Replies

Please don't talk to me about "condescending;" it was YOU who accused me of being "dense," I had been perfectly respectful until you started the name-calling.

You referred me to a "study," provided the link, and I read it. The Danish Study was an uncontrolled, unblinded worthless exercise. Please learn about the importance of randomized controlled trials. This phenomenon is not unusual when rat scientists attempt to extrapolate their findings to humans.

For example, many uncontrolled observational studies appeared to show a benefit of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for postmenopausal women re cardiovascular risk; however, it was only when this was studied in a randomized, controlled fashion that we learned it actually INCREASED the risk of CV disease by 30%.

First off, the only reason I ASKED if you were dense was because you kept ignoring that I was citing specific information based upon research that you could easily verify by reading the book. At that point, you were either not comprehending that I was pointing you to a reference, or you were arrogantly dismissing it.

After several more posts, it had become clear that you were not interested in knowing whether or not the facts were there. You were only interested in trying to prove that you were the only one that knew anything about science. Sorry, but that is a condescending attitude.

For example, in the first response to me you state:

When you cut down on carbs and eat protein and fat as per Atkins you get all the EFAs you need

Really? Would you care to cite a research paper on that?

My next post presented some pretty specific information about EFAs:

Even Atkins' diet is sorely lacking in EFAs. Our bodies need a significant amount of EFAs for a lot of different functions. To start with, our bodies use EFAs in ever single cell, joint, tissue, organ, etc. They are a major nutrients and about 90-95 percent of people do not get adequate amounts of EFAs in their diets.

There have been several studies that show that our bodies need considerable amounts of EFAs (always in GRAMS, not milligrams). Atkins' diet does not suggest EFAs even close to the amounts recommended. Research has shown that EFAs are used in every cell, organ, etc.. Other studies have shown that 90-95% of people are lacking even the minimum recommended EFAs in their diet. These are all statements about research that has been done, not what I believe.

A few minutes in a search engine alone would be able to provide you with citations of the studies that cover the above statements by myself.

Your posts after the above is where you become the most condescending. You proceed to tell me I'm not relying on science EVEN AFTER I tell you where you can find the citations that back up my contentions.

As far as nonblind studies go, you must not be very aware that they are used and accepted practice in science. Yes, they are limited, but they have their uses and are given credence by their use in major science journals and online medical databases. Perhaps you should write to the journals and tell them they are publishing "worthless" studies and that they have no place in the world of science.