Trading while trying to lose weight on Atkins

Ahem... Idiot?

Fallacy: Ad Hominem attacks.... a sure sign of someone on the ropes
with no case. Your stooping to all new lows here.

The text you quoted made NO mention of the Ornish
protocol. This may indeed be the case, but you
need to prove this, your word at this point isn't worth very much.
I cross checked the study myself and was unable to
find ANY mention of the Ornish protocol in reference to
this study. You need to prove this.



"I'm not going to respond to the rest of this nonsense of yours..."

A complete DODGE. As expected.




"Your points of contention are laughable"

To a completely delusional , logically incapable person,
I'm sure this is the case. However, your statement is baseless
and nothing more than grand standing.
I pointed out clear flaws in your various posts, and they stand
on their own.



Again, I have forwarded your Eskimo "paradox" to Dean Ornish.

I'm quite certain Dr Ornish is well aware of these facts,
although you seem to be completely ignorant of them.
I already posted the references.



"I am sure he'll want to know immediately that those improved heart PET scans are simply a grand illusion. "

Fallacy: Strawman. I NEVER claimed that the PET scans
were a grand illusion.
Not very surprising. When you are incapable of attacking
anything I have stated, you have to make up something to attack.



Personal attacks, misquotes, dodging, grand standing,
and fallacious arguments. I'm impressed.


peace

axeman


Quote from LongShot:




LOL The Fleming studies use the Ornish protocol you idiot.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of this nonsense of yours, it doesn't deserve a reply. Your points of contention are laughable. :p

Again, I have forwarded your Eskimo "paradox" to Dean Ornish. I am sure he'll want to know immediately that those improved heart PET scans are simply a grand illusion. :p
More...
 
Quote from axeman:


Personal attacks, misquotes, dodging, grand standing,
and fallacious arguments. I'm impressed.


peace

axeman
More...

ROTFLMAO! I gave you studies demonstrating quantifiable proof of improvement in heart function. This improvement was visualized and measured. What more could you possibly want or expect? To a reasonable man this is the gold standard of proof.

You, on the other hand, have given us nothing the unsubstantiated opinion of a diet docs (Laymen) with a vested interest in selling books and meals and vague Eskimo story. This is what you hang your health on? You even suggest fat has no relationship to cardiovascular disease which is totally ludicrous. Now you say McDougal may be right. Do you even know what your opinion is, let alone support it? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? You argue like some crank. Nothing you have said changes the outcome or conclusions of these studies on iota. You've refuted nothing, you haven't even come close. It's amusing to what you try to prove your point (whatever that may be, I don't think you even know what it is) Keep trying .. :p
 
Since all you are capable of is IGNORING every flaw
I have pointed out in your argument, I will take that
as conceding this non-debate.


I'll give you ONE more chance to back up your assertions.
Another dodge, or non-answer will make it clear
that you are in fact conceding.

1) Prove your assertion that the fleming study followed
the Ornish protocol as you claim

2) Prove your assertion:
"The facts are Dean Ornish's research is the only definitive proof out there at this""

3) Prove that the studies I posted on Eskimo diets
are an illusion and dont exist

4) Prove your assertion:
"None of this is possible without the dietary changes noted."
In other words, that the other factors such as smoking
and exercise had nothing to do with the results of the
lifestyle change study.


Along with several other flawed comments, these are the
big holes in your argument that you have CONSISTENTLY
failed to address.

Now either prove them, or ADMIT you cannot.

If you choose to DODGE these issues one more time
I will take that as officially conceding.

No more grand standing... personal attacks... or fallacies.
Back up your assertions, or bow out.


peace

axeman




Quote from LongShot:



ROTFLMAO! I gave you studies demonstrating quantifiable proof of improvement in heart function. This improvement was visualized and measured. What more could you possibly want or expect? To a reasonable man this is the gold standard of proof.

You, on the other hand, have given us nothing the unsubstantiated opinion of a diet docs (Laymen) with a vested interest in selling books and meals and vague Eskimo story. This is what you hang your health on? You even suggest fat has no relationship to cardiovascular disease which is totally ludicrous. Now you say McDougal may be right. Do you even know what your opinion is, let alone support it? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously? You argue like some crank. Nothing you have said changes the outcome or conclusions of these studies on iota. You've refuted nothing, you haven't even come close. It's amusing to what you try to prove your point (whatever that may be, I don't think you even know what it is) Keep trying .. :p
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Since all you are capable of is IGNORING every flaw
I have pointed out in your argument, I will take that
as conceding this non-debate.


I'll give you ONE more chance to back up your assertions.
Another dodge, or non-answer will make it clear
that you are in fact conceding.

1) Prove your assertion that the fleming study followed
the Ornish protocol as you claim

2) Prove your assertion:
"The facts are Dean Ornish's research is the only definitive proof out there at this""

3) Prove that the studies I posted on Eskimo diets
are an illusion and dont exist

4) Prove your assertion:
"None of this is possible without the dietary changes noted."
In other words, that the other factors such as smoking
and exercise had nothing to do with the results of the
lifestyle change study.


Along with several other flawed comments, these are the
big holes in your argument that you have CONSISTENTLY
failed to address.

Now either prove them, or ADMIT you cannot.

If you choose to DODGE these issues one more time
I will take that as officially conceding.

No more grand standing... personal attacks... or fallacies.
Back up your assertions, or bow out.


peace

axeman
More...


1) http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3075_903

Hello! What does it say under these images?

2)Because only Dean Ornish and Richard Fleming have published research in peer reviewef journals directly demonstrating the efficacy of their protocols.

Atkins does not (atkins acknowledged and admitted this criticism he lacked research) and neither does ZONE or anyone else. The ZONE guy thinks a variety of diets work so what would he test?

Where are their studies that X number of patients directly improved in objective measures following thier recommendations? There aren't any, you can't produce them so my claim is valid. Geeez.

3)What studies? And what are you "proving"? That no relationship between fat intake and cardiovascular diease exists?? Are you really this foolish?

4) Oh c'mon.. use a little common sense. Do you really believe the low fat diet had the least to do with the improvements seen? Particularly in light of the additional Fleming study I gave you showing improvement in only the low fat diet group?

Can't you put two and two together?? The facts are staring you right in the face. Swallow your pride and admit you're wrong here.
 
Welp, there your have it. Straight from the horses mouth:

1) Your web page only shows that some results from the
fleming study was published on Dr Ornish's web site.
It does not prove your claim that the Fleming study USED
the Ornish protocol.

Strike out on question 1.

2) Published research by Dr Ornish in no way proves
that HIS research is the ONLY definitive proof there is.

Strike out on question 2.

3) You failed to prove the studies I posted, which can
be looked up on Medline for Eskimos, are an illusion.

Strike three on question 3.

4) You appeal to "common sense", instead of proof, that the
ONLY factor which was causing the positive effect was the
"low fat" aspect of the LifeStyle change study. This is not proof.

Strike 4 , on question 4.


At least you had the integrity to reply at all.



I stand by my original statement that I have not seen ANY
hard scientific study on ANY of these diets that prove reversal
of heart disease.

You clearly have not made the case for the Ornish study as well.


"And what are you "proving"? That no relationship between fat intake and cardiovascular diease exists?? Are you really this foolish?"

I was never attempting to prove there is no relationship
between fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
What I was pointing out is the fact that there ARE people
on HIGH fat diets with low rates of cardiovascular disease,
which proves, that the "low fat" part of your lifestyle change
study may in fact NOT play the ONLY role in the subjects
health getting better.

I'm sure Dr Fleming and Dr Ornish would also agree that
quitting smoking and exercising would have measurable
effects on cardiovascular health, even WITHOUT a low fat diet.
Yet you stand there a CLAIM that its ONLY the "low fat" diet
which made the difference.

This begs the question:
Why did they bother to include the no smoking and excercise
policy in the lifestyle change study in the first place? :D


I don't think any further rebuttal is necessary at this point.


peace

axeman




Quote from LongShot:




1) http://my.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3075_903

Hello! What does it say under these images?

2)Because only Dean Ornish and Richard Fleming have published research in peer reviewef journals directly demonstrating the efficacy of their protocols.

Atkins does not (atkins acknowledged and admitted this criticism he lacked research) and neither does ZONE or anyone else. The ZONE guy thinks a variety of diets work so what would he test?

Where are their studies that X number of patients directly improved in objective measures following thier recommendations? There aren't any, you can't produce them so my claim is valid. Geeez.

3)What studies? And what are you "proving"? That no relationship between fat intake and cardiovascular diease exists?? Are you really this foolish?

4) Oh c'mon.. use a little common sense. Do you really believe the low fat diet had the least to do with the improvements seen? Particularly in light of the additional Fleming study I gave you showing improvement in only the low fat diet group?

Can't you put two and two together?? The facts are staring you right in the face. Swallow your pride and admit you're wrong here.
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

Welp, there your have it. Straight from the horses mouth:

1) Your web page only shows that some results from the
fleming study was published on Dr Ornish's web site.
It does not prove your claim that the Fleming study USED
the Ornish protocol.

Strike out on question 1.

2) Published research by Dr Ornish in no way proves
that HIS research is the ONLY definitive proof there is.

Strike out on question 2.

3) You failed to prove the studies I posted, which can
be looked up on Medline for Eskimos, are an illusion.

Strike three on question 3.

4) You appeal to "common sense", instead of proof, that the
ONLY factor which was causing the positive effect was the
"low fat" aspect of the LifeStyle change study. This is not proof.

Strike 4 , on question 4.


At least you had the integrity to reply at all.



I stand by my original statement that I have not seen ANY
hard scientific study on ANY of these diets that prove reversal
of heart disease.

You clearly have not made the case for the Ornish study as well.


"And what are you "proving"? That no relationship between fat intake and cardiovascular diease exists?? Are you really this foolish?"

I was never attempting to prove there is no relationship
between fat intake and cardiovascular disease.
What I was pointing out is the fact that there ARE people
on HIGH fat diets with low rates of cardiovascular disease,
which proves, that the "low fat" part of your lifestyle change
study may in fact NOT play the ONLY role in the subjects
health getting better.

I'm sure Dr Fleming and Dr Ornish would also agree that
quitting smoking and exercising would have measurable
effects on cardiovascular health, even WITHOUT a low fat diet.
Yet you stand there a CLAIM that its ONLY the "low fat" diet
which made the difference.

This begs the question:
Why did they bother to include the no smoking and excercise
policy in the lifestyle change study in the first place? :D


I don't think any further rebuttal is necessary at this point.


peace

axeman
More...

1) LOL. Fleming used LOW FAT diet and serveral popular high protein/high fat diets in the other groups in (including one popular diet everyone believed would make them healthy again -sound familiar :p ). The low fat diet was the clear winner. Geez what's your problem axemoron?

2)But LACK of published research by the other does prove it :p .
Research which you youself have failed to give despite repeated requests. But i am not surprised because there are none demonstrating direct measureable improvement so you can't come up with the goods that you would sorely love to produce to shore up your nonsense here.

3)How old are you? "Which can be looked up on medline? LOL What are you babbling about? That's your defense??

4)Yes I ALWAYS attempt to use a measure of common sense when reasoning, you should try it!

Dean ornish protocol produced measureable and significant results. I gave these to you (unfortunately for you, you are incapable of understanding them). The very low fat diet is the centerpiece of the Ornish protocol. Fleming study was additional proof of the importance of low fat intake.

C-mon back junior when you have more than an Eskimo pie and lay book to show us. It has been amusing heh ehe :p :p
 
Quote from axeman:


I stand by my original statement that I have not seen ANY
hard scientific study on ANY of these diets that prove reversal
of heart disease.

You clearly have not made the case for the Ornish study as well.
More...


Geez axe are you really THIS obtuse or do you simply play one on ET:p
 
Axeman, arguing with someone who can't recognize a poorly-constructed study when he sees one, or even knows how to recognize one, is a waste of time. LS/FPC is really no different from those fundamentalists who use the Bible to support any position they are partial to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top