Denise

[veggylvr]

veggylvr, I am trying to see what there was in what I wrote that made you believe I think I made the wrong choice. However, if I do ever think I made the wrong choice I will do something else.

Didi

The problem with finding definitive answers is that it takes years to develop diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc. Any of us could think we are in good health for years and years--until some illness strikes--both low carbers and starch eaters. For most of us not involved in any study, we just have to do our homework and hope we have made the right choice.

I guess this sounded like you were questioning things, combined with some of your recent posts in other threads. You've seemed somewhat unconvinced that this WOE is right for you. And I suppose the fact that you're linking to Denise Mingers makes me wonder if you're leaning in her direction, but maybe I'm misreading things.

Here is an article about Taubes and how he distorted or ignored the research and misquoted scientists for his NY Times piece. It seems he received a $700,000 contract for his book, not millions, but I still believe he's made millions from book sales, as that was his first dietary book and he's had a few more since then.

http://www.fumento.com/fat/reason.html

[ulialen]

...because low carber trick very much in their studies...

I know we've discussed this before and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree, but I just can't let things like this go. I honestly and truly believe that everybody promoting one diet or another is doing it sincerely.

Isn't it possible for us to enjoy and believe in our diet without impugning those who promote something else?

As before i respect your opinion, but i honestly and truly believe that low carb promoters trick all their studies.

[ulialen]

...Taubes has made millions on his low carb books. Couldn't he use some of this for clinical research to support his claims?...

First of all, I doubt Taubes has made millions off his books. Besides which, Dr. McDougall has published a lot more books than Taubes.

Second, I can't even begin to count how many times I've read something along the lines of "Well, that study was funded by Atkins! What do you expect?"

File under "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

Not only funded by atkins foundation but the big problem is that they trick the studies.
I can say to you all the manner in which they trick. You can easily find a sample in the healthy-longevity forum or plant positive forum.
It is very easy to say that a study find that carbohidrates are worse than meat when you use only simple sugar or candies (instead that natural carbahydrates as brown rice for example) as carbohidrate.

[Erbse]

healthy-longevity forum or plant positive forum.

Do you have links to those?

[Theodore]

And what about all the bashing of the China Study that takes place on the paleo / low-carb boards ?

Wait, I almost forgot........

The China Study gets a lot of bashing because it's not very good science.

http://drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31437&p=315609#p315609

[ulialen]

healthy-longevity forum or plant positive forum.

Do you have links to those?

Excuse me. not forum but blog.
here is the links:

http://healthylongevity.blogspot.it

http://www.plantpositive.com

[veggylvr]

Yes, the issue is not that Atkins funds studies, but that they aren't performed fairly. As Ulialen says, it's easy to get a good result when you compare low carb to eating twinkies. None of the studies they have funded compared LC to a truly low fat/high carb diet, like this one.

The studies all allow over 30% daily fat intake. SAD is 36% or something like that, so it's hardly a big difference. Not a true low fat diet. So, they're basically comparing LC to SAD, and there's no dispute that cutting out most bad carbs, as low carb diets mandate, is going to produce better results than SAD....at least short term.

But, even then, the results haven't been overwhelmingly good for low carb. Usually just a few pounds difference, and that advantage seems to diminish after a couple of years.

[Skip]

With the assumption that eliminating bad food groups can help prevent chronic disease, suppose we have two hypotheses:

1) Eliminating food group "RP" will help to prevent chronic disease
2) Eliminating food group "RP" and "A" will help to prevent chronic disease

Group 2) people support their hypothesis with various population studies. Group 1) people claim that Group 2) are drawing false conclusions because it could be that only food group "RP" (and not "A") helped to prevent chronic disease.

Suppose food group "RP" = "Refined Carbohydrates and Processed Foods" and "A" = "Animal products". This is the argument that Denise uses in the referenced video.

[f1jim]

Whether it was done intentionally or unintentionally Ms. Minger has done a lot of damage to what we believe is the truth about diet and nutrition. It matters little what the motivations are for her less than academic approach to the data in the China Study critique and several of her blatant uses of data she has been called on the carpet for in various venues. The truth and reality is she continues this tirade even when these "errors" have been pointed out. She could correct these errors easily enough but chooses not to. This is going to inflame the various people truly working toward spreading the truth about diet and nutrition. They rightly see it as more confusion for the general public that has enough of a task getting to the real data in the traditional media outlets and the poor sources such as their own personal medical professionals. Compound this with bloggers and internet writers making these kinds of errors and feeding a market of ready and willing low carb believers and you can imagine that our nutritional gurus are about ready to pull out their collective hair at trying to address this nonsense. Dr. McDougall has finally decided to address this in his video and talks related to the "diet wars." Dr. Campbell has responded to much of the anti-China Study writing directly in talks and his internet presence. The true nutrition professionals feel duty bound to inform their audience as well as the general public what all this confusion is about. Where peoples sensibilities lie and what that means to our societal health goals. We have the ability to either move forward or take a few steps back. The professionals we respect feel it's important enough to address forthrightly.
When I hear members refer to the China Study as poor science I cringe. That body of work got the rightful attention it did for a reason. Even mainstream health professionals saw the value in it and it woke a lot of people up from their nutritional sleep. If that's poor science we are all in big trouble. Compared to what I see passed off as supportive data in the low carb world, that is, when they use any data, it's the gold standard of research. Some very brilliant people assembled an incredible amount of data, poured over and put together the relevant relationships within that data, and published it's findings. Either a lot of incredibly talented people across the globe are involved in a massive fraud or this is truly a landmark piece of work.
I'm quite proud to give copies of this work, as well as link to Dr. McDougalls talks on the diet wars. They are both monuments to the nutritional truth and dietary honesty. Whether it's manipulative or just honest mistakes Denise Minger is setting us back. And now that she has been made aware of her errors she has a responsibility to correct them. This is where character takes over. We shall all see how this shakes out, who crawls away, and who is left standing.
f1jim

[jld]

Very well said, Jim.

[rijman]

Well done F1jim. You should probably keep that well written response handy for the new Denise Minger threads that seem to pop up monthly.

[veggylvr]

When I hear members refer to the China Study as poor science I cringe. That body of work got the rightful attention it did for a reason. Even mainstream health professionals saw the value in it and it woke a lot of people up from their nutritional sleep. If that's poor science we are all in big trouble. Compared to what I see passed off as supportive data in the low carb world, that is, when they use any data, it's the gold standard of research. Some very brilliant people assembled an incredible amount of data, poured over and put together the relevant relationships within that data, and published it's findings. Either a lot of incredibly talented people across the globe are involved in a massive fraud or this is truly a landmark piece of work.

Very well-said, Jim. The only people I've heard call The China Study "bad science" have been those who've believed Denise Minger's critique. It's often stated as if she completely discredited all the work done by the researchers from Cornell, Oxford and China.

Yet, The China Study was a peer reviewed, published study! If it were so easy to discredit, wouldn't there be many others more qualified than Mingers, who has a liberal arts degree and no scientific training, offering critiques? Wouldn't the whole scientific community easily be able to see the flaws that Mingers claims to have found? Of course, they would! In fact, the study probably wouldn't have been released at all. Would that many esteemed scientific researchers put their name on a study so poorly done that an amateur like Mingers could discredit it?

If people step back and really think about this, they'll see what's credible and what's not.

[Debbie]

When I hear members refer to the China Study as poor science I cringe. That body of work got the rightful attention it did for a reason. Even mainstream health professionals saw the value in it and it woke a lot of people up from their nutritional sleep. If that's poor science we are all in big trouble. Compared to what I see passed off as supportive data in the low carb world, that is, when they use any data, it's the gold standard of research. Some very brilliant people assembled an incredible amount of data, poured over and put together the relevant relationships within that data, and published it's findings. Either a lot of incredibly talented people across the globe are involved in a massive fraud or this is truly a landmark piece of work.

Very well-said, Jim. The only people I've heard call The China Study "bad science" have been those who've believed Denise Minger's critique. It's often stated as if she completely discredited all the work done by the researchers from Cornell, Oxford and China.

Yet, The China Study was a peer reviewed, published study! If it were so easy to discredit, wouldn't there be many others more qualified than Mingers, who has a liberal arts degree and no scientific training, offering critiques? Wouldn't the whole scientific community easily be able to see the flaws that Mingers claims to have found? Of course, they would! In fact, the study probably wouldn't have been released at all. Would that many esteemed scientific researchers put their name on a study so poorly done that an amateur like Mingers could discredit it?

If people step back and really think about this, they'll see what's credible and what's not.

Very well said Jim and Veggylvr! I remember reading that comment, but just dismissed it. But the way veggylvr put into words makes so much sense. We should definitely cringe when members here say such things. I mean, I'll admit I dont understand all that was said in the China Study, but I would never call it poor science because of it. And I certainly wouldnt say it based on some small minded tool.

Thanks for putting the words so many here have tried to say, so eloquently.

[Skip]

With regards to the China Study, Colin Campbell has addressed Denise Minger himself:

http://www.vegsource.com/news/2010/07/c ... inger.html

[ulialen]

And i add, to all this, that in my opinion Denise Minger know to be wrong because it is very easy also for a non doctor and a non nutritionist to see that.
So she have interest to continue to make so although she know to be wrong:
In my opinion she is corrupt, i have no doubt in this.