Posted on 11/24/2013 6:50:06 PM PST by bkopto
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3023748/posts?page=31#31
The stick blender is great - keep the pot lid handy as a catchers mitt, it’ll tend to spit cauliflower chunks if it catches some spinning air - lol
I like using cottage cheese, firmer addition than sour cream - heck use both :)...so many variations...for me the cheese additions helps it meld closer to a regular mashed taste.
I studied Google results for “Swedish women”.
Just finished “Why We Get Fat”.
It made a lot of sense.
If it were only being weak in statistical analysis, committing the common error of confusing correlation with causation.
Just like in AGW, when a data set doesn’t conform to the preconceived notion of the researchers, it’s tossed out. Worse yet, when the research indicates the opposite of the politically correct prevailing wisdom, the politically correct prevailing wisdom is still what’s advertised.
Read the Taubes books to see the Lysenkoism in much of the nutritional research. I stand by the use of the term fraud.
Worthy of doctoral thesis.
I agree with Sweden on this, low carb definitely works better for me
It’s hard work, but someone must do it.
I feel I owe it to mankind.
How magnanimous of you.;-)
It’s just the man I am. :)
I agree 100%.
Actual, real food.
No preservatives, artificial colors or flavors, or so-called “natural” flavor which is a glutimate of some sort usually, polysorbates, mono diglycerides (I wonder what they are actually), corn syrup HF or not, hydrogenated or partially h. oil, etc.
None of it. Of course you have to cook all your own food at home. That’s what I’ve done for many years. Even about 12 yrs ago when I only very occasionally ate something with a “non-food item” in it, after I quit even the rare bite of that stuff, my health improved a lot.
What is going on in much of medical research really cannot be compared to the AGW situation.
These physicians are not trained researchers, in many cases. No one ever taught them how to think like a researcher, which is a very specific skill set. This leads to the situation where they find correlations that are absolutely real, and jump to the completely wrong conclusions.
I’ll use consumption of soda and obesity as an example. I can’t begin to count the number of studies that show that high soda consumption correlates quite well with obesity. I also can’t begin to count the number of times I have seen the conclusion that drinking soda causes obesity—a conclusion that is *not* supported by the data. In order to establish that there is a causation involved when a correlation is observed, one must establish that there is a mechanism by which A causes B. This has never been done in the case of soda and obesity.
Part of the problem is, as I already pointed out, physicians are usually not trained researchers. Another part is that people want easy answers with easy solutions. There may be a bit of puritanism mixed in, too—many people like soda, and things that are enjoyable must be bad, ergo soda is bad.
I don’t attribute any malicious motives to those who publish correlative studies thinking that they are actually publishing definitive research. They’re as human as anyone else, and have the same kinds of motivations. They want to do successful research, and research is really cool stuff! They just aren’t trained for it.
Disclaimer: I am a medical researcher, a PhD (*not* MD), and the subject of most “research” conducted by physicians is a big pet peeve of mine.
Before Atkins, there was Bernstein. He was a Ph.D. controls engineer in the 1960s who had Type 1 Diabetes, and was very fragile (experienced side effects if his insulin for a meal was too much or too little).
For some reason the American Diabetes Association changed its diet from low carb to high carb, and Bernstein had trouble keeping stable. When his friend at the University obtained a new instrument that measured blood sugar, Bernstein talked him into allowing him to use it. He ate various foods, and then tracked his blood sugar for the next 4-6 hours, and then used his controls background to analyze the data.
His primary conclusion was that small errors in estimating carbs in a meal should lead to small problems. For example, a cup of salad contains 10 carbs with plus or minus 2 carbs estimation error -— and within tolerance of his body’s reaction to insulin; but, a cup of pasta contains 300 carbs plus or minus 20%, which is 60 carbs, which is not within insulin tolerance. He thus concluded that a low carb diet was safer than a high carb diet.
He wrote up his results in a book, “Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution”. He took it to book publishers, and they told him no diet book could be published unless it was written by a Physician.
Between his zeal to tell other diabetics of his solution, and his anger as being told no one would publish his book because he was a Controls Engineer, not a Physician ... he quit his job and enrolled in Medical School to become a Physican.
For his Senior Thesis, he updated his book. When he graduated, he returned to the book publishers, and convinced one of them to publish his book, now written by a Physician.
My hat is off to him ... he was a man.
A low-carb diet (LCHF – Low Carb High Fat, is actually a Swedish “invention”) ha[d] been dismissed as harmful, a humbug and as being a fad diet lacking any scientific basis. This report turns the current concepts upside down and advocates a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, as the most effective weapon against obesity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.