ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:49 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:28 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
Low-Carbohydrate Diets and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality

Conclusion: A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

http://www.annals.org/content/153/5/289.abstract

According to this recent study, it looks like we're all going to die.

*** BULLS#!T. ***

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand- ... n-trouble/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 2:56 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 11:04 pm
Posts: 1106
Well, were all going to die anyway... What a stupid study.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:10 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
It is a stupid study but the scary part is that, as usual, most just read the conclusion from the abstract and then repeat it. Then it becomes "Truth" and those of us that know better have less of a voice and are considered "nuts". Read some of the comments and check the names out. It's a who's who of the online low-carb community.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:28 pm 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:47 pm
Posts: 458
Location: Nottinghamshire U.K.
Top Class!! Nice find Stu, finally a study that clearly (and very kindly!) provides the data, so it can be shot to pieces!

Should be added to the sticky's.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:44 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
That ties in with that other recent article link speculating that half-assed low carb was useless. That wasn't a study of low carb, it was a study of half-assedness.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:56 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am
Posts: 1122
Philosophy comment:

Obviously, you shouldn't let a single study break you of a previous belief, since there are so many studies and so many ways they can be wrong and even so many confounding factors. That said, an opposing study ought to at least open your mind to the possibility that a previous belief was mistaken. so many here, seem to think in terms of good guys and bad guys (paleo and starting strnegth with a barbell are the good guys), rather than of being really curious about the science of training and even what areas are very much still up in the air.

Like on the whole machine versus barbell thing. I got two pretty decent lit reviews and they basically showed that almost all studies show sstatostocally similar strength improvements for machine versu barbell. There's also a common sense veiw that tthe muscle shouldn't care, just load is what matters. Now, we can probaly question each study. Can debate populations and methodlogy and all that. but when you have the bulk of the evidence. When the other side is only finding fault with studies that go against them, rather than supplying their own, rather than questioning all studies (of all sides), then I see a pattern of not real Feynmanian curiosity and intellectual honesty.

P.s. Not a hack against you, Stew. you are one of the best. But a general comment.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:09 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Your philosophy comment is completely incorrect. The point is it's not an opposing study. It's a misleadingly titled study.

Click "Preview" and re-read your posts before submitting them. Really think about whether what you're saying is useful and as accurate as it can be.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:15 pm 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 8:43 am
Posts: 5247
Location: New Jersey
frogbyte wrote:
That ties in with that other recent article link speculating that half-assed low carb was useless. That wasn't a study of low carb, it was a study of half-assedness.


Heh. This made me smile when I read it.

"Summary: Half-asses approaches get even less than half-assessed results (+- 0.2 asses)."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:18 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Posts: 928
Location: Ohio, USA
frogbyte wrote:
Your philosophy comment is completely incorrect. The point is it's not an opposing study. It's a misleadingly titled study.

Click "Preview" and re-read your posts before submitting them. Really think about whether what you're saying is useful and as accurate as it can be.


Actually his statement was correct. But you were right in saying that this study Stuward posted for us was something that should get us to look with an open eye, is not actually something that should.

This is why I'm about to start taking Stephen Colbert's attitude towards science- "I'm not a fan of facts. You see, the facts can change, but my opinion will never change, no matter what the facts are"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:40 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3986
No, you SHOULD let one study challenge and change your beliefs. Unless of course that study is bull$h!7. In fact you should not have ANY beliefs. Beliefs imply belief, as in believing something without evidence. Thinking something is more likely to be true in an area where there is no solid evidence is ok. That's where ideas come from. People can test the ideas and find out if they are true.

However when studies are published with an agenda and go against the scientific method, that is just plain dishonesty. Only studies using the scientific method should be given any legitimacy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:29 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Now I'm once again reminded of that cool bumper sticker I saw - "Don't believe everything you think"... :-)

Maybe those guys had an agenda, (I'm not sure I'd go that far) but certainly they did a poor job.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:32 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
frogbyte wrote:
...
Maybe those guys had an agenda...


Do ya think?

If there was ever a case of fitting the data to match the conclusion, this was it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:47 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Well, I'm not quite so quick to ascribe malevolence to what could just as easily be the result of incompetence and group-think.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:04 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Posts: 6418
Location: Halifax, NS
You're more generous than me. I just don't think that incompetence at that level is possible. Consider the number of doctors that put there name on this. Do you really think they are all incompetent? That's probably scarier than the alternative.

Teresa T. Fung, ScD; Rob M. van Dam, PhD; Susan E. Hankinson, ScD; Meir Stampfer, MD, DrPH; Walter C. Willett, MD, DrPH; and Frank B. Hu, MD, PhD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:14 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Think about how many economists didn't see housing bubble coming... group-think is powerful and compounds minor levels of incompetence.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group