Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
Insulin load index / most ketogenic foods
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Spiker" data-source="post: 850773" data-attributes="member: 102150"><p>Hard to review via Dropbox as it opens in the forum browser. Some quick feedback </p><p></p><p>You make repeated statements about correlation but you need to preface that by saying what data sets you are correlating and what your methodology is, up front. And you need to deploy better statistical measures than R^2 as that really is basic. </p><p></p><p>Fat </p><p></p><p>Don't agree that your first bullet point is proved by your argument. Eg what if eating fat didn't in any way diminish our eating of carbs and protein? It does, but you need to make the point about satiety. See Taubes. </p><p></p><p>I just noticed the value for Beer and it's insanely low. That value is just plain wrong. Possibly they are seeing the suppressing effect of alcohol on GNG. What time period do they sample FII at? </p><p></p><p>I think calling protein a Black Swan is hyperbole. Black Swans are something that almost never happen. Protein is mundane. You'll need a better simile for your title I'm afraid. </p><p></p><p>I think you are missing a point about financial modelling and back fits. While it is not a sufficient condition for a model to back fit the historical data, it is still one of the necessary conditions.</p><p></p><p>You need to incorporate the prompt response to protein in your discussion which only mentions the slower GNG response. </p><p></p><p>Based on the discussions here I was expecting you to make the point more that certain refined and purified foods are highly glycemic whether they are protein or carbs. Maybe that's a more important variable to consider than carbs vs protein. </p><p></p><p>Your correlation data is across a very arbitrary data set. How do you weight the component foods in the data set? It doesn't make sense to weight them equally. Not if you are using the equation that you are testing the correlation for, to apply to real world decisions on injecting insulin. It's a good start to look at the correlation on aggregate, but you need to look at specific cases. What is the worst case deviation of your formula from FII? What's the worst quartile, the SD, etc? How many predictions would be off, and how far off? What's the area under that error curve? And crucially, is it larger or smaller than ignoring protein? </p><p></p><p>I think it is overstating the case to say that the FII data "proves" fat never requires insulin. It's evidence I guess, but there is also evidence to the contrary. </p><p></p><p>I would suggest you not say multiple times that people who don't get dosing for protein "have a problem" etc. Straw man, ad hominem, etc. Sure some are not aware, and many find it's not the case for them, but there isn't a cabal of GNG-deniers out there. The truth is more prosaic than that. Just people disagreeing about the relative importance of protein, either personally or in general. It does not strengthen your argument to make ad hominem statements about your opponents, real or imagined</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Spiker, post: 850773, member: 102150"] Hard to review via Dropbox as it opens in the forum browser. Some quick feedback You make repeated statements about correlation but you need to preface that by saying what data sets you are correlating and what your methodology is, up front. And you need to deploy better statistical measures than R^2 as that really is basic. Fat Don't agree that your first bullet point is proved by your argument. Eg what if eating fat didn't in any way diminish our eating of carbs and protein? It does, but you need to make the point about satiety. See Taubes. I just noticed the value for Beer and it's insanely low. That value is just plain wrong. Possibly they are seeing the suppressing effect of alcohol on GNG. What time period do they sample FII at? I think calling protein a Black Swan is hyperbole. Black Swans are something that almost never happen. Protein is mundane. You'll need a better simile for your title I'm afraid. I think you are missing a point about financial modelling and back fits. While it is not a sufficient condition for a model to back fit the historical data, it is still one of the necessary conditions. You need to incorporate the prompt response to protein in your discussion which only mentions the slower GNG response. Based on the discussions here I was expecting you to make the point more that certain refined and purified foods are highly glycemic whether they are protein or carbs. Maybe that's a more important variable to consider than carbs vs protein. Your correlation data is across a very arbitrary data set. How do you weight the component foods in the data set? It doesn't make sense to weight them equally. Not if you are using the equation that you are testing the correlation for, to apply to real world decisions on injecting insulin. It's a good start to look at the correlation on aggregate, but you need to look at specific cases. What is the worst case deviation of your formula from FII? What's the worst quartile, the SD, etc? How many predictions would be off, and how far off? What's the area under that error curve? And crucially, is it larger or smaller than ignoring protein? I think it is overstating the case to say that the FII data "proves" fat never requires insulin. It's evidence I guess, but there is also evidence to the contrary. I would suggest you not say multiple times that people who don't get dosing for protein "have a problem" etc. Straw man, ad hominem, etc. Sure some are not aware, and many find it's not the case for them, but there isn't a cabal of GNG-deniers out there. The truth is more prosaic than that. Just people disagreeing about the relative importance of protein, either personally or in general. It does not strengthen your argument to make ad hominem statements about your opponents, real or imagined [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
Insulin load index / most ketogenic foods
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…