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
Ivor Cummins in keto debate
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="Sean_Raymond" data-source="post: 2266297" data-attributes="member: 403497"><p>In reso</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes you are missing something. And so you need to read again. Stop confusing what I said with preconceived bias as that is why I posted this.</p><p></p><p>I'll repeat it again. Paul Watson said when the insulinoma was removed the patient lost weight. Paul said the patient did NOT change her diet. The study showed she ate 2400 kcal less. Do you understand the difference between not changing your diet and changing it by 2400 kcals a day?</p><p></p><p>Paul said weight loss was purely down to reduced insulin levels but the study shows it was mostly because she ate less. Which a 2400 kcal reduction would do.</p><p></p><p>Ivor Cummings said the reason she lost weight was insulin collapsed her appetite proving Paul correct. It is obvious Ivor didn't pay attention to what Paul was arguing because if he did he'd see he disagreed with him as Paul says her appetite was unchanged.</p><p></p><p>The point made was that Paul lied and Ivor supported it even though it completely contradicted what he himself was saying. </p><p></p><p>Why is this being ignored? This IS important.</p><p></p><p>I'm happy to discuss why she may have gained weight and why she lost weight. But the importance of how these people either lie or ignore in order to continue the same point IS the point of why I posted. Everyone seems interested in ignoring this.</p><p></p><p>I am seeing this forum has the ivor ethos of not reading but reacting here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sean_Raymond, post: 2266297, member: 403497"] In reso Yes you are missing something. And so you need to read again. Stop confusing what I said with preconceived bias as that is why I posted this. I'll repeat it again. Paul Watson said when the insulinoma was removed the patient lost weight. Paul said the patient did NOT change her diet. The study showed she ate 2400 kcal less. Do you understand the difference between not changing your diet and changing it by 2400 kcals a day? Paul said weight loss was purely down to reduced insulin levels but the study shows it was mostly because she ate less. Which a 2400 kcal reduction would do. Ivor Cummings said the reason she lost weight was insulin collapsed her appetite proving Paul correct. It is obvious Ivor didn't pay attention to what Paul was arguing because if he did he'd see he disagreed with him as Paul says her appetite was unchanged. The point made was that Paul lied and Ivor supported it even though it completely contradicted what he himself was saying. Why is this being ignored? This IS important. I'm happy to discuss why she may have gained weight and why she lost weight. But the importance of how these people either lie or ignore in order to continue the same point IS the point of why I posted. Everyone seems interested in ignoring this. I am seeing this forum has the ivor ethos of not reading but reacting here. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Food and Nutrition
Low-carb Diet Forum
Ivor Cummins in keto debate
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.…