Particularly,
this study.That's right. I don't sit here and take the nitrogenous bovine waste coming down the pike and put up with misleading information, especially when the ridiculousness is so big it can't even hide under Jabba the Hut's manboobies.
Endocrinologists are a great group of folks, but you have to start wondering if Special K is funding their conferences and providing them with little boxes of blood sugar rusheeoos in the morning with their banana halves and their low-fat, high fructose corn syrup yogurts.
Now, the study's lead makes a true observation: that the more full you are, the less hungry you are. (He's the brains behind the thing, you see.)
The study uses a control group of 94 overweight women who are inactive and placed them in two groups:
1: A low-carb group where people were given BREAD and their protein was limited
2. A higher-carb group where people were given bread and more carbs (they never tell us what kind) and their protein is almost doubled as opposed to the low-carb group (seeing an issue already?)
For beginners, let's talk about the number of calories the 'low-carbers' eating the processed crap were given: scantly over 1,000 calories with processed foods and sticking to under 17 carbohydrates (we still don't know if these were net carbs or not).
It sounds like a possible frankenfoods nightmare. How do we know the low-carbers aren't also having diet shakes and sugar free candies? We don't. Why? Because menus are conveniently not provided. How do we know the higher-carb dieters (only 58 carbs is nothing. A lot of folks still lose weight on this) aren't eating berries and other low GI foods?
The high-carb dieters were not only alloted more calories per day, but their meals were progressively smaller as the day wore on, which, I might add, is a key in high-carb dieting weight loss-- larger meals in the morning and smaller at night.
Did you note the extremely high amount of protein in the diets of the high-carbers as opposed to the low-carbers?
The low-carb group is continuously being said to be the small breakfast group, when it is known:
a. that those who employ proteins and fats in fact eat less because of the self-limiting nature of those foods; and
b. that being forced to eat bread, cereal and fruit with these foods actually has the opposite effect on the blood sugar, causing spikes throughout the day, if enough is forced at breakfast (and we don't really know because the information is vague).
There has been a very recent study showing that those people eating a higher protein breakfast are generally less hungry throughout the day. So if the protein amounts are doubled for the 'big breakfast' (higher carb) crowd, and their calorie allotments are vastly higher for breakfast, should the assertion be that a breakfast higher in protein is actually the key to less hunger overall?
I mean seriously.
Who funds these studies, and who are the numpties putting together these skewed plans minus relevant information that people are going to lick up live bellybutton lint on caviar?
This is ridiculous. You might as well say that anorexics gain weight because they don't eat big breakfasts. Or that Amy Winehouse's crack binges should have caused weight gain because she didn't eat her allotted 'big breakfast'.
If I am going to take this study seriously, I want menus. I want to know why the higher-carb group was allotted twice the amount of protein as the low-carb group. I want to know why the instructions were skewed so as to cause the lower-carb group to fail. I want to know which company funded this study.
The evidence of that so-called study is tenuous at best, and thus earns my "Suck It" award for this Thursday, June 26, 2008.
Sorry for the typos. I was so ticked I schmootzed vowels everywhere.
TM
TM
Add a video
Moderator
That's right. I don't sit here and take the nitrogenous bovine waste coming down the pike and put up with misleading information, especially when the ridiculousness is so big it can't even hide under Jabba the Hut's manboobies.
Endocrinologists are a great group of folks, but you have to start wondering if Special K is funding their conferences and providing them with little boxes of blood sugar rusheeoos in the morning with their banana halves and their low-fat, high fructose corn syrup yogurts.
Now, the study's lead makes a true observation: that the more full you are, the less hungry you are. (He's the brains behind the thing, you see.)
The study uses a control group of 94 overweight women who are inactive and placed them in two groups:
1: A low-carb group where people were given BREAD and their protein was limited
2. A higher-carb group where people were given bread and more carbs (they never tell us what kind) and their protein is almost doubled as opposed to the low-carb group (seeing an issue already?)
For beginners, let's talk about the number of calories the 'low-carbers' eating the processed crap were given: scantly over 1,000 calories with processed foods and sticking to under 17 carbohydrates (we still don't know if these were net carbs or not).
It sounds like a possible frankenfoods nightmare. How do we know the low-carbers aren't also having diet shakes and sugar free candies? We don't. Why? Because menus are conveniently not provided. How do we know the higher-carb dieters (only 58 carbs is nothing. A lot of folks still lose weight on this) aren't eating berries and other low GI foods?
The high-carb dieters were not only alloted more calories per day, but their meals were progressively smaller as the day wore on, which, I might add, is a key in high-carb dieting weight loss-- larger meals in the morning and smaller at night.
Did you note the extremely high amount of protein in the diets of the high-carbers as opposed to the low-carbers?
The low-carb group is continuously being said to be the small breakfast group, when it is known:
a. that those who employ proteins and fats in fact eat less because of the self-limiting nature of those foods; and
b. that being forced to eat bread, cereal and fruit with these foods actually has the opposite effect on the blood sugar, causing spikes throughout the day, if enough is forced at breakfast (and we don't really know because the information is vague).
There has been a very recent study showing that those people eating a higher protein breakfast are generally less hungry throughout the day. So if the protein amounts are doubled for the 'big breakfast' (higher carb) crowd, and their calorie allotments are vastly higher for breakfast, should the assertion be that a breakfast higher in protein is actually the key to less hunger overall?
I mean seriously.
Who funds these studies, and who are the numpties putting together these skewed plans minus relevant information that people are going to lick up live bellybutton lint on caviar?
This is ridiculous. You might as well say that anorexics gain weight because they don't eat big breakfasts. Or that Amy Winehouse's crack binges should have caused weight gain because she didn't eat her allotted 'big breakfast'.
If I am going to take this study seriously, I want menus. I want to know why the higher-carb group was allotted twice the amount of protein as the low-carb group. I want to know why the instructions were skewed so as to cause the lower-carb group to fail. I want to know which company funded this study.
The evidence of that so-called study is tenuous at best, and thus earns my "Suck It" award for this Thursday, June 26, 2008.
Sorry for the typos. I was so ticked I schmootzed vowels everywhere.