What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
14 Comments
- saska, on 02/26/2008, -0/+3Dugg for the actual study data.
True carb-free diets are terribly unhealthy. But anything that might make a few people understand that eating fat doesn't make you fat (and eating low-fat doesn't make you not-fat) deserves a wider distribution. - HenvY, on 02/26/2008, -1/+3I think this is quite a poorly thought out and backed up article, and I have some empirical evidence of my own.I lost 60lbs over 3 months last year, by restricting myself to 1500 calories a day and running 3 times a week. I didn't cut down or cut out any major food group, in fact, i'd say overall it was probably pretty balanced - I drank milk and ate bread daily and probably had an equal balance of meat and pasta for daily meals. Anyway - I never once felt tired(if anything I had more energy), I didn't obsess about food(more than was necessary for the purposes of keeping count) and I wasn't depressed(a lot happier to be losing the weight, a lot more confident). I know it's not entirely the same as what is presented in this article, but on a basic level the stories are at odds - although that wasn't exactly the reason I felt it was a load of unscientific nonsense, anyway.
- Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -0/+2Whether it's ***** compare the two depends on the kind of comparison and the type of conclusion you try to make!
Saying "these two studies suggest that calorie source types are playing a role in how calories are used and absorbed by the body" is pretty reasonable, despite comparing two studies done years apart. - masterlock77, on 02/26/2008, -0/+1If the parameters and metrics are the same, there should be no issue with comparing studies 20 years apart. That's one of the points of the scientific method -- it can be duplicated.
- mentol, on 02/26/2008, -1/+2Dugg because it's a very well researched article.
- johnpspeno, on 03/01/2008, -0/+1Human do not need to consume carbohydrates. Our bodies can make glucose if and when it is needed. So I don't think it is accurate to say carb-free diets are somehow unhealthful. I'm reminded of the life of Vilhjalmur Stefansson. Look him up! :-)
- slickwillynumo1, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1This guy is the modern version of a snake oil salesman. Big claims with no proof to backup it up. 34lbs of muscle in one month only working out 8hrs for the month. BS. I want proof.
I believe Tim outsources the comment section of his blog. Ever notice there is never bad comments. Ever!
He does the same for his book reviews. Take a look at his book reviews. 5 stars all from 1st time reviewers. He is the rebirth of Aleksey Vayner. - elvisxe, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1Basing a diet on nothing more than caloric intake doesn't give you the whole story... but this does.
- w00tfest99, on 02/26/2008, -2/+2I find it amusing that this is in the upcoming stories the same time an article about only eating natural foods is on the front page. I look at it like this: nature did not intend for you to get your vitamins and minerals from a powder, you're supposed to get them from fruits and vegetables. Eliminating fruits because "they have carbs" is silly.
Buried as spam, inaccurate, lame, etc. - slickwillynumo1, on 02/27/2008, -1/+1TIm Ferriss didn't do the work! He didn't do research. He is the biggest fake on the planet.
- HenvY, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1But the parameters and metrics aren't the same, which is why this is *****. He says it himself, he's not comparing apples to apples.
- Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -1/+1I think comment 15 has some good points, also because the way the body processes hunger pangs and stored energy over time may not be consistent between 2 and 24 weeks. To quote for the lazy:
"There is a pretty big scientific literature showing that self-reported food intake is generally inaccurate, even after training.
So one alternative reason the participants in the Yudkin study didn’t suffer any effects is that they were not really eating only 1560 kcal/d.
Also, the Yudkin study was only 2 weeks long, while the restriction in the Keys study lasted 24 weeks. Even if they were eating only 1560 kcal/d, they knew it was only for a couple of weeks. The Keys participants got starved for an extended period of time. How can you even begin to equate the psychological effects of these two studies?" - MikeL123, on 02/26/2008, -3/+2I want to bury this as Lame, Spam, and Inaccurate all at the same time. Comparing subjects' results from two different studies, over 20 years apart??!! Complete and utter ***** throughout the site, it's laughable. I especially like the part about gaining 34 pounds of muscle in 4 weeks, by working out for 1 hour per week.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -7/+1Often times a bury isn't always a bury. But often times it is, just like calories.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is