Anyone read the latest research on Keto by Alan Aragon?
Replies
-
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »And btw. this is the first time I've heard anyone call Alan Aragon "not reputable". Say what?
It should be noted that Alan Aragon was on the review panel. The people that conducted the meta-analysis were:- Adam Tzur is the head of SCI-FIT.
- Brandon Roberts works at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. He is also employed by The Strength Guys.
- Alex Leaf works for Examine.com.
1 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
I actually just re-read the whole meta anaylsis to see if I was missing something. The data seems very neutral in how it was written.
The one thing I really think is interesting is that in many studies there is huge swings in performance between one person to the next, as noted below. It seems pretty consistent with a majority of the studies; of which, those studies are being conducted by some of the leading researchers in the low carb community (phinney, noakes, etc...).
0 -
@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.4
-
Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald are bad *kitten* dudes. There are several others - Dr. Joe Klemczewski comes to mind first. Anyway, maybe the person who is challenging this is unaware of who these folks are? And, that (questioning things) is not a bad thing. At least, I don't think that it is a bad thing.
I just find things interesting. We here in the US are pretty much obese. And we are obese for lots of reasons
<<<<<START RANT HERE>>>>>>
...mostly because we are lazy....not going to say 'Sorry' for that....that is my experience and it is confirmed time and time and time and time and time again.....we make far too many excuses....both for ourselves and for others.
We need to be personally accountable and have personal responsibility and take ownership (nobody wants to ever do that.....even for themselves)......We choose to be lazy and apathetic ("...but it takes so much time to learn all this stuff....can't you just tell me what to do?" - I hear that ALL the time) and then expect to take some magic pill to make our laziness and apathy go away (along with whatever other ailments afflict us). I also hear "...but I go to the gym five times a week..." and then they sit on the sit-down bike and work on their iPad all the while going at a magnificent pace of 1/2 mile an hour. What needs to happen before we here in the US get it? What it usually takes is someone has diabetes and looses a foot, or worse. What it usually takes is someone has a stroke, or worse. But, then it is too late.
Anyway, it just ticks me off to no end how lazy we have become. I will not even get into "not being present"....Ha! I will get y'all later on that rant!
<<<<<END RANT HERE>>>>>
If there is something that we can do to combat that then let's investigate. But, it is my responsibility to take care of me....and your responsibility to take care of you. And, as we all know (but sometimes seem to forget) - we are all different. Not everything works for everyone.....
Anyway, I still find this conversation interesting. Not everyone scrolls through the forums (read: usually just look at the first page).2 -
@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.18 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
Not going to lie, struggling to follow in how you are trying to explain yourself, but how is the science faulty?
I will point out there are several low carbers in this thread. And the majority of us just like science regardless if it's for or against a particular diet.6 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
I actually just re-read the whole meta anaylsis to see if I was missing something. The data seems very neutral in how it was written.
The one thing I really think is interesting is that in many studies there is huge swings in performance between one person to the next, as noted below. It seems pretty consistent with a majority of the studies; of which, those studies are being conducted by some of the leading researchers in the low carb community (phinney, noakes, etc...).
Again.. I was fine with the research. FINE with it. Nothing wrong that I see in it.
The site the site the site. Not the research.. I'm trying to protect the research and OP by pointing out that the site it's on will be attacked.. Please.. just understand that much of what I am saying. Ignore the parts you are misunderstanding.11 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »MinuitMinuet wrote: »Again, I am not saying that I disagree with the proposed research.. It's which sites that are putting it out their that poses the problem. Not for the sake of finding it invalid myself but that your target audience who oppose it WILL. If you take a known truth from a reputable medical website, delete it from its archives, and repost it on a non-reputable site.. truth withstanding, your audience will poke holes in it.
As for the demonizing it, perhaps you will benefit more by explaining ahead of time that your are in fact NOT AGAINST KETO, but against the pseudoscience behind it and that your goal is to educate the more thoughtful before they swallow the misinformation. Like I tell my daughter, it's not WHAT YOU SAY, it's how you say it. Or in this case, delivered it.
Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who..
And I never said it satiated everyone, psuLemon. In fact, I clearly spelled out that it is only viable to those it does satiate. I'm a neutral participant in this keto game that is being played. I do keto with the knowledge that it is beneficial to people like me but skeptical to the "science" behind it. I put science in quotation marks to emphasize the ridiculousness I find most of the research to be.
My problem is only with the imbalance being displayed for and against it. The delivery of those who are against it acts like an attack on the entire system and it's demography rather than just the science behind it.
An example would be two groups fighting over whether or not santa clause is real.. but on two complete extreme opposite sides.
One side says there is a santa clause and hails his flying reign deer, magical elves, North Pole address, and his proposed ability to stalk 7 billion victims.
On the other extreme end are those completely against the idea at all and deny any existence he may have ever held.
In the middle is the person calling out the unicorn riding fairy folk and while simultaneously trying to unplug the mules ears and explain that no you do NOT believe in fairy tales but there was a man from which the story is based so the idea of his existence is not as far reaching as they could imagine and the principles in which he left; joy, peace, kindness, hope..are still principles in which we could all agree on.
Still get the impression you haven't actually read it to be honest - the review and critique of current research for example. Are you just looking at the OP screen grab or have you followed the link and read it for yourself?
If you do read it them you will see that your scepticism of the "science" is shared - that's why they comment on the quality of the studies done which reflects on the credibility of any conclusions arrived at.
It's the opposite of the far too common searching for studies, or parts of studies, that confirm a bias.
"Do you see what I am trying to explain? It's not the content, it's the who.. "
Now that I find really strange - are you familiar with the contributors and reviewers? I'm not understanding your bias against them.
I actually just re-read the whole meta anaylsis to see if I was missing something. The data seems very neutral in how it was written.
The one thing I really think is interesting is that in many studies there is huge swings in performance between one person to the next, as noted below. It seems pretty consistent with a majority of the studies; of which, those studies are being conducted by some of the leading researchers in the low carb community (phinney, noakes, etc...).
Again.. I was fine with the research. FINE with it. Nothing wrong that I see in it.
The site the site the site. Not the research.. I'm trying to protect the research and OP by pointing out that the site it's on will be attacked.. Please.. just understand that much of what I am saying. Ignore the parts you are misunderstanding.
The site, the site, the site? What is wrong with the site?6 -
I am so lost. What's wrong with where the research analysis is hosted?4
-
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
Not going to lie, struggling to follow in how you are trying to explain yourself, but how is the science faulty?
I will point out there are several low carbers in this thread. And the majority of us just like science regardless if it's for or against a particular diet.
The science is faulty when the extreme keto followers think they can ignore CICO and still lose weight. Not all believe this, I know.. But the ones selling it by saying it cures cancer and you can eat without counting calories are the ones making the diet look like fairy wishes and unicorn sprinkles. They will not want to look at the research unless it's from a medical site, even if it's the truth. If you can find this exact same research but on a better known site, it would go a long way to helping your case. But I also don't want to see the complete opposite saying keto is the wrong way period, which is what it looked like the OP was saying at first until his intentions were clarified. Educating others works best when approached from a neutral standpoint.7 -
What's wrong with the site? Sci-fit.. not well known and widely accepted. Authors may be but like I tried to explain.. take proven medical fact, post it on a not well known site, and someone will come along and say it must be wrong.10
-
You can woo me all you like but that's fact. You give people way to much credit if you believe they are so accepting of every research hosting site out there.8
-
Where should it be hosted?1
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
2 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »What's wrong with the site? Sci-fit.. not well known and widely accepted. Authors may be but like I tried to explain.. take proven medical fact, post it on a not well known site, and someone will come along and say it must be wrong.
It sounds like you need to take a step back a bit more and look at the actual research, and research the site and researchers participating in the research.
In science, meta-analyses are regarded as one of the highest forms of science (noted by the hierarchy below). It can and will be posted on multiple sites. Evaluated content based on the site is a bit short-sighted IMO.
6 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.3 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.
That's a shame. I really like science and research and would like to see sites like this grow in popularity. It would go a long way if it could be shared as an objective based argument.0 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.
That's a shame. I really like science and research and would like to see sites like this grow in popularity. It would go a long way if it could be shared as an objective based argument.
Ironically, the ones that do exist tend to be very biased towards one particular diet and slow to adopt any new science. That is why it's important to look at research sites or universities as opposed to doctors sites. But also, you should note there are significant difference between PhD's and MD's. The majority of MD's have no training or education in nutritional sciences. This is why I would put little faith in most of their recommendations.4 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »MinuitMinuet wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Where should it be hosted?
Can it be submitted to maybe a medical site? How does hosting work?
Medical sites don't really host this kind of information. They take recommendations from scientific boards to form opinions. They aren't research sites.
That's a shame. I really like science and research and would like to see sites like this grow in popularity. It would go a long way if it could be shared as an objective based argument.
Ironically, the ones that do exist tend to be very biased towards one particular diet and slow to adopt any new science. That is why it's important to look at research sites or universities as opposed to doctors sites. But also, you should note there are significant difference between PhD's and MD's. The majority of MD's have no training or education in nutritional sciences. This is why I would put little faith in most of their recommendations.
I agree. Problem is, not everyone does. Not enough dragons to slay.0 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »What's wrong with the site? Sci-fit.. not well known and widely accepted. Authors may be but like I tried to explain.. take proven medical fact, post it on a not well known site, and someone will come along and say it must be wrong.
So that's your objection!
Now the penny drops - to be fair I've come across the same thing said about well written articles in Men's Health magazine by authors who are leaders in their field (guess who!!) but dismissed because the gem of good information is surrounded by the usual "Get 6 pack Abs in 8 weeks" tosh. Or is it 8 pack abs in 6 weeks?
Here's something you may well find interesting and it's hosted on a site you may prefer.
https://jissn.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12970-017-0174-y
It's very wide ranging looking at many different types of diets but there's a large section on ketogenic diets.5 -
Whoever made that pyramid should be ejected into space..
I tried fixing it, but the trapeziums aren't even the right size! Geometry has never been this triggering before.
5 -
Mycophilia wrote: »Whoever made that pyramid should be ejected into space..
I tried fixing it, but the trapeziums aren't even the right size! Geometry has never been this triggering before.
What do you expect from PhD's, lol? It's from Dr. Brad Schoenfelds site.
http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/evidence-based-practice-in-exercise-and-nutrition-common-misconceptions-and-criticisms/2 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
Keto good.. Pseudoscience behind it bad.
Questionable sites bad.. Even if research good.
Good research. Bad delivery.
Pole
Anti-keto
Super keto
Both bad
neutral non keto/ketoer
Both good
OP? Questionable on his end goal (bad) until he explained it in further detail.(good).
People still harping on my superior comprehension skills without bothering to try and understand my responses? (Bad)
People who read my responses and understand that I'm not against OP, research, or neutral ketoers? (Good)
I'm acting as neutral chaotic at the moment but my original attempt was lawful neutral. Trying to garner the atmosphere in which the research was being presented. I am now satisfied that the OP is not against keto, just the faulty science.
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
Really? You class your behavior based on the Dungeons and Dragons alignment system?
12 -
Hold on....there is a web site called "lookgreatnaked.com"? Hawt dang! LOL!0
-
MinuitMinuet wrote: »So, like the obsessed ketoers, shaky sites. I agree that it's mostly nonsense, but the sites on both sides are.. questionable. You can woo me all you like but that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm right. Anti-ketoers hate it and demonized it while ketoers evangelize it. I beginning to think you people just like to find something to fight about..like an old nagging couple. There needs to be a neutral group that can untangle this mess and show both sides that it isn't magic but it isn't ridiculous either. If it don't work for you.. try something else.. don't hate on those it works for. If it works for you, awesome, don't add pseudoscience to try and make it look better. Just leave it at CICO for those who binge on carbs.
and who are you again?4 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »Hold on....there is a web site called "lookgreatnaked.com"? Hawt dang! LOL!
I always struggle going to it at work, but it is filled with goodness.3 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »@MinuitMinuet you are responsible for whatever you are reading in and reacting to both in the OP and other posts. It was presented as neutral data with no criticism. I honestly don't get what you are reacting to and from some of the posts, neither do others.
Thus my most recent response in an attempt to explain it. You're welcome. I really don't mind going into further detail if you find previous attempts at comprehending my seemingly more vague responses challenging. You have but to ask. I recognize that I do tend to obfuscate the entirety of my connotation by overcompensating with a superfluous amount explaining. Ill simplify it so you don't have to dig through the rubble to extract the meaning.
...SNIP...
I do hope this was more clear. I really did think my santa analogy clarified my position.
No- this isn't more clear.
I've realized my boss is right- when she says "its' to many words you already lost me"
if what you're trying to say- isn't extremely evident in the first 2-3 sentences it's too many god*mn words.
Be like Thoreau- simplify simplify simplify.
Stop trying to sound smart and just say what you mean.14 -
Admittedly I've not read the study itself, but I'm not seeing an anti-keto bias from the presented graphic. Seems pretty cut and dried that like other ways of eating, keto is effective for some goals and ineffective for others.
I've never really seen it pushed for anything beyond fat loss, which it seems according to the graphic, it can be effective for if that is one's specific goal. Of course if lbm gain or retention is a concern then yeah it doesn't look like it's the best way to go, which makes sense because those things require more than fat and protein for optimum results. That being the case, I don't think it's terribly surprising.7 -
MinuitMinuet wrote: »So, like the obsessed ketoers, shaky sites. I agree that it's mostly nonsense, but the sites on both sides are.. questionable. You can woo me all you like but that doesn't take away from the fact that I'm right. Anti-ketoers hate it and demonized it while ketoers evangelize it. I beginning to think you people just like to find something to fight about..like an old nagging couple. There needs to be a neutral group that can untangle this mess and show both sides that it isn't magic but it isn't ridiculous either. If it don't work for you.. try something else.. don't hate on those it works for. If it works for you, awesome, don't add pseudoscience to try and make it look better. Just leave it at CICO for those who binge on carbs.
I may be reading the wrong thing into this but i missed it first read around. Are you saying that for those of us who don't low carb we're by default bingeing on carbs?5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions