An apology for calling me a hypocrite, based on a failure to read my post properly would not go amiss.
Moderators should perhaps avoid insulting posters, and maybe avoid taking sides in a debate. I regularly attend debates on a variety of scientific subjects and moderators are there to ensure that others can back up their assertions and follow the rules of any discussion. They generally take the heat out of any discussion. I have never known a moderator to take sides in a discussion in so obvious a way.
I have not been uncivil at all, merely suggested that people shouldn't criticise something that they haven't read. This really should not need saying.
Please, could we all just behave like grown ups.
So you are OK telling people they shouldn’t criticise a report they haven’t read in depth (you say this in several posts on this thread).
But then you happily criticise a book you haven’t read at all? Actually, your post comes across as mocking said book.
Can’t have it both ways, or you look hypocritical.
Incidentally, I have not read the report OR the book, since I know EXACTLY how much fibre my body tolerates (very little), and I will take my own unfortunate Disaster Pants experiences over any historically questionable* study any day.
*. By historically questionable, I mean that Low Carbing as an identifiable ‘thing’ is new. So asking people decades ago how they ate, and then assuming that a contemporary low carb way of eating is comparable is just a nonsense. Smacks of grandstanding to increase pay per view.
This is an interesting article, but i am afraid that to me it comes across as a conspiracy theorist treatise. It may well be true, but as it talks about people and organisations that I have never heard of, I am unable to pass judgement on it.More on the EAT-Lancet consortium:
https://www.efanews.eu/item/6053-the-eat-lancet-commission-s-controversial-campaign.html
Will we still be able to follow a carnivore diet in 10 years time?I think the fact that we don't need carbohydrates refers to its use as a source of glucose as we can synthesize glucose. Dietary fibre may well have different benefits so the logic that we don't need carbohydrates so we don't need fibre doesn't stand up.
Not having some essential nutrient does not necessarily result in instant death but may cause a long term problem, like rickets, iron deficient anemia or goitre. If you are still a carnivore and healthy in 20 years time that will be more of an argument.
Very relevant to our discussions.This presentation does not directly concern the OP but it is pertinent (and timely) as it concerns epidemiology and CoI. Less than 18 minutes of common sense.
The Guardian is almost 100% behind the vegan WFPB agenda mainly down to George Monbiot I fear...
My personal view is that the body has no biological need for carbohydrate. Fibre is a carbohydrate. If the body needed fibre, it would need carbohydrate. And even if it were true that we had an absolute essential requirement for fibre, conflating low carb with low fibre bamboozles the very audience that articles like these propose to be protecting.
It’s completely possible for a low carbohydrate diet to contain plenty of fibrous vegetables. It’s also very likely that people eating low carb are more nutritionally aware than the average person on the street. The author just doesn’t care.
Jim
I love vegetables but am open to several possibilities. In spite of great health results there are still issues where I wonder if my vegetables are to blame.
A. Where I was born & live: should I only eat them in season?
B. Our $ competition with genetic modification, poor soil management, pesticides...damaged.
In late summer/early Fall, we only ate local farm produced vegetables. We (my wife & I) both report feeling better than versus now.
C. Simply, I don’t need them
Since embracing natural fat, I rarely snack & have not struggled w hunger.
With veggies flown in, I’ve found that after a salad and veggies w meals, it’s closer to the hunger every 2 hours that we had not experienced before.
I have been a “meat & potatoes & vegetables” eater my entire life...until I learned I was Type 2.
It’s unfamiliar to look at a plate without variety (anyone else?)
Recently we had steak plus sausage. I’ve added some small seafood too. I got some variety w/o adding carbs
I think I’m going to lay off veggies for a month & see if my stomach improves & even a few more lbs drop off.
I’d like to drop 10lbs though BF calculator using sex, age, height, weight, waist & neck circumference has me less than 15%.
Yet w BMI, I am just barely out of overweight category.
I welcome thoughts, criticism & recommendations from all
Personal experiences of others is inspiring.
Watch this space
https://eatforum.org/initiatives/eat-lancet/
I see a Walter Willett is one of the team. I wonder what he has to say (maybe I already know)
Coming to a headline or two near you 16th Jan 2019
As I said before, we do not need the glucose from carbohydrates, that says nothing about the need for fibre.it has been scientifically proven that humans can thrive without carbohydrate, and therefore fibre
As I said before, we do not need the glucose from carbohydrates, that says nothing about the need for fibre.
I have now checked up on about half the named authors of the EAT Lancet report, and the majority are either vegan or vegetarian, and only one seems to be non veggie. There is totally no way that this body is ever going to produce an 'independant research paper'.And Marco Springmann.. he of the veganism will "save" hundreds of thousands of lives and "we need a meat tax"...
I have now checked up on about half the named authors of the EAT Lancet report, and the majority are either vegan or vegetarian, and only one seems to be non veggie. There is totally no way that this body is ever going to produce an 'independant research paper'.
This collaboration proves that the Lancet is now Vegan, as several of the names are either Lancet staff or Lancet auhors. There is one declared Eco Activist from Beirut. There is one Green Revolutionary from Pretoria. Most have published anti meat papers in their own names before this collaboration.
Yes I think they would. It seems to be their agenda in no uncertain terms. They feel the need for control. Nothing to do with the animals, its just a power grab,They are taking over the world.
No, but any scientist would find the dismissal of an entire field of science as hocus pocus highly insulting, particularly when this critique appears to come from a person without any apparent scientific background (I admit I could be very wrong about this).Are you really trying to stifle debate by pulling rank?
@midnightrider - I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the subject of the usefulness of nutritional epidemiology. I don't see the point in arguing about it.
We're all entitled to select the experts we trust. Both Prof Ioannidis and Dr Vinay Prasad are highly respected scientists and I choose them to be my experts. You can choose your own.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?