On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, John C. Pavao wrote:
> You're right about the "merry-go-round" effect, and it's easy to see how
it
> has gone on so long.  What I find so interesting is that from what I've
> read, no one even ever thought there was anything wrong with eating meat
> until Kellogg came along.

And he was thought quite mad by many people in his time -- and, until
recently, the food 'pyramid' emphasized meat.  We just need to see the
pendulum swing in the opposite direction.

J- The question is: will that happen?  There is so much money to be lost if
it does, that I cannot imagine it hapening.

snip
> Whether it's the moral high ground, or simply the high ground of "we're
> right and you're wrong", I tend to agree.  What bothers me most though,
is
> not this, but the fact that data is being manipulated to make the studies
> that are done come out in favor of high-carbohydrate, grain-based diets.

Do you think it's being deliberately manipulated, or simply that the
researcher is biased before-hand and then sees only what s/he expects to
see?  And if the data comes out in such a way that it contradicts what
they expect to see, then they conclude that the study was flawed.

J- I wouldn't expect deliberate manipulation from a researcher.  I think
it's mostly a case of expected results, like you said.  I also think,
though, that if a company funded a study that showed negative results, they
would be likely to suppress that study rather than release it.  So I
believe that even if the data isn't deliberately manipulated, it is
probably "shaped" by what is not told.

One of the hardest things in the world to change is a person's world-view.
They will see everything from within their particular paradigm, no matter
whether it contradicts that paradigm or not -- they;'ll make up reasons
and excuses, until it just gets too hard to maintain that paradigm; and
even then, massive denial may set in.

J- Absolutely.  My family sees me weekly.  They know that it's working and
yet they continue to deny that it could possibly work.  Yet they'll support
my sister to the fullest when she does her bi-annual 40-50 lb low-fat
weight loss (only to gain it right back).

snip

> Until the day that the people in this country wake up and realize that
> trading their free will for government protection is akin to giving up
our
> Constitutional rights, this will continue.  All sex outside of marriage
is
> evil?  Did they ask the people on the panel if they'd ever done it?  Of

I think the proponent speaking for this bill was a priest.  And most of
the people supporting it are probably from the religious right.  (So much
for conservatism meaning less government and more freedom, as it did when
my dad, a Barry Goldwater-style conservative, complains.)

J-  I don't like radicals in either direction.  To me, radicalism is a sign
that one's turned his or her brain off and opted for the convenience of
following someone else's belief system, rather than thinking things through
for themselves.  And that, I think, is a real shame.

snip

> You are right, though.  Diet does seem to have taken on almost religious
> qualities in this country.  People preach about their low-fat, exercise
> until your joints wear out regimes like they were a stairway to heaven.
>  And that's another reason why we'll always be fighting an uphill battle
> slowly.  A religious fervor, a fight based upon perceived moral high
ground
> no matter what the topic, is the most dificult to win against.  And often
> the longest lived fight.

True.  I'm afraid I make a point of telling vegetarians that I've lost
55+ lbs by eating more meat and no starch :D

Me too, but only if they ask.  I get really depressed at the "you're trying
to kill my religion" look they get on their faces.

> I try to tell people who ask me what I'm doing.  Most, their eyes glaze
> over almost immediately, or they begin to look uncomfortable, as though
I'd
> suggested that their religion was wrong.  Like telling a Moonie that Rev.
> Moon is insane.  Those who listen always impress me.  Those who do not, I
> feel bad about, but there's little I can do.  The horrible part of it is
> that I cannot convince a single member of my family.  No, I don't want to
> argue with them, but I don't want to see them go on eating so terribly
> either.  But I'm helpless.

I usually tell people that I'm eating no starch, no sugar.  That usually
scares them off; they don't want to give up their favorite vices (french
fries, candy bars).  The rare person will ask me for more information,
saying that I look great.  (From 196 to 136 in 2 years -- definitely
evidence that it's working.)  What they do with that is their business
afterward.
I've gotten two of my family members to try low-carb: my dad and my
grandma (his mom).  They've tried it, then fallen off the wagon.  Dad gets
a bit chubby, then cuts back on his starches again; I think I have made a
lasting effect on his dietary habits, in that he does watch the carbs now.
Grandma's a hopeless case; her habits are so ingrained, and she has no
real incentive to change them.
My mom is another matter; she doesn't get the concept, wouldn't read the
books, and if she had, would have twisted what she read so that it fit
into her own preconceived notions.  (She's very good at this.)

My experience with my mom -- and her ability to twist things this way --
is part of what convinces me that people are just stupid, and do whatever
is easiest and doesn't make them think too much.

Really, getting the medical and popular community as a whole to accept
low-carb as a valid diet path will require a LOT of reeducation.

J-  Indeed.  If only anyone would listen.

John Pavao