they did: No patients (that's why they said non-clinical) were involved, just computer software that was programmed to give results. i.e. the computer is told: If the fat intake is above 50%, output an increase in cholestrol If diet is low-fat, make results really good :) It is a computer software based on nutritionists "recommendations". Unfortunately, the public will be fooled by it, just as Ms. Vikki Franklin (writing for the University of Kentucky) was fooled, or tried to fool the public. The report/article she wrote, made no mention of this computer software that "simulated" the results, and talked about it is if they were actual results! Sadly, this fraud works. And since the medical community and nutritionists cannot find any scientific bases for their calims against low-carbing, they just had to fake the results. Wa'il |
I thought this sounded familiar. This "study", along with several others published by the JACN was part of my debunk post in the Dangers of Soy thread. This journal published a study about tofu and brain shrinkage. Here's what I thought back then about the JACN:
Quote:
Doreen |
What are they so afraid of?
Hi,
I am surprised at this unscientific "scientific" study. We already knew that Atkins etc has many times the recommended daily level of fat. Did it really need doctors working round the clock with a big expensive computer to confirm that? They were measuring things they already knew, leading to no new conclusions. They were not measuring important things they didn't know, which might have led them to make some new discovery, or at least be able to take a tilt at us with a little more authority. I really object to this pseudo-science masquerading as medical research. As far as I am aware, the first and most essential requirement for research is that you approach the task with an open mind, and you throw away preconceptions and prejudice. Thank goodness not all scientists, historians, anthropologists, biologists, astronomers, and doctors have thought this way in the past. There has been as much progress in all fields through error as through success. If institutions want to spend money on evaluating diets, then I would suggest they organise themselves in a more practical and academic manner. They could follow the example of real scientists, people who scientifically threw preconceptions to the wind, scientifically opened their minds, scientifically made their observations, scientifically tested their hypotheses, and medically went on to restore the health of thousands of people all over the world. They could read some diet books properly for starter .... ;) Einstein himself said (pardon my paraphrase) that any new discovery is ALWAYS derided at the outset. Low carb is not a new discovery, but proper research into it is long overdue. I don't think I am alone in my discovery that I react in exactly the OPPOSITE way I should to eating a low fat diet - it makes me extremely ill. Same for low carb - opposite reaction. It makes me extremely well. For the sake of other people who could be made well, aren't the universities and labs of the world remotely curious about that? Jilly |
I'm embarrassed for the researchers' intellectual dishonesty. Shame!
I noticed one other thing: "A team of researchers led by James W. Anderson, ..." "Eight weight loss diets were analyzed in the UK study: ..., Dr. Andersonıs High-Fiber Fitness Plan, ..." "... the best diet for general health promotion, weight loss and weight maintenance is a high-carbohydrate, high-fiber diet that is low in fat,² Anderson said." I'm sure that the Dr. Anderson of the "Dr. Andersonıs High-Fiber Fitness Plan" is the same Dr. Anderson who led the research team here. I looked him up and he's published writings on high-fiber diets all over the place. His bio says, "He pioneered use of high fiber diets for treatment of diabetes and launched the 'oat bran craze.'" So basically you've got a guy who's pretending to do a scientific study of 8 diets. One of them just happens to be his own. He concludes his is the best. How convenient. Oh, by the way, although he is founder and president of the Obesity Research Network and has been pushing his diet for decades, in his picture he looks fat. |
Yes, he is the author! Nice catch.
This thread is developing into a nice detective story :thup: Wa'il |
its just a joke, isn't it?!
Parading "findings" such as these as medical certainties should surely be illegal? People are dying, going blind and having limbs amputated, not to mention having to face needles on a daily basis, because of people such as "Dr" Anderson. They should be liable for the damage they are causing. If you can sue a cigarette company because you get sick from their product ... |
Erm...
Perhaps things are done differently in America... I don't know what to make of this. Have you seen Dr Anderson's University's list of sponsors? Many of them make sugared, processed food, processed carbohydrates. One of them is Slimfast - I don't really know how to categorise that product, but I wouldn't have thought it was a food.
The more I look, the more I feel dissatisfied with this whole thing. I suppose one of the practical commercial problems is that people producing fresh foods (as recommended by Schwarzbein etc) tend to be farmers or companies on smaller margins. They don't have the mega budgets of the processed food makers, and cannot sponsor research in the same way. Jilly |
I have update our web site's main page with the findings of our conversation.
I hope I don't get sued for slander ;) Wa'il |
Libel? You have to be kidding!
LOL!
I think we can all sleep soundly at night. No one can be sued for speaking the truth! Keep up the good work. Jilly |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:19. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.