it depends on what you mean about proving someone wrong. no, not on a personal level, but certainly on an issue-level. the lc diet promotes/allows more saturated fat than possibly any other diet ever, with perhaps the eskimo diet. i showed you where the east africans and other native groups are not eating nearly as much saturated fat as the lcers. neither did the cavemen or more ancient societies.

so while your group continues to maintain that it is the best diet for people, i will continue to maintain that it is not. it allows too much saturated fat, and not enough sugar. instead of taking a moderate stance, you have swung the pendulum much too far in the opposite direction.

We do not maintain that this is the best diet for people but it may be the best for us, personally
I honestly do not see how you could have missed that. I am not trying to get anyone to follow this plan, I am doing what feels best for me. I only responded to this because you are so far off in you thinking. Who on this forum said that this was the best diet for all people? If I recall correctly, it was you who said YOURS was supposedly the "best"

Also, please do not lump all low carb plans in to one close minded statement, there are many other plans out there that promote low fat as well so if you are talking about Atkins, state atkins.

You still did not state why you were still here and oh yes, what your eating regimen was. Good bye

[QUOTE=ozziesgirl]Actually it is not conclusive evidence whatsoever that 50 or so people reacted the same way as you. For you to say that it is, to say the least, is naive and horrible science. You should know that you cannot say something is conclusive when 50 people (out of how many) follow your results. You have no right to generalize that information to the rest of the population. If you had 10 000 people with the same results, you might not be able to do that. Your sample of people is tainted and so are your results.
QUOTE]


you might want to try tossing a coin 50 times, and seeing how long it takes to get 50 heads or 50 tails. as far as the sample being tainted or biased, let me just tell you a little bit about it. i never claimed it was perfect, but i think it was pretty good, considering the high percentage of same results i would get.

first, i made it clear from the beginning that everyone was from my same geographical location. but people sought me out, not the other way around. whether at work, eating at the restaurant, or working out, i might get asked some nutritional question, and one thing led to another. but over the years, there have been both male and female, as well as different nationalities.

so i feel pretty comfortable with those results which had a high percentage one way or the other.

you might want to try tossing a coin 50 times, and seeing how long it takes to get 50 heads or 50 tails. as far as the sample being tainted or biased, let me just tell you a little bit about it.

That still does not generalize to the population. And also we are not talking about coins. That is probability, we are talking about research. Research where you can say that a particular outcome can be derived from most of the population.

i never claimed it was perfect, but i think it was pretty good, considering the high percentage of same results i would get.

Well it is not perfect research yet you think you can tell everyone that this is the best way for them to eat?

That is great that you feel good about your results. You still have not posted them or told us anything you did to get your results. Nor how you eat yourself. I don't know if you want an award or something but I am not going to ooh and ahh over non existant work.

according to "studies" "about studies" (LOL), there is always some sort of bias, as we human beings are not perfect. but this is not why i don't trust them. i refer to the DELIBERATE bias - that which gives the "study" a predetermined outcome. i consider it to be a fraudulent type of advertising.

my goal was simply to make my body as healthy as possible. so while i may have had some natural bias, i was quite open-minded, since i had nothing to prove, nor nothing to sell. i learned the hard way that we do have essential fats, and even though at the time i had a horrible bias against fat, it did not deter me in the least from adding lots of essential fats to my diet, because through my studies, it showed every time that they were needed in our diets. in other words, essential fats always helped people, which also told me that on the average, most people are very deficient in them. for if they were not deficient, not much would be gained from taking them - since they would already have plenty.

I love how you are avoiding all of my questions, good day gymejet

let them be ? you make it seem as if i have them tied to a chair, and torturing them. i simply am putting words on paper, and letting others decide for themselves if said information seems good or not.

"works for them" - i might define this a bit differently than you do. i might say that it "works better than what they used to do". that is not too hard to do, considering the average american/western diet. they perhaps have just hit a double or even a triple. i am showing them how to make it home. remember, i started this thread by talking about optimal health.

my info is not all that hard to believe. it is based on our physiology, and things you can read in textbooks, and the like - things that are much less opt to be tainted. the body requires amino acids (gotten from protein), 2 essential fatty acids, and sugar to run the brain, and muscles during exercise. the body easily makes saturated fat from any excess calories. the body however does not make sugar that easily, except from carbs. and since we do not store a lot of sugar, it is an essential ingredient. but overeating it just causes the body to turn excess carbs into fat. we want to eat enough sugar each day to keep the glycogen in our liver and muscles filled to the brim, and ready to use - any more just turns to fat.

Let them be....as in stop your ranting and leave the subject and this forum alone unless they ask for your help. State your case and leave it at that. They came on THIS forum for a reason, to get support for the way of life we have chosen. You are free of course to state your opinion but, my goodness, you have gone on and on, and we understand the concepts (we are not morons) but do not agree with you. So I would say you have put enough words on paper, so you can let us decide for ourselves now, thanks.

"works better than what they used to do". that is not too hard to do, considering the average american/western diet.

This statement couldn't be farther from the truth. First of all, I can assume you have never had a weight problem so you will NEVER know what anyone who does feels like. Just because we are overweight, does not mean we consume vast quantites of fat and fast food and whatever else is defined by the American diet. Some of us have tried low fat and good fat and weight watchers, and nutritionists, etc. Granted we never met the god Gymeejet, so we are grossly uneducated, correct?

remember, i started this thread by talking about optimal health.

That's right, you did, but come to think of it, you never really cleared up that vague definition. Until you do this, I doubt you will have much progress in changing the world

and things you can read in textbooks
*coughstudiesandresearchcough* And why are textbooks less likely to be tainted may I ask?

No use asking questions, right? I haven't gotten many answers.

Hi, Gymee. Still alive? Can't believe this thread is STILL feuding along.

I think that it probably keeps your aging mind alert JUST KIDDING! like some older couples who feud their entire lives, but still love each other and become despondent when their partner passes away.

I still think that I basically agree with your premise about the healthy eating of whole foods and that the only difference between your concept of an ideal diet and ours is that we may allow more saturated fat and you may allow a tad bit more carbohydrates.

Still the varied amount of carbohydrates we can all agree is probably an individual thing.

i am not talking about the researcher's view of the findings, but rather that the findings have been deliberately falsified, or misleading in some other way.

[QUOTE=Hellistile]

BTW perhaps you could also check out my response to Infuriator. For some reason I get the feeling that you think Low-Carbing and Atkins and eating meat are something new and "faddish" that was foisted on unsuspecting people only recently within the last couple of decades.
QUOTE]

i am not sure what you mean about your resonse to infuriator.

i would say that low-carbing has become more popular within the last couple of decades.

i would say that low-carbing has become more popular within the last couple of decades

Things do tend to become more popular when people realize it works. However, that does not deem it a fad or a new thing because it has been around for years.

you are confusing 2 issues, eating meat, and eating fat. the meat that had been eaten for hundreds of thousands of years was lean game at about 3-4% fat. and that fat was structural fat, for the most part, not body fat stores. so there was a high percentage of ESSENTIAL FATS. this is the huge mistake that the lcers of today are making. they seem to think that they have evidence to go carte blanche on saturated fat. it will turn out to be a mistake. AMPLE PROTEIN, AMPLE ESSENTIAL FATS, REMAINDER GOOD CARBS.

What makes you say it was 'lean game'? You're saying, for hundreds and thousands of years, the hunter gatherers were cutting off the fat?! They would have eaten it all.

You're right, Xena. While we carve off as much of the fat as we can from our meat and throw it away, the hunter-gatherer societies would have used every part of the animal that they could for food (including the fat, organs, brain and marrow) and whatever was not edible for tools, clothing and other items. The meat of the animal itself may have been fairly lean, but the fat was consumed with relish as well as the other fatty parts of the animal. Gymee has obviously never seen how much fat a bison's hump contains!

In fact, this little historical excerpt might be of interest concerning how fat or lean animals being hunted were:

http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives...M82-99_46b.html

"they spread out their meat after preparing it. Under this they kindle a little fire. They are at it for a day, ordinarily, when they wish to dry a flat side. There are two of these in a buffalo. They take it from the shoulder clear to the thigh and from the hump to the middle of the belly, after which they spread it out as thin as they can, making it usually four feet square. They fold it up while still hot, like a portfolio, so as to make it easier to carry. The most robust men and women carry as many as eight, for a whole day. This is not possible in autumn nor in winter, however, as the cows are then very fat; they then can carry four at most"

How interesting that they could only carry half as much as usual during autumn and early winter (when food stores for winter were typically being stored) because of the fat of the animal, which in this case was a buffalo cow.