Paleo/LC, nutritional knowledge andthe Dunning-Kruger effect

SanteMulberry

bottom line: if something works for you, use it. If something doesn't work for you, don't use it. Right?

Yes--and that is exactly the position of the OP. The reason why I am enthusiastic about my approach (which isn't actually Paleo) is because it has worked for me when all other approaches failed. And from that, I simply try to help others by telling them what has worked and continues to work for me.

psuLemon

Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.

Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?

Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome

Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?

No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality

Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.

If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?

Its not that its a bad diet its that people swear going paleo will make the healthier and automatically lose weight. Its not the diet its the calories. Its no different than any other diet that people think its superior. Its not. In the end you lose just as much weight on paleo as any other diet. If it works great, but too many people suggest diets because its a fad. For my wife, its more of a requirement due to her health issues but for me it didnt provide any more weight loss benefit.

sunsnstatheart

Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.

Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?

Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome

Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?

No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality

Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.

If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?

I think you're missing the point a little and forgive me if I'm doing the same. The problem is that these diets are being touted as the "be all end all" way to eat and that people "should" eat this way. That adds to the morass of misinformation out there. If it works for you, then great. Just don't go with the crowd pushing it. There are a few very reasonable paleo eaters in this thread and one or two that unreasonable. The problem with "selling" it is that it does push people to eliminate nutritious foods from their diets thereby making it more difficult for many. If you understand this, we're good. If not I can't really say much more.

ukgirly01

Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.

Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?

Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome

Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?

No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality

Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.

If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?

I think you're missing the point a little and forgive me if I'm doing the same. The problem is that these diets are being touted as the "be all end all" way to eat and that people "should" eat this way. That adds to the morass of misinformation out there. If it works for you, then great. Just don't go with the crowd pushing it. There are a few very reasonable paleo eaters in this thread and one or two that unreasonable. The problem with "selling" it is that it does push people to eliminate nutritious foods from their diets thereby making it more difficult for many. If you understand this, we're good. If not I can't really say much more.

I guess my take on it has always been replacing food with more nutritious food rather than eliminating IE i still eat carbs but I'll have cauliflower instead of rice. To be fair to the "paleo pushers" the only posts I've seen in the main forums are ones responding to questions about it and responses to ones like this. Not necessarily pushing paleo.

sunsnstatheart

Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.

Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?

Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome

Ok I'll bite- I'm assuming that you therefore belive that paleo is nutritionally unsound? Can you explain how and why please?

No, it is fine nutritionally, however arbitrarily eliminating perfectly healthy things like dairy, legumes and grains because some people have issues with them is silly. On top of this, if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality

Maybe you're just talking to the wrong people.

If they are happy to eliminate these things what's the problem? They're still eating a nutritionally sound diet. I would never have said I had a problem eating grains but undoubtedly feel better now I don't eat them anymore- I'm not saying I'll never eat them again but pasta/bread etc is no longer a staple of my diet. Do I think every one should do this? I really couldn't care less. I've found what works for me others can find what works for them. If asked do I reccomend it - hell yes, why wouldnt I?

I think you're missing the point a little and forgive me if I'm doing the same. The problem is that these diets are being touted as the "be all end all" way to eat and that people "should" eat this way. That adds to the morass of misinformation out there. If it works for you, then great. Just don't go with the crowd pushing it. There are a few very reasonable paleo eaters in this thread and one or two that unreasonable. The problem with "selling" it is that it does push people to eliminate nutritious foods from their diets thereby making it more difficult for many. If you understand this, we're good. If not I can't really say much more.

I guess my take on it has always been replacing food with more nutritious food rather than eliminating IE i still eat carbs but I'll have cauliflower instead of rice. To be fair to the "paleo pushers" the only posts I've seen in the main forums are ones responding to questions about it and responses to ones like this. Not necessarily pushing paleo.

There's a "pusher" in this very thread and the books on paleo make some crazy claims. That said, I get what you are saying.

SanteMulberry

I know I said I was done with this thread but the discussion has gotten more civil and logical. So call me a liar!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/

Long-term effects of a ketogenic diet in obese patients

CONCLUSIONS:

The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated.



Here are my quibbles with this 2004 study:

Their idea of longterm isn't longterm

I am no longer obese so it doesn't apply to me at this moment although I was obese when I began low carb

I consider the number of participants to be too low. More studies with more participants, please!



Here is a more recent study:

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1199154

Effects of Dietary Composition on Energy Expenditure During Weight-Loss Maintenance

The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.



So the study shows that the low carb diet was actually the most effective, yet the researches recommend the intermediate diet over the low fat diet because:

Although the very low-carbohydrate diet produced the greatest improvements in most metabolic syndrome components examined herein, we identified 2 potentially deleterious effects of this diet. Twenty-four hour urinary cortisol excretion, a hormonal measure of stress, was highest with the very low-carbohydrate diet. Consistent with this finding, Stimson et al31 reported increased whole-body regeneration of cortisol by 11β-HSD1 and reduced inactivation of cortisol by 5α- and 5β-reductases over 4 weeks on a very low- vs moderate-carbohydrate diet. Higher cortisol levels may promote adiposity, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular disease, as observed in epidemiological studies.32- 34 In a 6-year prospective, population-based study of older adults in Italy,35 individuals in the highest vs lowest tertile of 24-hour cortisol excretion, with or without preexisting cardiovascular disease, had a 5-fold increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. C-reactive protein also tended to be higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet in our study, consistent with the findings of Rankin and Turpyn.36 Other studies also have found reductions in measures of chronic inflammation, including CRP with a low–glycemic index diet.37- 39




So my keto diet does have risks long term. But are those risks greater than the risks of being obese? No.

In the end for me it comes down to compliance. If I won't comply with a moderate or high carb diet that allows me to lose weight and then maintain a healthy weight I must choose the diet that I will comply with. I use the word 'diet' in the broad sense, as in the phrase 'part of a healthy diet', not the narrow, temporary sense.

Thanks for this studied and reasoned post. Just from my own experience, I have found that ketogenic diets are problematic in the longer term (and I have found that they were the only vehicles for weight loss for me in the past). But the long-term battle appears to be won by the diet that reduces body fat most efficiently while preserving (or even facilitating the building of) muscle mass. One of the problems is that ketogenic diets tend to cause muscle atrophy long-term (that has been observed in several reports that I saw) and it was my own experience as well. Then, when I went back to my "normal" diet the pounds crept back on and the end result was that I gained nearly all of it as body fat because my lean body mass was probably reduced by the ketogenic diet. It has been known, for many years, that carbohydrates have a "muscle sparing" effect. In nearly eliminating them, that effect is lost. It has been my experience that if sugar and wheat is eliminated, that appetite is well controlled at 100-200 grams of carbohydrate per day (with the higher amounts reserved for heavy exercise days).

Both sugar and wheat have been observed to be "addictive" in the laboratory. Recent research has focused on the fructose component in sucrose as the likely culprit--for reasons that are too long to go into here. The relatively low amount of fructose that is in a few servings of fruit don't appear to be a problem, but sugar consumption brings a LOT of fructose into the diet.

As well, research has looked at several components in wheat that appear to be "obesogens." Modern wheat is very high in gluten (it has been specifically bred to have high gluten levels) and commercial "quick rise" baking methods leave most of the gluten intact. But while that has been the focus of much anti-wheat sentiment, it is not the gluten that appears to have "addictive" power (although the virtual epidemic of celiac disease and gluten intolerance could be laid there). It is the gliaden in wheat and also fructans (which the body readily converts to fructose in the gut) that could be producing problems for obese people. All of my food cravings stopped almost instantly the day that I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet (and I eat everything else that fits into my macros). I now have no trouble staying within my calorie allotment and often find that I have to remind myself to eat, as I do not want to lose too quickly. Losing body mass too quickly may be the source of the cortisol rise that was observed---and no one needs to invite cardiac problems. My blood chemistry profile has improved dramatically and I was able to taper off my blood pressure medication very quickly after eliminating sugar.

I was so weak and tired on ketogenic diets that heavy exercise was out of the question for me (may be another source of the cortisol surge as studies have shown that cortisol levels are lowered through moderate exercise. Paradoxically, it has also been observed that "extreme" exercise tends to raise cortisol levels--probably because of the physical stress). I have no such problem exercising now--in fact, I am enjoying exercise for the first time in my life. I find that this program works better for me. But that is just anecdotal and until more work is done in the field, it is just one example. My body fat has gone from 50% to 32% and I feel great. I want to get my BF down to 25% eventually, but I am patient and expect that it will happen if I stay on this program. I will likely gradually increase my exercise levels. Actually, I will probably have to to get my BF to my goal. It has been a fascinating journey.

mmapags

It defies reason to suggest that an artificial, nutritionally-empty substance like sucrose, should become such a major portion of the diet for many people. Do you like being the devil's advocate or do you work for the sugar industry?

Neither. I just appreciate a little honesty and intellectual integrity, both of which seems to be missing from your posts.

You posted numbers that could be made up for all anyone knows as you have no source for them. You posted an article that states the problem is the overall calories and yet you want to fear monger about sugar.

Who is advocating that sucrose should be a major part of people diet? FTR, I am a firm advocate of IIFYM. All your intake should be managed. Carbs (of which sugar is one), fats, proteins as well as micronutrients. If one is practicing this, you cannot overconsume sugar, or any other nutrient for that matter.

If someone is going to overconsume sugar, does the responsibility lie with the sugar or the consumer? Same with any other nutrient where the overconsumption of it will cause excess calories resulting in weight gain. Why do you demonize a substance that is basically amoral?

But hey, keep making your illogical fear mongering argumments. You do more damage to your own credibility than I ever could. I won't speak for Acg67 but it's people like you that I have in mind when I read this:

" if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality."

MaraDiaz

Thanks for this studied and reasoned post. Just from my own experience, I have found that ketogenic diets are problematic in the longer term (and I have found that they were the only vehicles for weight loss for me in the past). But the long-term battle appears to be won by the diet that reduces body fat most efficiently while preserving (or even facilitating the building of) muscle mass. One of the problems is that ketogenic diets tend to cause muscle atrophy long-term (that has been observed in several reports that I saw) and it was my own experience as well. Then, when I went back to my "normal" diet the pounds crept back on and the end result was that I gained nearly all of it as body fat because my lean body mass was probably reduced by the ketogenic diet. It has been known, for many years, that carbohydrates have a "muscle sparing" effect. In nearly eliminating them, that effect is lost. It has been my experience that if sugar and wheat is eliminated, that appetite is well controlled at 100-200 grams of carbohydrate per day (with the higher amounts reserved for heavy exercise days).

Both sugar and wheat have been observed to be "addictive" in the laboratory. Recent research has focused on the fructose component in sucrose as the likely culprit--for reasons that are too long to go into here. The relatively low amount of fructose that is in a few servings of fruit don't appear to be a problem, but sugar consumption brings a LOT of fructose into the diet.

As well, research has looked at several components in wheat that appear to be "obesogens." Modern wheat is very high in gluten (it has been specifically bred to have high gluten levels) and commercial "quick rise" baking methods leave most of the gluten intact. But while that has been the focus of much anti-wheat sentiment, it is not the gluten that appears to have "addictive" power (although the virtual epidemic of celiac disease and gluten intolerance could be laid there). It is the gliaden in wheat and also fructans (which the body readily converts to fructose in the gut) that could be producing problems for obese people. All of my food cravings stopped almost instantly the day that I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet (and I eat everything else that fits into my macros). I now have no trouble staying within my calorie allotment and often find that I have to remind myself to eat, as I do not want to lose too quickly. Losing body mass too quickly may be the source of the cortisol rise that was observed---and no one needs to invite cardiac problems. My blood chemistry profile has improved dramatically and I was able to taper off my blood pressure medication very quickly after eliminating sugar.

I was so weak and tired on ketogenic diets that heavy exercise was out of the question for me (may be another source of the cortisol surge as studies have shown that cortisol levels are lowered through moderate exercise. Paradoxically, it has also been observed that "extreme" exercise tends to raise cortisol levels--probably because of the physical stress). I have no such problem exercising now--in fact, I am enjoying exercise for the first time in my life. I find that this program works better for me. But that is just anecdotal and until more work is done in the field, it is just one example. My body fat has gone from 50% to 32% and I feel great. I want to get my BF down to 25% eventually, but I am patient and expect that it will happen if I stay on this program. I will likely gradually increase my exercise levels. Actually, I will probably have to to get my BF to my goal. It has been a fascinating journey.

Thank you for the info! I am able to work out very well at the moment but I will definitely look into the effects of a ketogenic diet on muscle mass, especially since I intend to put some muscle on.

I also intend to avoid wheat and sugar indefinitely, but I will, once I reach maintenance or near maintenance, attempt to find other carbs that I can add back that don't trigger cravings. Unfortunately, one of my favorites, nuts, will not be in that group since I can happily eat an entire can of cashews at a sitting and then look for more.

SanteMulberry

It defies reason to suggest that an artificial, nutritionally-empty substance like sucrose, should become such a major portion of the diet for many people. Do you like being the devil's advocate or do you work for the sugar industry?

Neither. I just appreciate a little honesty and intellectual integrity, both of which seems to be missing from your posts.

You posted numbers that could be made up for all anyone knows as you have no source for them. You posted an article that states the problem but the overall calories and yet you want to fear monger about sugar.

Who is advocating that sucrose should be a major part of people diet? FTR, I am a firm advocate of IIFYM. All your intake should be managed. Carbs (of which sugar is one), fats, proteins as well as micronutrients. If one is practicing this, you cannot overconsume sugar, or any other nutrient for that matter.

If someone is going to overconsume sugar, does the responsibility lie with the sugar or the consumer? Same with any other nutrient where the overconsumption of it will cause excess calories resulting in weight gain. Why do you demonize a substance that is basically amoral?

But hey, keep making your illogical fear mongering argumments. You do more damage to your own credibility than I ever could. I won't speak for Acg67 but it's people like you that I have in mind when I read this:

" if you just peruse or talk to some paleo adherents, you will find that most but not all, love to spout all manners of nutritional ignorance that has little basis in reality."

I actually do not follow Paleo, nor do I advocate it---you are barking up the wrong tree there. Nor do I endorse long-term ketogenic diets for the reasons I cited above. To accuse me of dishonesty and lack of intellectual integrity is simply beyond the pale. Just exactly what are you disagreeing with? The fact that I haven't backed up the claim about the 500 calories worth of sugar that the average person eats per day? Google is your friend, but even the article that I cited states that the average person consumes 150 pounds of sugar per year---DO THE MATH!

I have only ever stated my opinion and have outlined what has worked for me---if you would drop the knee-jerk reactions, I think you would see that. If you like sugar, I really do not care if you eat it until you are in diabetic coma. But to keep on sounding the mantra that it does matter what your diet consists of as long as it stays within calories, is to do a health-disservice to those who are reading. Please stop it.

mmapags

But to keep on sounding the mantra that it does matter what your diet consists of as long as it stays within calories, is to do a health-disservice to those who are reading. Please stop it.

That is not what I said. Sounds like your reading comprehension could use some work in addition to the posting numbers you can't back up thing. Just can't see the forest for all those trees can you.

But hey, thanks for staying rational! :drinker:

SanteMulberry

Thanks for this studied and reasoned post. Just from my own experience, I have found that ketogenic diets are problematic in the longer term (and I have found that they were the only vehicles for weight loss for me in the past). But the long-term battle appears to be won by the diet that reduces body fat most efficiently while preserving (or even facilitating the building of) muscle mass. One of the problems is that ketogenic diets tend to cause muscle atrophy long-term (that has been observed in several reports that I saw) and it was my own experience as well. Then, when I went back to my "normal" diet the pounds crept back on and the end result was that I gained nearly all of it as body fat because my lean body mass was probably reduced by the ketogenic diet. It has been known, for many years, that carbohydrates have a "muscle sparing" effect. In nearly eliminating them, that effect is lost. It has been my experience that if sugar and wheat is eliminated, that appetite is well controlled at 100-200 grams of carbohydrate per day (with the higher amounts reserved for heavy exercise days).

Both sugar and wheat have been observed to be "addictive" in the laboratory. Recent research has focused on the fructose component in sucrose as the likely culprit--for reasons that are too long to go into here. The relatively low amount of fructose that is in a few servings of fruit don't appear to be a problem, but sugar consumption brings a LOT of fructose into the diet.

As well, research has looked at several components in wheat that appear to be "obesogens." Modern wheat is very high in gluten (it has been specifically bred to have high gluten levels) and commercial "quick rise" baking methods leave most of the gluten intact. But while that has been the focus of much anti-wheat sentiment, it is not the gluten that appears to have "addictive" power (although the virtual epidemic of celiac disease and gluten intolerance could be laid there). It is the gliaden in wheat and also fructans (which the body readily converts to fructose in the gut) that could be producing problems for obese people. All of my food cravings stopped almost instantly the day that I eliminated sugar and wheat from my diet (and I eat everything else that fits into my macros). I now have no trouble staying within my calorie allotment and often find that I have to remind myself to eat, as I do not want to lose too quickly. Losing body mass too quickly may be the source of the cortisol rise that was observed---and no one needs to invite cardiac problems. My blood chemistry profile has improved dramatically and I was able to taper off my blood pressure medication very quickly after eliminating sugar.

I was so weak and tired on ketogenic diets that heavy exercise was out of the question for me (may be another source of the cortisol surge as studies have shown that cortisol levels are lowered through moderate exercise. Paradoxically, it has also been observed that "extreme" exercise tends to raise cortisol levels--probably because of the physical stress). I have no such problem exercising now--in fact, I am enjoying exercise for the first time in my life. I find that this program works better for me. But that is just anecdotal and until more work is done in the field, it is just one example. My body fat has gone from 50% to 32% and I feel great. I want to get my BF down to 25% eventually, but I am patient and expect that it will happen if I stay on this program. I will likely gradually increase my exercise levels. Actually, I will probably have to to get my BF to my goal. It has been a fascinating journey.

Thank you for the info! I am able to work out very well at the moment but I will definitely look into the effects of a ketogenic diet on muscle mass, especially since I intend to put some muscle on.

I also intend to avoid wheat and sugar indefinitely, but I will, once I reach maintenance or near maintenance, attempt to find other carbs that I can add back that don't trigger cravings. Unfortunately, one of my favorites, nuts, will not be in that group since I can happily eat an entire can of cashews at a sitting and then look for more.

One experiment that I did with myself was to test whether or not nuts were "addictive" for me. Many people claim that they are and I don't doubt that they could be. But what I found for myself, was that when I permitted myself to eat nuts every day (even though they are very high in calories and impinged on the consumption of other foods) that after a while, the thought of eating more nuts was likely to make me gag.

I have nothing to back it up, and it is just a conjecture, but I wonder if, once you get the appetite distortions of sugar and wheat out of the diet, that the normal response to food is regained. If you watch children eat (especially if they have had sugar and wheat left out of their diet) they instinctively eat what they need. Pediatricians have, for a long time, observed this about the elimination of sugar (and the elimination of the high fructose of fruit juice as well) in a child's diet. The child may eat all nuts one day, and then the next day, eat all cheese---but overall, without the appetite distortions produced by food addictions (and intolerance) that they will eat a nutritionally balanced diet overall.

SanteMulberry

But to keep on sounding the mantra that it does matter what your diet consists of as long as it stays within calories, is to do a health-disservice to those who are reading. Please stop it.

That is not what I said. Sounds like your reading comprehension could use some work in addition to the posting numbers you can't back up thing. Just can't see the forest for all those trees can you.

But hey, thanks for staying rational! :drinker:

Keep toasting yourself.:bigsmile:

cmriverside

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

Acg67

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

cmriverside

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

Is that what you read above?

No, I'm disagreeing with your use of the word "dumber" being used as a club to further make your anti-low-carb argument. It could have been done with more civil language. Maybe MFP is getting to you and you should take a break.

Acg67

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

Is that what you read above?

No, I'm disagreeing with your use of the word "dumber" being used as a club to further make your anti-low-carb argument. It could have been done with more civil language. Maybe MFP is getting to you and you should take a break.

So if you were to peruse these forums or other LC forums what would you call some of the ridiculous statements that are made, misinformed, uneducated, factually challenged?

cmriverside

Not sure if SRS, but if you are, get over it.

Just like - not everyone wants to drink protein shakes. Not everyone wants to eat meat.

You stepped over the line calling them "dumber". I'm not a low-carb preacher, but I don't think you have to have as many carbs as 55%, like this site prescribes by default.

Let. It. Go.

So you are discounting my anecdotal evidence, that some seem to hold above all other types of evidence?

Is that what you read above?

No, I'm disagreeing with your use of the word "dumber" being used as a club to further make your anti-low-carb argument. It could have been done with more civil language. Maybe MFP is getting to you and you should take a break.

So if you were to peruse these forums or other LC forums what would you call some of the ridiculous statements that are made, misinformed, uneducated, factually challenged?

There are lots of ill-informed people, both LC and otherwise.

I am saying that the tone of your initial post is mean-spirited. You didn't have to start a thread with this:

Is it possible that the paleo diet and low carb diets make you dumber on the subject of nutrition, yet at the same time makes you think you know a lot about the subject? Using low carb and paleo dieters favorite sort of evidence, that would be anecdotal, that seems to be the case.

Could this also explain why you also see so many cases of special snowflake syndrome in these dieters, sheer ignorance of basic nutritional facts, despite fancying themselves as quite knowledgeable on the subject?

Or maybe they suffer from a form of true believer syndrome

Maybe you hoped all your true-believers would jump on board with you. But all the post does is use inflammatory language for what? Were you hoping to rile everyone up? "Sheer ignorance"? I just think you took it way too far: you already make this point over and over in your regular forum posts.

Just too bad you couldn't have taken the high road and not added to the negative stuff already here. This thread is a blatant attack - merely because some people are ill-informed. Use your knowledge in a postitive way. I don't think this thread was used to be helpful, it was used to dogpile.

Usually when regular long-time users get to this point and start attacking, it's out of frustration.