Moderators: JeffN, f1jim, John McDougall, carolve, Heather McDougall
Skip wrote: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.
veggylvr wrote:As someone who has been on both sides, low carb and plant based, one observation really resonates with me: the LC side was always in rebuttal mode. Taubes, Eades, or Mingers, it didn't matter. Every few weeks, some new piece of research came out linking meat consumption with poor health/morbidity, and the LC doctors and advocates had to attack this research, usually on the basis of methodology.
This can be done with almost any study, and most of us are laypeople and can't effectively argue with the analysis, but the frequency that these "fires" had to be extinguished on the other side was striking. Regardless of what they said, the fact they had to say it so often certainly made it seem that the preponderance of evidence was not supportive of that WOE (which, in fact, it isn't).
By contrast, the plant-based advocates rarely have to do this. Their challenge is mainly convincing people they'll thrive on a plant-based diet and to give it a try. But there's a calm confidence on this side. Dr. McDougall, Dr. Esselstyn, Dr. Campbell and the other plant-based advocates know they have the science behind them, and this, compared to the other side, is really apparent in their demeanors. They have the peace of mind that comes from dealing in truth not justifications.
veggylvr wrote:As someone who has been on both sides, low carb and plant based, one observation really resonates with me: the LC side was always in rebuttal mode.
VegMommy wrote: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."
Skip wrote: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.
Denise Minger wrote:About Me
... I started college when I was 16, switching majors about ten times but ultimately deciding on English.
I currently live in Portland, Oregon and work as a freelance health writer, teacher, and web designer.
RichardK wrote:HealthyLongevity and PlantPositive are the new best kept secrets of cholesterol denialists such as Denise Minger. These anti-darwinists wants us to believe that homo-sapiens is the only specimen on the face of this planet who is immune to the harms of excess serum cholesterol levels ("it's not the cholesterol, it's the wheat and the inflammation"). For someone to claim that these online cholesterol denialists and low-carb pushers are sincere goes beyond my comprehension.
didi wrote:Thrasymachus, maybe you should carefully check out "Dr." Gary Null.
http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/null.html
especially scroll down to the part about his credentials.
Didi
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests