Trading while trying to lose weight on Atkins
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Now your Dean Ornish's official spokeperson
and mind reader? LOL
Coming from a guy who wasnt even aware of what
Dean Ornish said on his own website, this is quite hypocritical.
Dean Ornish: I agree with the high protein advocates that it's wise to eat fewer simple carbohydrates, including sugar, white flour, and white rice. These are low in fiber, so you get a double-whammy: a lot of calories that don't fill you up, and they get absorbed quickly, causing your blood sugar to zoom up. Your body makes more insulin to lower your blood sugar, but too much insulin also accelerates the conversion of calories into fat.
Longshots reply: Dean Ornish proposes nothing of the sort.
peace
axeman
and mind reader? LOL
Coming from a guy who wasnt even aware of what
Dean Ornish said on his own website, this is quite hypocritical.
Dean Ornish: I agree with the high protein advocates that it's wise to eat fewer simple carbohydrates, including sugar, white flour, and white rice. These are low in fiber, so you get a double-whammy: a lot of calories that don't fill you up, and they get absorbed quickly, causing your blood sugar to zoom up. Your body makes more insulin to lower your blood sugar, but too much insulin also accelerates the conversion of calories into fat.
Longshots reply: Dean Ornish proposes nothing of the sort.
peace
axeman
Quote from axeman:
apparently. Not much
LS gets the official axeman award of least challenging
debate opponent on ET
peace
axeman
An all too common affliction of many people that are smart (or of those that think they are) is that they are unable to synthesize data from diverse sources put it togther to see the big picture. These people get all caught up in semantical arguments and nuances that they totally miss the big picture. IOW, they can't see the forest for the trees. However, Many of them excel at constructing straw man arguments or finding subtle shades of meaning in a sentence that aren't really there or intended or picking apart insignificance. They can on and on about the most picayune things while sadly missing the BIG picture. Ther are MASTERS of insignificance is the best way I can describe it. Life(Nature) seldom offers up perfection (if ever) so these people are always just a bit lost. Oh yes they may sound "smart" to the uninformed but in truth they just never quite "get it".
I think you axe are one of these people. I am almost sure of it.
More unsupported drivel and opinion.
LETS take a look at the big picture shall we?
You consistently have claimed that the Ornish diet is the ONLY real diet with objective proof of heart disease reversal.
But your error was that you supplied a study that was
completely unrelated to Dr Ornish. "low fat" applies
to hundreds of diets in the world, not just the Ornish diet.
You have consistently failed to prove ANY correlation at all.
Why is it that you are completely INCAPABLE of providing
the simple evidence required to prove that the Ornish
protocol was used in the Fleming study?
Because you cant.
At best, this is an error on your part, at worst, a completely
fabricated lie in a pathetic attempt to support your original
unsupported assertion.
Your post is FULL of ridiculous empty assertions:
"...they are unable to synthesize data from diverse sources "
You can't prove this.
"...These people get all caught up in semantical arguments "
You haven't identified any.
"...Many of them excel at constructing straw man arguments "
For example??? In fact, I have already pointed out
a straw man argument commited by YOU.
In fact, let me remind you of the strawman fallacy YOU commited:
Longshot:"I am sure he'll want to know immediately that those improved heart PET scans are simply a grand illusion. "
Axeman:Fallacy: Strawman. I NEVER claimed that the PET scans
were a grand illusion.
"....or finding subtle shades of meaning in a sentence that aren't really there "
For example?
"... or picking apart insignificance."
Oh, now its insignificant to point out that your study
shows no evidence of using the Ornish protocol, which
destroys your core position? LOL!
Completely, unsupported emptiness is all I see everywhere.
You may attempt to paint me as someone who misses
the big picture, but you have not provided a shred of
evidence that this is the case. Typical, considering your
previous track record of failing to support ANYTHING
you have asserted.
You try to play this off as "insignificance", and yet it
is the VERY CORE of your position.
You demand I see the forest, but the only problem is,
you don't really have any trees
peace
axeman
LETS take a look at the big picture shall we?
You consistently have claimed that the Ornish diet is the ONLY real diet with objective proof of heart disease reversal.
But your error was that you supplied a study that was
completely unrelated to Dr Ornish. "low fat" applies
to hundreds of diets in the world, not just the Ornish diet.
You have consistently failed to prove ANY correlation at all.
Why is it that you are completely INCAPABLE of providing
the simple evidence required to prove that the Ornish
protocol was used in the Fleming study?
Because you cant.
At best, this is an error on your part, at worst, a completely
fabricated lie in a pathetic attempt to support your original
unsupported assertion.
Your post is FULL of ridiculous empty assertions:
"...they are unable to synthesize data from diverse sources "
You can't prove this.
"...These people get all caught up in semantical arguments "
You haven't identified any.
"...Many of them excel at constructing straw man arguments "
For example??? In fact, I have already pointed out
a straw man argument commited by YOU.
In fact, let me remind you of the strawman fallacy YOU commited:
Longshot:"I am sure he'll want to know immediately that those improved heart PET scans are simply a grand illusion. "
Axeman:Fallacy: Strawman. I NEVER claimed that the PET scans
were a grand illusion.
"....or finding subtle shades of meaning in a sentence that aren't really there "
For example?
"... or picking apart insignificance."
Oh, now its insignificant to point out that your study
shows no evidence of using the Ornish protocol, which
destroys your core position? LOL!
Completely, unsupported emptiness is all I see everywhere.
You may attempt to paint me as someone who misses
the big picture, but you have not provided a shred of
evidence that this is the case. Typical, considering your
previous track record of failing to support ANYTHING
you have asserted.
You try to play this off as "insignificance", and yet it
is the VERY CORE of your position.
You demand I see the forest, but the only problem is,
you don't really have any trees
peace
axeman
Quote from LongShot:
An all too common affliction of many people that are smart (or of those that think they are) is that they are unable to synthesize data from diverse sources put it togther to see the big picture. These people get all caught up in semantical arguments and nuances that they totally miss the big picture. IOW, they can't see the forest for the trees. However, Many of them excel at constructing straw man arguments or finding subtle shades of meaning in a sentence that aren't really there or intended or picking apart insignificance. They can on and on about the most picayune things while sadly missing the BIG picture. Ther are MASTERS of insignificance is the best way I can describe it. Life(Nature) seldom offers up perfection (if ever) so these people are always just a bit lost. Oh yes they may sound "smart" to the uninformed but in truth they just never quite "get it".
I think you axe are one of these people. I am almost sure of it.
Here is some simple logic for your longshot
My posts are 100% about YOUR assertions
Longshot claims my posts are insignificant
---------------------------------------------------
Therefore: Longshots assertions are insignificant
Thanks for verifying what we all already knew
peace
axeman
My posts are 100% about YOUR assertions
Longshot claims my posts are insignificant
---------------------------------------------------
Therefore: Longshots assertions are insignificant
Thanks for verifying what we all already knew
peace
axeman
Quote from LongShot:
Look at your post for god's sake... 3/4 of page analysing absolutely nothing
I rest my case. The diagnosis has been verified (and you are it!)
Some people would consider this a lot of carbs for one sitting. But is it too many carbs for one sitting?
700 cals for a meal is by no means excessive for someone of my size/activity.
IMO, if a meal of bananas is thought to be bad for humans then we have truly lost the plot.
You demand I see the forest, but the only problem is,
you don't really have any trees
Christ axe, the forest is obviously that low-fat diets are the healthier choice. While I don't think this point has conclusively, now and forever more, been proven, there is, I think it's clear, there is some very strong supporting evidence.
I really can't quite see why you're so hung up on whether it was the "Ornish protocal" (sounds like a spy thriller) that was followed. What the study did bear out, again not to a case-closed level, was that heart disease was reversed -- and the reversal, it is eminently logical to conclude, was most likely effected by the diet employed. I mean, there are probably God knows how many joggers and non-smokers out there that develop heart disease, so your insistence on the possible importance of these factors seems pretty weird.
you don't really have any trees
Christ axe, the forest is obviously that low-fat diets are the healthier choice. While I don't think this point has conclusively, now and forever more, been proven, there is, I think it's clear, there is some very strong supporting evidence.
I really can't quite see why you're so hung up on whether it was the "Ornish protocal" (sounds like a spy thriller) that was followed. What the study did bear out, again not to a case-closed level, was that heart disease was reversed -- and the reversal, it is eminently logical to conclude, was most likely effected by the diet employed. I mean, there are probably God knows how many joggers and non-smokers out there that develop heart disease, so your insistence on the possible importance of these factors seems pretty weird.