Post by mrsonde on May 21, 2018 11:50:05 GMT 1
No, but it would achieve the same effect - that is, weight loss.
I'm not talking about weight loss!
Everyone knows that obesity is a factor in Type 2 diabetes.
It's not "a factor". It's directly correlated, and the cause of that correlation has been known - proven, scientifically - for at least 15 years.
In that case, why aren't you talking about weight loss?
Because it's not the issue! A diabetic could go on a calorie-controlled diet and shrink down to Belsen-size by eating spinach and carrot-juice for six months - they'd still be diabetic.
Ffs! Let me guess - you're fat? You're worried about losing weight?
No, I'm not fat
That's a matter of opinion, Tubby.
(and therefore I am not worried about losing weight.)
Could be dyslexia.
I'm not fat because I eat very much the diet you recommend
Well, there you go.
- though probably with the addition of more fruit than in its extreme forms, like the version advocated by that at South African person I would be quite wary of.
More fruit won't do you much harm, within limits. Nor any good.
So...you are taking about weight loss - or you should be.
I'm not, and why should I?
What we don't know is whether a high-fat, high-protein diet will eiminate Type 2 diabetes more effectively than weight loss by other means
Yes, we do. Thoroughly demonstrated.
So where is the demonstration?
I've mentioned one already. Nine cases of Diabetes II coincidentally included on the New Zealand case study - all nine completely cured, to their doctors' astonishment.
What fascinating showed is that it is difficult to lose weight on a diet that restricts fat and relies on calorie counting.
What fascinating showed! Well, if she did, hats off to such a remarkable groundbreaking research scientist, I'm sure it must be very welcome news to anyone interested in that subject. But shall we get back to what the rest of us are discussing?
And while it is now clear that dietary fat does not cause or exacerbate heart disease, and dietary cholesterol may actually protect against it
"It's not as simple as that." That's the trouble with you and your panaceas - you kill people.
, we don't have the same evidence for the other diseases you cite, including diabetes
Sure "we" do.
- indeed, the evidence in respect of Alzheimer's is contradictory.
The correlation with statin use and Alzheimer's incidence is perfect. Much more precise and epidemiologically thorough than Ancil's original study, for example - or for the alleged efficacy of statins against heart disease.
...it's nothing to do with this diet, and I didn't say it was, but the medical regime promulgated - with the full financial weight of every Western govt. - of an allopathic remedy for heart disease. Statins, in a word. Next to the anti-depressives, the biggest earner for the medical establishment in the Western world. The drug your GP is so eager to get you on, if you;re not on it already.
I think you did. But maybe you're a bit confused still.
How am I "confused"? I'm not the one citing weight-loss diets just so she can disagree with something she imagined I might have said.
I'm not on statins, FTR. I have an astonishingly excellent ratio of good to bad cholesterol, my doctor says (that's how doctors talk these days, you know!) which is probably down to diet.
Glad to hear it. But what makes your doctor think there is such a thing as "bad" cholesterol, pray tell? This is the alcohol that every cell in your body - including those little grey ones you might still have in your svelte perfectly-formed head - requires to build its lipid wall and maintain its ion gates properly.