New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about ..

To put it perspective, these are Dr. Greger's credentials
fhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590560868/qid=1110040056/sr=2...ref=pd_
About the Author
Michael Greger, M.D., is a general practitioner, a founding member of
the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, and an internationally
recognized lecturer on nutrition and food safety issues. He was an
expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat
defamation" trial and is the Chief Medical Investigator at Farm
Sanctuary. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of
Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine.

OTOH the Center For Consumer Freedom is currently under investigation
by the IRS for violating its non-profit, tax exempt status.

There is also a web site that tells the other side of CCF:
http://consumerdeception.com/
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

john_williams_800 RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:

>To put it perspective, these are Dr. Greger's credentials
>fhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590560868/qid=1110040056/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5870431-8020705
>About the Author
>Michael Greger, M.D., is a general practitioner, a founding member of
>the American College of Lifestyle Medicine,

"Lifestyle Medicine"?

>and an internationally
>recognized lecturer on nutrition and food safety issues.

Radical activists are always "internationally recognized lecturer[s]."

>He was an
>expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat
>defamation" trial

Big surprise for a vegan animal-rights activist, huh?

>and is the Chief Medical Investigator at Farm
>Sanctuary.

Farm Sanctuary: http://www.farmsanctuary.org/

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!

BTW, Greger's website used to be at http://www.veganmd.org, but my
guess is that his identification as a vegan revealed his bias as an
animal-rights activist, so he changed it.

The bottom line is that his interest is in saving the furry critters
and doesn't have jackshit to do with real nutritional issues.

>OTOH the Center For Consumer Freedom is currently under investigation
>by the IRS for violating its non-profit, tax exempt status.

What does that really mean, though? It means that another left-wing
lobbying organization (CREW) filed a complaint with the IRS, so they
have to investigate. I could file a complaint against you, and the
IRS would have to investigate, so I could say you were "currently
under investigation by the IRS." Cute, huh? Doesn't mean anything,
though.

>There is also a web site that tells the other side of CCF:
>http://consumerdeception.com/

Yep, they're a lobbying organization. It doesn't invalidate what they
say about Greger. He is an animal-rights activist who condones
illegal "animal liberation" acts and lecturers strictly from the
perspective of vegan politics. Just run his name through Google, and
that will become very plain.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

I would be be more interested in your opinion of the book after you
have read it and had arguments about the matter of facts in the book
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

john_williams_800.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
> I would be be more interested in your opinion of the book after you
> have read it and had arguments about the matter of facts in the book

But.....why? Why waste the time? The guy isn't seeking science and
nutritional truth. That's evident by what John pointed out.
--
-Larry
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

Larry Hodges wrote:
> john_williams_800 DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> > I would be be more interested in your opinion of the book after you
> > have read it and had arguments about the matter of facts in the
book
>
> But.....why? Why waste the time? The guy isn't seeking science and
> nutritional truth. That's evident by what John pointed out.

Is it?

What if John's opinion of the man is wrong?

Some would call John's reasoning "rhetoric" or "argument ad hominem",
which is a common ( and very old ) fallacy that happens in debates to
sort out the truth.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Basically, instead of arguing about the content of a message( John
hasn't read the book ) the author of the message is personally attacked
to illicit the emotional response in listeners of discrediting the
message by discrediting the bearer of the message.

It is sort of like deciding that your pants are not on fire because it
is your little sister who is telling you pants are on fire instead of
your parents who are telling you your pants are on fire.

John may be right about Greger or he may not be right about Greger, but
that is a separate issue from the veracity of what Greger has to say.

John doesn't know Greger has to say in his book, because John hasn't
read his book.

Nobody has, it just came out.

I posted about it because I know there are people on this list who have
credentials in the health sciences who might have interesting opinions
to share about the book once they have read it.

I don't think you can criticize a message you have never heard.
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

john_williams_800 RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> john_williams_800 RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
>>> I would be be more interested in your opinion of the book after you
>>> have read it and had arguments about the matter of facts in the book
>>
>> But.....why? Why waste the time? The guy isn't seeking science and
>> nutritional truth. That's evident by what John pointed out.
>
> Is it?
>
> What if John's opinion of the man is wrong?

I think like John. It isn't.

> Some would call John's reasoning "rhetoric" or "argument ad hominem",
> which is a common ( and very old ) fallacy that happens in debates to
> sort out the truth.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Look, the guy isn't interested in nutrition, but rather supporting /
validating his leftwing lifestyle. Simple.

> Basically, instead of arguing about the content of a message( John
> hasn't read the book ) the author of the message is personally
> attacked to illicit the emotional response in listeners of
> discrediting the message by discrediting the bearer of the message.
>
> It is sort of like deciding that your pants are not on fire because it
> is your little sister who is telling you pants are on fire instead of
> your parents who are telling you your pants are on fire.
>
> John may be right about Greger or he may not be right about Greger,
> but that is a separate issue from the veracity of what Greger has to
> say.
>
> John doesn't know Greger has to say in his book, because John hasn't
> read his book.

Doesn't have to. He knows where Greger stands politically. And being the
leftwing nutjob Greger is, there is no way in hell he would be objective in
his approach to nutrition. Period.

> Nobody has, it just came out.
>
> I posted about it because I know there are people on this list who
> have credentials in the health sciences who might have interesting
> opinions to share about the book once they have read it.
>
> I don't think you can criticize a message you have never heard.

And if the leftwing nutjobs had their way, it would be illegal for me to do
so.
--
-Larry
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

<john_williams_800 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110116444.638048.310220@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> john_williams_800 DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
>> > I would be be more interested in your opinion of the book after you
>> > have read it and had arguments about the matter of facts in the
> book
>>
>> But.....why? Why waste the time? The guy isn't seeking science and
>> nutritional truth. That's evident by what John pointed out.
>
> Is it?
>
> What if John's opinion of the man is wrong?
>
> Some would call John's reasoning "rhetoric" or "argument ad hominem",
> which is a common ( and very old ) fallacy that happens in debates to
> sort out the truth.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>
> Basically, instead of arguing about the content of a message( John
> hasn't read the book ) the author of the message is personally attacked
> to illicit the emotional response in listeners of discrediting the
> message by discrediting the bearer of the message.

elicit- John would never be involved in anything illicit



>
> It is sort of like deciding that your pants are not on fire because it
> is your little sister who is telling you pants are on fire instead of
> your parents who are telling you your pants are on fire.

There are literally millions of books in print. Why would you waste time on
one written by an author with questionable motives?
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

john_williams_800.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote in news:1110116444.638048.310220
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> john_williams_800.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>> > I would be be more interested in your opinion of the book after you
>> > have read it and had arguments about the matter of facts in the book
>>
>> But.....why? Why waste the time? The guy isn't seeking science and
>> nutritional truth. That's evident by what John pointed out.
>
> Is it?
>
> What if John's opinion of the man is wrong?
>
> Some would call John's reasoning "rhetoric" or "argument ad hominem",
> which is a common ( and very old ) fallacy that happens in debates to
> sort out the truth.
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>
> Basically, instead of arguing about the content of a message( John
> hasn't read the book ) the author of the message is personally attacked
> to illicit the emotional response in listeners of discrediting the
> message by discrediting the bearer of the message.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, people have reputations and are judged by
them. If the lying goober in the White House tells me my pants are on fire,
I won't skip a beat.

Hugh

--
Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will attend no other.
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

john_williams_800 DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> I haven't read it, I can't judge it, but I thought others might find
> news of its existence interesting
>
> Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about America's Low-Carb Craze
> by Dr. Michael Greger MD
>
> ISBN: 1590560868
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590560868/qid=1110040056/sr=2-...ef=pd_b



I got my copy carbophobia yesterday.

This book has 57 pages of references and citations.

This book also has a 39 page section with the Atkins Corporation's side
of the story and Dr. Greger's rebuttal to their counter arguments.
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

john_williams_800.RemoveThis@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>john_williams_800@hotmail.com wrote:
>> I haven't read it, I can't judge it, but I thought others might find
>> news of its existence interesting
>>
>> Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about America's Low-Carb Craze
>> by Dr. Michael Greger MD
>>
>> ISBN: 1590560868
>>
>>
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1590560868/qid=1110040056/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5870431-8020705
>
>I got my copy carbophobia yesterday.
>
>This book has 57 pages of references and citations.
>
>This book also has a 39 page section with the Atkins Corporation's side
>of the story and Dr. Greger's rebuttal to their counter arguments.

None of which changes the following facts:

[1] Low-carb diets are effective for those who regularly adhere to
them.
[2] Numerous studies have been done on low-carbohydrate diets, and
there has been no evidence of major health risks, particularly if
saturated fats are limited.
[3] The reduction of obesity has significantly improved the health
profile of those who follow low-carb diets, including their
lipoprotein profiles.
[3] Dr. Greger's main motivation is neither health nor science, but to
save the lives of cute, furry animals.

The bottom line:

[a] No fat-loss diet is perfect.
[b] If a low-carb diet significantly reduces obesity, it is
substantially healthier than remaining obese.
--

JMW
http://www.rustyiron.net
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about .. 

JMW wrote:


> None of which changes the following facts:
>
> [1] Low-carb diets are effective for those who regularly adhere to
> them.

Proof?


> [2] Numerous studies have been done on low-carbohydrate diets, and
> there has been no evidence of major health risks, particularly if
> saturated fats are limited.

How many are numerous? Which studies? In CARBOPHOBIA many of the
studies that supposedly vindicate lowcarb diets are looked at
debunked.......with plenty of documentation.

> [3] The reduction of obesity has significantly improved the health
> profile of those who follow low-carb diets, including their
> lipoprotein profiles.

Proof?

How can this be true with an obesity epidemic and the low carb craze
coexisting at the same point in time?


> [3] Dr. Greger's main motivation is neither health nor science, but
to
> save the lives of cute, furry animals.

If my main motivation in telling you that you are about to sit down on
wet paint is to humiliate rather then help you does that change the
fact of a bench being freshly painted?

I still think it is wrong to draw a conclusion about a book without
reading it.

Especially a book that lets the other side tell its story for nearly 40
pages and that has almost 60 pages of references for backing up its own
arguments.
 >> Stay informed about: New anti-lowcarb book: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth about ..