If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
On Oct 25, 5:12 am, Hollywood wrote:
I'm an amateur economist. I think it's all about economies. I'm a professional organizational consultant, so I think it's economies and something in the psychology/zeitgeist of being Asian like some combination of confucian dynamism, polychronism, and collectivism. And if you want support, the Asian countries you've mentioned are among the highest in CD, generally Uh, I understand polychronism, Confucian dynamism, and collectivism, but you should have defined what you mean by CD.... CD ? CD..cardiovascular disease? Chronic diabetes? That said, controlled carbs is how Homo has eaten for most of Homo history. Eat meat, find fruit and veggies, maybe some grasses in places, but no farming. So, if you want a large population, how about the 6 billion of us on the earth wouldn't have evolved to the point where we could cultivate rice without eating low carb, well enough to reproduce and pass on our selfish genes. Maybe they were all fat and unmotivated, but that doesn't seem highly correlated with evolutionary adaptability. If things in nature are naturally lean, trim and muscular, isn't that our birthright as well? And to get there, wouldn't you go with a roots move, one that takes you closest to what they did before they had car payments, diabetes and large reserves of adipose tissue? That's all anyone going LC is doing. Well man has been involved in the cultivation of plants for 5,000 to 10,000 years depending on region and crop. I'd suggest if you want to go back further than that to have your ideas make sense for your "birthright" theory then you will want to do lots of studying on the activity levels found at that time.......as well as the temperature regulation factors. One does burn more calories when living in the grand outdoors winter and summer....and gathering firewood and without any tranportation at all. But yes, you are correct, our genetic structure will allow us to survive and remain slender on your choice of diet, if you include all the other revelant parts of the environment those peoples lived with. On the other hand, I guess I'm just biased in wanting examples from the last 5,000 to 10,000 years where people lived in somewhat "modern" circumstances... You know, availability of a few standard carb crops, and a roof over their head. Non-nomadic. A time and place where a few million people lived in a region and were non-nomadic. I'd say that model more closely approximates what we all live in today. Remember, car payments only began about 100 years ago. If you lived with the activity level and other caloric requirments (heat) homo had 10,000+ years ago, I dare say you could include a fair bit of carbs and still remain slender. Again, I'm looking for some population on the present day earth where millions of people live in health and harmony with their genetics while following your idea of dietary intake for decades. Does it exist outside of books and few short term followers? |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
On Oct 25, 6:48 am, Jackie Patti wrote: wrote: So on one hand we have a few...what? thousand or perhaps a hundred thousand people who've had decades long success with Atkins and low carbing? And on the other hand we have what? a billion people who've had centuries of success doing what people here label non-low-carb eating. Hmmm.......billions and centuries....versus......less than a millon and 10 or 20 years. Yes, it looks like a toss up in terms of evidence. I just don't see why you see much difference between the two. The diet you're proposing is lots of veggies, some meat and fish and rice. Drop the rice and add more veggies and you've pretty much got low-carb. I eat stirfry 3 or 4 times a week myself; I just don't add rice to it, but have more veggies instead. Dinner last night was not a stirfy. It was a 1/4 lb tilapia baked in garlic and olive oil, 1/4 lb green beans tossed in olive oil and roasted and 1/4 lb okra fried in butter. Why would this be healthier if I skipped some of the veggies in favor of rice or noodles? --http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ Yes, I believe it would be healthier with some carbs......rice or other. Oh, not for that one meal, but for those who plan to eat in this method for the next 10 to 30 years. Again, this for me is not about some weight loss dash. It about populations of millions living in harmony with their bodies for decades. I just don't see any sizeable populations using your example as a model for long term health. If I saw a country or region where millions of people ate like your meal and thrived, then I'd say hey, thats a good model for America. But I just don't see it. If you could even give me a good size island, like they do with the Okinawan example, then I'd say OK....thats good enough. But I don't accept some anecdotal examples or studies where a few hundred people do something successfully for 24 months. Check out the history of Okinawa. How is their weight and disease with those following the historic model. I do admit some of the younger generation are falling prey to the same problems we see in the USA as they begin to include the "new ways". The past decades of Okinawa did not include "low-carb" and they weren't doing Ornish, and they weren't vegan or vegetarian. And i don't believe they were genetic freaks. I just suggest very gradually moving to a way of eating that one can follow in peace for 20 to 50 years. I simply don't see any track record to suggest low carbing is going to end up being that answer or else we see long term examples in the world. The world is a lab. We see success and we see failure. Look at the success and see what they do for diet and activity. Everywhere I see success I see people who include a reasonable portion of carbs of some type. I'm sure you can do it without carbs, but I just don't see it in large populations. Some people in America may need some extreme diet. Most need what works elsewhere in the world. But it won't make a popular book will it. Certainly not a top 10 on the NY Times list. Although from time to time Oprah has had on some alternative dietary books. Not sure Oprah is the best example for dieting. She and here friend.....that guy......are all into selling "healty products" which appear to just be slight variations on what business has been selling to America all along in this fattening process. Now the craze is 100 calorie snack sevings.... Great, "I'll take five please!" Good eating to you... |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
wrote:
LOOK.......an important point of mine is as follows. Look around the world.... Humans living all over the place. What do they eat in areas where the people stay relatively slender. Not those places where everyone is poor, but where even the middle class easily stay at a good weight. And not some obscure place like North of the Artic Circle.......but places where tens and hundreds of millions of people eat year in and year out, decade after decade and remind in harmony with their bodies....ie....most don't get fat. I look at those places and say.......thats the natural way humans are designed to eat. Where designed equals evolved. Problem is, that isn't how humans evolved and it is not what we are evolved to eat. Even using the entire world in the last 5000 years doesn't give the right data. It's the wrong evolutionary time scale. NO, where do normal populations eat normally and have their bodies end up "normal" as God or who ever designed. Per evolution, a species that eats a diet for 5 million years plus has that diet as its ideal. That long ago our ancestors were fruit eating apes about to descend and walk on two legs. In a sense, humans *can't* have one ideal diet because we haven't had the evolutionary time in place to evolve one. But since animal husbandry and agriculture is under 20K years old, we are certainly not evolved to eat farmed foods no matter that it appears to work. We don't know how many diseases are caused by what we eat. I don't think Ornish is that nor do I think Atkins is that. In their own way they are both trying to overcome some unnatural situation. I think both Ornish and Atkins are a bit like taking pills for a disease. Indeed. And you won't find me complaining that low fat is an invalid method, just that I tried it and it didn't work for me. I refer to my "natural" eating as described earlier in this post. The closest humans can come to "natural" is what hunterer gatherer societies eat, since that's what humans ate for at least 2-4 million years of our evolution. But look at the existing hunter gatherer societies and you'll find a range from almost vegitarian folks who eat mostly roots plus a little easily found meat through almost carnivore folks who eat mostly raw meat hunted. What this means is the "natural" human diet is pretty much anything freshly hunted but grain and milk. And sure enough, while people in hunter gatherer societies eat an unbelievable variety of stuff other than grain and milk, and while they die of injury, the ones who don't get injured live into healthy old age. Weird may be a poor choice of words, but could you give me any areas of the world where tens of millions of people eat this way. I mean, I'm sure there are some nomadic tribes like those raising herds of animals who take them from grazing land to grazing land but thats not how 99% of the worlds population live. But even the entire modern world is insufficient from an evolutionary perspective. People, modern people are not going to live a lifestyle that is similar to what people do when "eating off the land" so why twist the concept of what is a natural diet for normal populations..... That's the problem - When there's choice folks tend to want junk food. When there isn't choice folks tend to have grain. ... Low carb is another version of a diet that is not what people have been eating for thousands of years.. Incorrect - Low carb is closer to what the most common hunter gatherer societies have eaten for millions of years. In fact, there are paleolithic plans that try to do an ancestral diet and most paleo systems look more like low carb than like any other plan type. ( oh sure, there were small groups eating like that but not tens of millions of people) One is a reaction to the excesses of the other. It's more an issue how how many levels of excess than what type is or isn't an excess. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
On Oct 25, 11:04 am, Doug Freyburger wrote:
That's the problem - When there's choice folks tend to want junk food. When there isn't choice folks tend to have grain. ... Low carb is another version of a diet that is not what people have been eating for thousands of years.. Incorrect - Low carb is closer to what the most common hunter gatherer societies have eaten for millions of years. In fact, there are paleolithic plans that try to do an ancestral diet and most paleo systems look more like low carb than like any other plan type. OK.....I'll accept your version of a 100,000 year old diet if you or populations you can show me are, while eating that way, are also living that way, meaning putting out a similar amount of physical activity and heating/cooling energy. I suspect, though we have no historic data from 100,000 years ago, that these folks were under great caloric stress. Everything required movement and if you didn't comply, you didn't live long. Very few people on earth now engage in that model of living and I can't think of any group in the USA who does so other than some engaged in sport or very vigorous occupations. Oh the other hand I do repect our genetics which I agree have not changed much in 10,000 years. Not sure what the disease outlook would be if we lived exactly like those of 100,000 years ago. Back then living to 80 was not common. In fact as genetic design goes, we are really on needed for about 40 to 45 years max to pass on our genes and raise the offspring safely to about 14 years old. Everything else is just frosting on the cake in terms of reproduction. How does this model work. What is the success rate per 1000 folks who take it up? What do they find 10 years after starting. I'd be surprised if more than 10% have a reduction of even half their "excess" weight at the 10 year mark. BTW, I don't think the data for Ornish would be any better. So few follow the plans long term. If you can show me a program where 50% of the people lose 50% of their excess weight at the 10 year mark, then I'll bow down in praise and declare it the winner. Thats why I look to countries where most of the people stay in a nice weight range while making no effort to do so. I believe if you duplicate that model, even in people with "American" genes, you will end up with 50% of people ending up with 50% of their excess weight lost at the 10 year mark. Those kinds of results would transform America but alas would not end up with everyone on the cover of Us or People magazine. I must admit, diet is not everything. I am stunned when I learn how PE has been largely eliminated from the school day. From K-12, I had multiple recesses or a hour of PE every day. And then after school more playing outdoors. I believe in natural diets and natural exercise. If you eat a diet you can enjoy for decades and do exercise you love, you will be doing things that require minimal will power or intent. Instead, you'll just be doing what you do.....living. It essentially takes no effort. If you do otherwise in either diet or exercise, I'm afraid the long term prospects aren't great. It would be interesting to have individuals travel to other parts of the world and live in areas where people are in equilibrium, and just stay there for 12 months. If I had a weight problem and I was younger, I'd think about doing that. The cost is minimal, its just the time that people think is a problem. But what an adventure. I advise every younger person do make a 3 month to 12 month journey before they get tied up in family, career, and life. There are some things you can only do when young and unattached. Whats the worst that can happen. You go and lose no weight and learn nothing new? I doubt that would happen but I'm betting you'd still be happy you went once in your life. Make it a grand experiment. Stuff like that sets my imagination alive. I just loved living down in all sorts of other countries across the South Pacific and Asia.. Enjoyed them far more than Europe. You know the main thing I learned was eating smaller portions of meat and how I really didn't want or need a 8 ounce steak. I didn't discontinue eating larger portions for health reasons, but after living in Asia it just seemed like a gross excess. And that was after living in New Zealand for a couple years where, at the time, meat and dairy were the main diet. I just felt so much better eating in the Asian model and have really never gone that far back to the typical American model. Lost my taste for large hunks of meat and loads of sugar. Ok.....look I don't mean to disrupt this conversation. Not sure how I got here. I think it had something to do with making "white" rice into something bad and to be avoided. My view was that there is nothing wrong with "white" rice, when eating along with a proper diet like that found in millions of Asian people. I hope everyone finds a good path for themselves in terms of diet and a exercise you simply love to do. For me and a few others here, it seems to be biking. Give it a try but watch out our you'll be hooked. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
wrote:
Yes, it looks like a toss up in terms of evidence. I just don't see why you see much difference between the two. The diet you're proposing is lots of veggies, some meat and fish and rice. Drop the rice and add more veggies and you've pretty much got low-carb. I eat stirfry 3 or 4 times a week myself; I just don't add rice to it, but have more veggies instead. Dinner last night was not a stirfy. It was a 1/4 lb tilapia baked in garlic and olive oil, 1/4 lb green beans tossed in olive oil and roasted and 1/4 lb okra fried in butter. Why would this be healthier if I skipped some of the veggies in favor of rice or noodles? Yes, I believe it would be healthier with some carbs......rice or other. Oh, not for that one meal, but for those who plan to eat in this method for the next 10 to 30 years. I've been eating low-carb for over a decade; I'm diabetic. I still don't see what benefit cutting veggies and adding starch would have. Starch foods have less fiber and less micronutrients than veggies, so what benefit is there? Again, this for me is not about some weight loss dash. It about populations of millions living in harmony with their bodies for decades. For me, it's about diabetes and heart disease. I don't think I've ever discussed trying to lose weight on this newsgroup. I just suggest very gradually moving to a way of eating that one can follow in peace for 20 to 50 years. I simply don't see any track record to suggest low carbing is going to end up being that answer or else we see long term examples in the world. Yeah, that's what low-carb is... the way I can eat for life. In my specific case, the alternative is doing organ damage. Not sure Oprah is the best example for dieting. She and here friend.....that guy......are all into selling "healty products" which appear to just be slight variations on what business has been selling to America all along in this fattening process. Now the craze is 100 calorie snack sevings.... Great, "I'll take five please!" I don't see what this has to do with anything. Was Taubes on Oprah or something? -- http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
On Oct 25, 3:54 pm, Jackie Patti wrote:
Yes, I believe it would be healthier with some carbs......rice or other. Oh, not for that one meal, but for those who plan to eat in this method for the next 10 to 30 years. I've been eating low-carb for over a decade; I'm diabetic. I still don't see what benefit cutting veggies and adding starch would have. Starch foods have less fiber and less micronutrients than veggies, so what benefit is there? For me, it's about diabetes and heart disease. I don't think I've ever discussed trying to lose weight on this newsgroup. You are diabetic. I don't know which type. Obviously you are not the typical person. Diabetes is not nearly as common in South East Asia. For them, the white rice is just fine, much as it would be for most non-diabetics in America, when eaten with other proper foods. You may not have a need to lose weight, but I'd guess most people on low-carb diets are doing so for weight loss and the problems associated with excess weight. You seem to be suggesting there is no benefit from eating carbs because they have less fiber and micronutrients. First of all, I don't agree carbs have less fiber. Have you ever purchased wheat bran? I add it to my oatmeal which itself has loads of carbs. I dare say, I get the majority of my fiber in my high fiber diet from carb sources. Oatmeal, wheat bran, whole wheat pasta, whole wheat cous cous (very high fiber). As for micro nutrients, I eat a ton of veggies. Anymore and I think I'd turn green or orange or purple. So I can't tell you what to eat for your particular medical condition, but others can do just fine with the some white rice or far better with the other types of carbs I've listed above. Obviously whole grain carb and brown rice are superior to white rice or white flower products. I've only said billions in Asia eat white rice almost exclusively and fine it easy to remain slender as well as healthy. Obviously they don't at the same time eat all the other stuff consumed in many other Western nations. If they did, along with their white rice, then I imagine they too would have the same problems. In fact as has been mentioned, as their habits are changing, they too are running into problems. Shows they don't have some genetic protection after all. I have heard this though. That the primary risk from diabetes is in fact, coronary artery disease and heart attacks. In fact I've seen some folks go the low fat route (although not with high simple carbs) for just that reason since they, as diabetics, are so prone to heart disease. In fact after a quick look I found something I remembered from a year or two ago. I'm not vegan nor vegetarian and I know the lead in this study is a doctor with an agenda, but still its a interesting study. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...ract/29/8/1777 Of course they're discussing Type 2.... I really don't know enough about diabetes to pass judgment on what is best for particular diabetics except that for many artery disease is the greatest danger. If you've had great success with your diabetes for 10 years, then I'd continue what works. Just one thought, perhaps one you seen many times, I've visited a site run by a vegan, vegetarian advocate doctor who offers another alternative route. He claims great success with his followers, but of course this is the internet... It takes a lot for me to believe anyone's claims. Anyway here's a link if one wants to explore this Ornish-ish type guy.. Dr. McDougall. http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2006nl/august/fav5.htm I like to read all views on diet.... Everyones got the answer! |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
wrote:
Diabetes is not nearly as common in South East Asia. For them, the white rice is just fine, much as it would be for most non-diabetics in America, when eaten with other proper foods. "Fine" is one thing. However, you have suggested, repeatedly, that rice is *better* than vegetables, that one should replace some of the vegetables in one's diet with rice. I asked why and you said people couldn't eat low-carb for long. I said I'd been doing it for a decade and you said that's different cause I'm diabetic. You still never answered the question of *why* you think replacing some of the vegetables in a low-carb diet with rice would be preferable though. What exactly is white rice doing for anyone that more veggies wouldn't do better? You seem to be suggesting there is no benefit from eating carbs because they have less fiber and micronutrients. Not no benefit, but significantly less benefit. Rice has almost no fiber and little micronutrients. I can't see any reason to eat it and thus crowd cabbage out of my diet. First of all, I don't agree carbs have less fiber. Have you ever purchased wheat bran? I add it to my oatmeal which itself has loads of carbs. I dare say, I get the majority of my fiber in my high fiber diet from carb sources. You might. I get *all* of my fiber from veggies and fruits. None from carbs at all. Been doing so for a decade. You are proving my assertion that carbs crowd veggies from the diet. You don't just lose fiber there, but loads of micronutrients. Oatmeal, wheat bran, whole wheat pasta, whole wheat cous cous (very high fiber). Given the evidence that refined grains are less healthy than whole grains, why do you eat the refined stuff? I mean, I don't eat grains myself cause of diabetes. I cook for other folks though. What is wrong with wheat berries, hulled barley, oat groats? As for micro nutrients, I eat a ton of veggies. Anymore and I think I'd turn green or orange or purple. On average, veggies have much higher fiber content than grains; certainly so when we discuss white rice, which is what you've beeing doing in this thread. You don't eat nearly as much veggies as you could if you replaced all your starchy foods with veggies. I mean, that's pretty much what my diet is - anywhere I'd have eaten a serving of potatoes or rice or noodles in the past, I eat more veggies now. I use fried cabbage or zuchini instead of noodles; I make stirfries with twice as much veggies, etc. Again, you haven't addressed why you think eating less veggies in order to have room for white rice is a good healthy choice. So I can't tell you what to eat for your particular medical condition, but others can do just fine with the some white rice or far better with the other types of carbs I've listed above. I think they'd do better with whole grains, but hey... your mileage may vary. Obviously whole grain carb and brown rice are superior to white rice or white flower products. It was obvious to me, I am surprised to hear it's obvious to you since you hadn't mentioned a whole grain yet! I've only said billions in Asia eat white rice almost exclusively and fine it easy to remain slender as well as healthy. Obviously they don't at the same time eat all the other stuff consumed in many other Western nations. If they did, along with their white rice, then I imagine they too would have the same problems. In fact as has been mentioned, as their habits are changing, they too are running into problems. Shows they don't have some genetic protection after all. And again... what exactly is the downside of replacing rice with vegetables and thus being low-carb? I mean, the only downside I can see is that rice is cheap so replacing with veggies would be a bit costly. I have heard this though. That the primary risk from diabetes is in fact, coronary artery disease and heart attacks. In fact I've seen some folks go the low fat route (although not with high simple carbs) for just that reason since they, as diabetics, are so prone to heart disease. Elevated blood sugars cause blood proteins to glycate, thus forming arterial plaque. And fructose intake nearly directly correlates to blood triglycerides. The best thing *anyone* whether diabetic or not can do for the heart is to low-carb. In fact after a quick look I found something I remembered from a year or two ago. I'm not vegan nor vegetarian and I know the lead in this study is a doctor with an agenda, but still its a interesting study. http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...ract/29/8/1777 Of course they're discussing Type 2.... They're comparing a low-fat diet to a high-carb diet; ignoring the low-carb diet which is better than either. I really don't know enough about diabetes to pass judgment on what is best for particular diabetics except that for many artery disease is the greatest danger. If you've had great success with your diabetes for 10 years, then I'd continue what works. I don't care. What I want is you to say WHY you think replacing vegetables with white rice is a good health strategy, what this does for ANYONE, diabetic or not. You can't - cause white rice has no nutrition to speak of. It's almost entirely glucose - pure sugar. -- http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions
On Oct 25, 1:49 pm, wrote:
On Oct 25, 5:12 am, Hollywood wrote: I'm an amateur economist. I think it's all about economies. I'm a professional organizational consultant, so I think it's economies and something in the psychology/zeitgeist of being Asian like some combination of confucian dynamism, polychronism, and collectivism. And if you want support, the Asian countries you've mentioned are among the highest in CD, generally Uh, I understand polychronism, Confucian dynamism, and collectivism, but you should have defined what you mean by CD.... CD ? CD..cardiovascular disease? Chronic diabetes? It's a PITA to type Confucian Dynamism frequently. I thought from the context it was fine, Well man has been involved in the cultivation of plants for 5,000 to 10,000 years depending on region and crop. I'd suggest if you want to go back further than that to have your ideas make sense for your "birthright" theory then you will want to do lots of studying on the activity levels found at that time.......as well as the temperature regulation factors. One does burn more calories when living in the grand outdoors winter and summer....and gathering firewood and without any tranportation at all. So, 5 million+ years of homo X, or 10K years of grain cultivation. If you want to go with the big population, It's not rural Asians eating rice. But your context point makes all the difference in exporting an Asian cultural diet 3-5K miles across the ocean, and 5-7 times the GDP-per-capita divide, as well as any paleo discussion. But yes, you are correct, our genetic structure will allow us to survive and remain slender on your choice of diet, if you include all the other revelant parts of the environment those peoples lived with. On the other hand, I guess I'm just biased in wanting examples from the last 5,000 to 10,000 years where people lived in somewhat "modern" circumstances... You know, availability of a few standard carb crops, and a roof over their head. Non-nomadic. A time and place where a few million people lived in a region and were non-nomadic. Has the metabolism evolved in that period? Did something special happen in the DNA in the last 10K years that changed everything enough where the diet we evolved to sapience on isn't the right one anymore? That's a theory I don't buy, but maybe you have some reason for thinking it. Because that's basically what your bias towards the modern experience is saying. I'd say that model more closely approximates what we all live in today. I'd say that what folks in suburban-rural Asia were doing 10-30 years ago doesn't particularly approximate the lives of most Americans either. Remember, car payments only began about 100 years ago. If you lived with the activity level and other caloric requirments (heat) homo had 10,000+ years ago, I dare say you could include a fair bit of carbs and still remain slender. Give me something better than caloric requirements. It's about nutrient density. White rice is fine from a caloric stand point. But it's nutritionally bankrupt, or nearly so. I don't buy this metabolic superman theory of pre-agriculture man being able to leap tall buildings and kill rhinocerous with his bare hands. It doesn't track unless you think we've evolved a lot. And a lot more towards being poorly suited for reproduction and gene survival. It doesn't track. Again, I'm looking for some population on the present day earth where millions of people live in health and harmony with their genetics while following your idea of dietary intake for decades. Two things. "Millions of people in health and harmony with their genetics." I would add a caveat to that. They have to be from an OECD (That's Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) country. In Asia, you have South Korea and Japan. Find me the harmony with their genetics. Considering the falling birth rate in Japan (it's currently under population maintenance), I don't think you can suggest they are in health and harmony with their genes from a selfish gene standpoint. Why do you need a million. 30-2000 will give you a large enough sample for whatever you want to say about a population, depending on the population size and with a reasonable margin of error. The study performed on the Active Low Carber Forum should work fine for you. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17014706 Enjoy. Does it exist outside of books and few short term followers? See study above. I don't get why you are so hung on LC not working. It's worked, long term, for many people in this conversation thread. Granted, we're not all of rural Asia, but that's probably a good thing, since we don't live in rural Asia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 18 | October 12th, 2007 10:10 PM |
Nice Reader Review of Taubes Book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 2 | October 1st, 2007 05:24 PM |
More on Taubes Book | Jim | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | September 16th, 2007 03:28 AM |
Taubes: Good Calories, Bad Calories | Roger Zoul | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 7 | September 13th, 2007 05:03 PM |
Diet Conclusions | Aplin17 | General Discussion | 28 | September 29th, 2004 05:06 PM |