I 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 bulls**t 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.
If 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.
I 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.
I 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?"
Human 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! :-)
elvisxeFeb 26, 2008
Basing a diet on nothing more than caloric intake doesn't give you the whole story... but this does.
mikel123Feb 26, 2008
I 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 bulls**t 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.
masterlock77Feb 26, 2008
If 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.
henvyFeb 26, 2008
But the parameters and metrics aren't the same, which is why this is bulls**t. He says it himself, he's not comparing apples to apples.
henvyFeb 26, 2008
I 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.
terr01Feb 26, 2008
I 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?"
mentolFeb 26, 2008
Dugg because it's a very well researched article.
johnpspenoMar 1, 2008
Human 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! :-)