I would prefer not to make an official complaint.Please re read the post in question.
I did not call you a hypocrite.
I said that that your posting style risked looking like hypocrisy.
There is a very clear distinction.
And, as always, I remind everyone of the forum rules.
Personal attacks are against the forum rules.
So are personal attacks framed as accusations of personal attacks.
If you think that my post insulted you, then you should have hit the Report button, so that the combined moderation team could consider the situation.
As the reported person I would not be involved in that discussion.
You can still report my post, if you wish.
I will quote it below, for ease of reference.
In the field of human nutrition when observational studies and food frequency questionnaires are common and no-one is locked up and fed precise things for years on end the evidence will never be conclusive. Most of the "science" is based on either faulty info or mice/rat studies. "Low carb diets" that are studied are rarely low carb as we know them and as has been said many times epidemiological studies are very open to misinterpretation and bias. The "experts" themselves often come along with their own views and then cherry pick the evidence that supports their view.You don't just pick which 'experts' to believe, you weigh the evidence that they provide, not their opinions.
I couldn't comment on the book as I haven't read it. However, the sales blurb includes the following "On that diet (primal) we grew tall, strong and disease free". Really!
If the book is as accurate as this statement it is possibly full of (to quote Churchill) terminological inexactitudes.
Breitbart? You read Breitbart? Do you believe what you read there ?The Guardian and the end of the ski industry 2013 as the Alps melted and no more revenue.
This was referenced recently here
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/20...-stuff-in-europe-confounds-climate-alarmists/
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).
It seems particularly fitting of this forum that this sentiment attracts more agreement than criticism.
Science is not a matter of opinion, where you can choose what to believe based on personal preference. Any opinion can be found somewhere in print or online. More weight is given to certain well qualified researchers because the scientific community recognises their skills and experience. It is not a global conspiracy to make people either eat processed food, become vegan, or become diabetic (all of which I have seen expressed on this forum).
Conformation bias is something everyone suffers from, it just means that we naturally give more weight to anything that fits with what we already believe. It is very hard to avoid even when aware of it, and it really is not an insult.Speaking of insults, you yourself accused some (all?) Commenters on this thread of having 'confirmation bias'. You also ask whether anyone has read the full study so I am assuming that you have read it before deciding whether it deserves merit? Otherwise you could be accused of having bias in thinking all studies (epidemiological or otherwise) are of sufficient quality as to automatically warrant merit.
In closing, I give you Ancel Keys.
I doubt I will get the time, but if I find it in the library you never know. It is hard to see how any reputable writer would allow such nonsense in their advertising material though.You should read it and see. That sales blurb is not reflective of the book. You’re not a low carber then?
Conformation bias is something everyone suffers from, it just means that we naturally give more weight to anything that fits with what we already believe. It is very hard to avoid even when aware of it, and it really is not an insult.
Ultimately it is the main reason why scientific method always involves attempting to DISprove your theory, NEVER to attempt to prove that something is true.
Yes, I have read the paper in full, and as I said earlier, it is not quite as good as previous meta analysis done by the Cochrane Organisation on a similar topic. It is certainly worthy of consideration though.
Breitbart? You read Breitbart? Do you believe what you read there ?
No. You as a scientist should know that proving a negative to leave a (by default) positive is never a valid way of proving things. Certainly one must eliminate confounders and extraneous noise, but that is only partially successful and not a robust method at all. I am surprised you find such cast iron proof in studies that use hearsay . word of mouth. memory and minimal sampling during the study with uncontrolled inputs as being your Gold Standard for science trials. The report in the OP shows very weak association if that, and cannot give the quantitative result being claimed, since it is a meta study of other meta studies, I am not saying that fibre is not important, but the OP report is rubbish IMHO, and I have studied a great many trials reports in my time.Conformation bias is something everyone suffers from, it just means that we naturally give more weight to anything that fits with what we already believe. It is very hard to avoid even when aware of it, and it really is not an insult.
Ultimately it is the main reason why scientific method always involves attempting to DISprove your theory, NEVER to attempt to prove that something is true.
Yes, I have read the paper in full, and as I said earlier, it is not quite as good as previous meta analysis done by the Cochrane Organisation on a similar topic. It is certainly worthy of consideration though.
I merely asked the questions. I am not your judge or jury.Question 1: yes
Question 2: yes
Question 3: sometimes.
I think you’re best suited to make decisions for yourself, your life, family; not politicians.
As such, I’m am to be deplored.
A couple of things; you are pushing a classic 'argument from authority' position with your 30 years experience, impeccable HbA1c, support for dietary expert researchers and full analysis of the study text.I doubt I will get the time, but if I find it in the library you never know. It is hard to see how any reputable writer would allow such nonsense in their advertising material though.
My carbs are kept well below 200g/day in the main and I avoid almost all processed food (though I do eat plenty of meat and fish). My HbA1c has been 32 for the last 3 or 4 biannual readings.
I have no problems with LCHF when necessary, just don't think it suitable for people with normal BG levels.
OK, so check out Prof Ioannidis and Dr Prasad and tell me what is factually wrong in their considered critiques of nutritional epidemiology. Despite what you may think, there is no consensus among scientists that nutritional epidemiology is a true science. It is considered soft science at best given the methodological weaknesses (in particular food frequency questionnaires) that the field relies upon.You don't just pick which 'experts' to believe, you weigh the evidence that they provide, not their opinions.
Why not?just don't think it suitable for people with normal BG levels.
I would prefer not to make an official complaint.
I would just like an apology for your reply which misrepresented my original post.
You said that I criticised the book mentioned when I had not done so, and said that this appeared hypocritical. I feel that an apology is due for misreading my post. If you do not think this is the case then please say so.
I am not accusing you of a personal attack, just suggesting that you misread my original post before replying.
All I know is. I ate high carbs for years, what I thought was healthy for me and followed doctors advice after a heart attack nearly 15 years ago now. I ended up with Pre-diabetes. I ate brown bread with all the nuts and seeds in, always brown pasta and rice. Brown couscous, root veg, Low-fat yoghurts low fat cheese and spread and so on. If I had of known then what I know now, before being diagnosed as Prediabetic I would have eaten low carb high fat instead of following the doctor's diet sheet. Midnight..You say that you do not think a person with normal BGL's should be on a LCHF or words to that effect, well then perhaps if many of us were on LCHF years ago, we would not be having BG problems today. I now ask my sons to watch their carb intake.
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?