[Vision2020] ketogenic diets

Tue Sep 3 14:37:52 PDT 2013

The government originally got only some information wrong, mainly lumping
all fats together as unhealthy (they still are if consumed in copious
quantities).  But further research (that's the science works) has shown
that certain fats in certain quantities are beneficial.  Research has also
confirmed that certain fats are harmful even in small quantities especially
to those who do not get sufficient exercise.

The vast body of nutritional research as is stands today is basically
accurate, and where it is not completely accurate, further research will
correct it.  To say that nutritional research is the cause of today's
obesity epidemic is more than common garden asininity.  Fast/Junk food,
processed food high in fats, low in fiber and other nutrients touted 24/7
by cleverly designed ads and including special ingredients to foster
addiction* are basically the principle causes.

*
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

While eating a modified "Atkins" diet leaving out the harmful fats such as
beef fats and getting sufficient exercise can help with the loss of weight,
it has some limitations such as the loss of stamina and endurance for
longer lasting heavy exertion because most people cannot metabolize fat
fast enough to supply the basic cellular energy conversion system (Kreb's
Citric Cycle) to keep up with the energy required.

That is even more true of long lasting heavy mental exercise because the
brain basically derives all its operating energy from glucose and its near
relatives.  Heavy mental exercise uses as much energy as physical exercise.

If you lead a less than vigorous life, then the "Atkins" diet minus harmful
fats will most likely be helpful for weight control.  However, the loss of
pleasure from eating carbohydrates is a large cost for some people,
especially those can who maintain their weight while eating lots of
carbohydrates.

"Atkins" is in quotes because he was not the first to discover the basis of
his diet, but he was the first to make a commercial success of it although
he chose to ignore the then existing and still valid research on the harm
of certain fats.  That's why he died a bloated pig.

w.

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> Unfortunately, often folks use skeptical arguments to wield some political
> advantage. In my experience, I find that people use them when they want to
> hold onto a disreputable claim, something that either lacks evidence or has
> no evidence in its favor. A local pastor uses them to pave the way for
> religious faith getting rid of all beliefs based on evidence.
>
> As I said before, the structure of most of your anti-climate science
> arguments is such that it would undermine all evidence based belief. There
> is nothing particular about climate science as far as I can tell. It
> strikes me that there is something flawed about only using skeptical
> arguments to undermine some beliefs. Either they undermine all beliefs --
> since no set of evidence entails that a belief is true; there is always a
> gap -- or they undermine none. That's my view!
>
> On Sep 3, 2013, at 8:27 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It appears that the federal government, based on shoddy science and a
> "cascade" (as described in the article I posted) got their basic diet
> information wrong and subsequently caused an obesity epidemic that is
> threatening the health of millions.  I would argue that the obesity
> epidemic in the Western world is more of a dire issue than global warming
> is to the average westerner.
>
> If it can happen with something as basic and as far-reaching as setting an
> American's suggested diet, then it can happen in climate science as well.
> That is why we need to be *extra* skeptical, especially since I see many
> parallels already to the diet problem and the anti-skeptic rhetoric
> automatically makes me wonder if there is a cascade happening there as
> well.  Some of the proposed mitigation techniques could be just as damaging
> in the short term as some of the projected outcomes are for our
> grandchildren, so we owe it to ourselves to be open to criticism in this
> area.
>
> That's not to say that climate science has it wrong, just that its
> opposition to skepticism could lead us to the same kind of problems as the
> medical and nutrition industries are running into.
>
> Paul
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> *To:* Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> *Cc:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>; "vision2020 at moscow.com" <
> vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:01 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
>
> I am somewhat of a real skeptic and have studied skepticism for much of my
> life. I question everything and always have. But skepticism and questioning
> has never led me to go out the window instead of the door. When considering
> policy decisions that have a literally global impact, radical skepticism
> strikes me as irresponsible. At that point we should listen to experts. It
> is fine if you want to step out the window because you are a gravity
> skeptic but I'm going to speak up whenever you decide to take the rest of
> us with you. Sorry.
>
> On Sep 2, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The experts have been saying that a low fat, restricted calorie diet high
> in carbs was best for the last 30 years at least.  I'm skeptical of their
> claims.
>
> Anyway, my intention wasn't to derail this thread.  I just found the
> parallels amusing.  Let's make a deal.  If you will take note somewhere in
> the back of your mind that the climate experts might be wrong, I'll take
> note somewhere in the back of my mind that they might be right.  Deal?
>
> Paul
>
> On 09/02/2013 09:36 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>
> One difference is you can find many experts on the various sides of the
> diet debate. If the experts -- folks with MDs and PhDs -- said one diet was
> better than all others, then go on that diet! But that is not the case.
> Faulty analogy.
>
> On Sep 2, 2013, at 8:43 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I wanted to reply to this sooner, but I was on vacation.
>
> Read Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories".  Or search for "gary
> taubes why we get fat" on YouTube.
>
> It would appear that the "high fat causes heart attacks" hypothesis isn't
> as strong as it was once thought to be.  Research comparing high fat / low
> carb unlimited food intake diets vs. the traditional high carb, low fat,
> restricted calorie diet consistently shows the high fat low carb diets
> allow the subjects to lose more weight and it makes their cholesterol
> numbers better.
>
> Here is an article from the New York Times talking about the subject:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
>
> I chuckle reading this, because there are hallmarks of the climate science
> debate here, too.  Politics gets involved and suddenly it hurts your
> reputation to be skeptical of the consensus view. Everyone studies the
> consensus topics, but nobody researches topics that by their very nature
> conflict with the consensus view.  That doesn't make either one of the
> looked-down-upon topics any more true, but I do find it amusing to see
> human nature at work.
>
> That's not to say that high fat low carb diets are perfect.  I have seen
> research that shows that if you have a pre-existing heart condition, then
> the ketogenic diet might make it harder to recover in the event of a heart
> attack.  I've also seen research that suggests that pregnant women who are
> obese and on that kind of diet can affect their babies by making them
> fatter and have smaller livers.  I look at those risks and compare them to
> the risks of being obese, and I side with the diet that will help me lose
> that weight the best and that makes my cholesterol numbers better to boot.
> I mean, look around.  How many really old fat people do you see?  But I
> admit that it's a complicated area of study.  Certainly, if I ever get
> pregnant, I'll drop off the diet for nine months.
>
> Besides, most of the high fat studies I've run across (I haven't done an
> exhaustive search by any means) involve high fat / high carb diets instead
> of high fat / low carb diets.  In other words, simply adding fat to the
> traditional diet appears to be what is risky.  Especially to mice, or
> rabbits.  Yes, one study showed that eating fat from meat doesn't sit will
> with an herbivore's biology.
>
> I know one data point is just an anecdote, but my appetite has already
> returned to normal, I don't fight sleep in the afternoons, I don't crave
> ice cream or sweets, I'm not constantly running to the bathroom, I don't
> feel the urge to keep eating when I know I've had enough, and I seem to
> have as much energy as I had before and I believe that I'm thinking
> clearer.  And, my pants are starting to get loose around the waist.
>
> Paul
>
> On 08/31/2013 06:43 AM, Art Deco wrote:
>
>  @Paul,
>
>  Do you think that eating a high fat diet for years might have caused the
> condition Atkins died of?  Perhaps you should read a little about the long
> term effects of high fat diets, those high in "bad" fats like beef fat.
>
> w.
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:40 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
>  Mediterranean may be misleading as one might think of a lot of pasta.
> Not the case. The DASH diet is similar. One should eat whole grains and a
> minimum of processed or high carb. foods. The more color the better
> (blueberries etc.), eat legumes and nuts.
> Roger
>
>  ------------------------------
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com, "Art Deco" <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>, "Paul
> Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> Date: 08/30/13 17:58
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
>
>
> I would not recommend any of the diets you mentioned for long term. the
> Atkins diet can lead to health problems in the long term. It is especially
> dangerous for any one with kidney problems. For overall good heath I would
> recommend the Mediterranean Diet or something close to it. In other words a
> diet with lots of variety, high in fruits and vegetables, vegatable oil
> such as Olive, some fish, a small amount of red meat, and low fat dairy
> products.
> Roger
>
>  ------------------------------
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> To: "Art Deco" <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>, vision2020 at moscow.com
> Date: 08/30/13 17:02
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
>
> I've seen this claim before.  Here is what snopes says:
> http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp
>
> When he went in to the hospital because of head injuries he sustained from
> a fall outside of his clinic on April 8, 2003, he weighed 195 pounds.  When
> he died after being in a coma 9 days later on April 17, 2003, he weighed in
> at 258 pounds.
>
> I doubt he gained 60 pounds in 9 days on the Atkins diet while in a coma.
> A quote from the spokesperson for the Atkins Physician Counsel:  "During
> his coma, as he deteriorated and his major organs failed, fluid retention
> and bloating dramatically distorted his body and left him at 258 pounds at
> the time of his death, a documented weight gain of over 60 pounds."
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
> *To:* vision2020 at moscow.com
> *Sent:* Friday, August 30, 2013 3:59 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] ketogenic diets
>
>
>
>
> To see how well it worked long term for Atkins himself read about his
> condition at his death and how his widow (an interesting story in itself)
> tried to suppress the photos
>
>
>
>

-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130903/d4b448d1/attachment-0001.html>