View Single Post
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Oct-14-02, 13:55
tamarian's Avatar
tamarian tamarian is offline
Forum Founder
Posts: 19,572
 
Plan: Atkins/PP/BFL
Stats: 400/223/200 Male 5 ft 11
BF:37%/17%/12%
Progress: 89%
Location: Ottawa, ON
Default

Hi Dr. Ellis,

I'm glad you joined us. I have posted the article, simply because it is of interest to low-carbers, and we're open to arguments on both sides, and use this forum to debate the merits of each.

We do monitor against personal attacks and flames here. Some members commented on the promotional aspects of the article, which I feel is a legitimate comment.

And if any member uses such terms as " dumb, arrogant, condescending" we would consider that a "flame" and the post would be removed, and membership suspendid due to violation of our user agreement. I'm glad this did not happen.

I planned on reading the article in depth and responding, if I have something of interest to say. This may take a while due to it's length.

However, I would like to point out that even though there are many medical references to the calorie theory, they erroneosly consider it from a thermodynamic aspect.

Quote:
I can only assume that you have no training in nutrition and therefore an extensive explanation about what you refute to be the known Laws of Thermodynamics is beyond the scope of an email.


Doctors and nutritionists often ignore biochemistry.

If I fuel my truck with a low-fat diet, or low-carb diet, it won't run. If I fuel my self with unleaded fuel, I won't run (for long) either.

True, they cite study after study on thermodynamics and whatever the latest theory happens to be. Yet, they cannot explain why the Atkins Diet work, nor prove why they claim low-carb to be unhealthy.

I would think with thousands of years before carbs started creeping more and more into our diets, the burdon of proof would be on the low-carb nay sayers.

I still plan on reading it more details and possibly offer further comments.

Wa'il
Reply With Quote