Anyone else on a diet and struggling?

adouglasmhor

jomt321 wrote: »

This is the video I was thinking of earlier v=q7KeRwdIH04

It gets kind of complicated but points out a lot of other interesting stuff about olive oil.

Basically it is about people on a vegan diet (supposedly healthy like the Mediterranean diet) died early.

The study that found this has already been refuted by peer revue in many cases, the reason being is many people who become vegan do so because of existing underlying life threatening heath issues.

jomt321

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The study that found this has already been refuted by peer revue in many cases, the reason being is many people who become vegan do so because of existing underlying life threatening heath issues.

Yea bit like health food stores being full of really unhealthy looking people.

But then again there is peer reviewed and peer reviewed, peer reviewed basically means in the opinion of someone, someone who is probably not too smart or honest.

Only trust first had examination of the evidence, not someone's opinion.

adouglasmhor

jomt321 wrote: »

Yea bit like health food stores being full of really unhealthy looking people.

But then again there is peer reviewed and peer reviewed, peer reviewed basically means in the opinion of someone, someone who is probably not too smart or honest.

Only trust first had examination of the evidence, not someone's opinion.

That's not what peer reviewed means though. Nothing like it in fact.

paulineb_2

jomt321 wrote: »

This is the video I was thinking of earlier v=q7KeRwdIH04

It gets kind of complicated but points out a lot of other interesting stuff about olive oil.

Basically it is about people on a vegan diet (supposedly healthy like the Mediterranean diet) died early.


Here is another "Olive Oil Is Not Healthy" ?v=OGGQxJLuVjg

What seem to be the cases is that whatever is considered to be healthy diet turn out to be a killer 20 years down the line, or at least no better than anything else. ( Hence the need for yet another fad diet).

What is the latest Fad diet? the 5:2 or something like that?

I have lost count of the number of miracle diets I have seem.

Pretty much any diet will work initially hence they all sell, however nobody can maintain them so it's on to the latest diet miracle diet fad.

Id say however, lots of people who are vegan arent so because its a fad.

You'll get people who go vegan for their health and people who do it for compassionate reasons. You'll also get people who'll go vegan for a month like people do dry January.

Ive not eaten meat since I was 16, that's almost 30 years ago. You'll get healthy vegans and unhealthy meat eaters, I also dare say if someone was vegan and existed only on a diet of chips and salad they might find a few things lacking in their diet.

paulineb_2

On the subject of calorie counting. I cant do it, makes me more obsessed with food. But if its working for the OP, I see no reason not to do it at least until some more weight comes off and then perhaps she can relax a bit and just maintain her weight.

The Hairy Dieters cookbook might be a good idea, lots of healthier versions of traditional food in there I believe.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

Slimming World is quite a good plan but a lot of people seem to struggle with portion control especially on extra easy which is the plan they seem to push the most. They hear the words unlimited, heap their plates up with free foods then are surprised when they don't lose. I run a Slimming World Facebook group for people struggling to lose weight & even being picky we still have nearly 5000 members so that just goes to show it doesn't work for everyone. The one good thing about it is that you are encouraged to cook from scratch & not eat ready meals/convenience foods as they are laden with syns. I've kind of got a bit disheartened with the plan myself so thinking of trying Weight Watchers as i've heard good things about it now they have changed the plan.

jomt321

adouglasmhor wrote: »

That's not what peer reviewed means though. Nothing like it in fact.

Yes it is, but it is worse than that.

Here is a criticism of peer review, existentially it is a closed system, self regulation the kind of regulation that in effect is no regulation.

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986. He remarked:

There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print.[39]

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, said:

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[40]

Allegations of bias and suppression

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers.[41] Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[42][43] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.[44][45][46] Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views,[47][48] and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions.[49] A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.[50] A marketing professor argued that invited papers are more valuable because papers that undergo the conventional system of peer review may not necessarily feature findings that are actually important.[51]
Peer review failures

Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor.[52]

Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly prepared and the process is not designed to detect fraud.[53]

An experiment on peer review with a fictitious manuscript found that peer reviewers fail to detect some manuscript errors and the majority of reviewers may not notice that the conclusions of the paper are unsupported by its results.[54]

When peer review fails and a paper is published with fraudulent or otherwise irreproducible data, the paper may be retracted.

Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review allege that it lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.[55][56][57]
Peer review and plagiarism

Reviewers generally lack access to raw data, but do see the full text of the manuscript, and are typically familiar with recent publications in the area. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism of prose than fraudulent data. A few cases of such textual plagiarism by historians, for instance, have been widely publicized.[58] On the scientific side, a poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health found 0.3% admitted faking data and 1.4% admitted plagiarism.[59]

Additionally, 4.7% of the same poll admitted to autoplagiarism,[59] in which an author republishes the same material or data without citing their earlier work. An author often uses autoplagiarism to pad their list of publications. Journals and employers often do not punish authors for autoplagiarism, though it is against the rules of most peer-reviewed journals, which usually require that only unpublished material be submitted.
Abuse of inside information by reviewers

A related form of professional misconduct that is sometimes reported is a reviewer using the not-yet-published information from a manuscript or grant application for personal or professional gain. The frequency with which this happens is unknown, but the United States Office of Research Integrity has sanctioned reviewers who have been caught exploiting knowledge they gained as reviewers. A possible defense (for authors) against this form of misconduct on the part of reviewers is to pre-publish their work in the form of a preprint or technical report on a public system such as arXiv. The preprint can later be used to establish priority, although this violates the stated policies of some journals.
Corrective measures

Many journals deal with peer review failures by publishing letters,[60] though some opt not to do so. Retraction of an article may be required. The author of a disputed article is allowed a published reply to a critical letter. However, neither the letter nor the reply is usually peer-reviewed, and typically the author rebuts the criticisms. Thus, the readers are left to decide for themselves if a peer review failure occurred.
Examples

"Perhaps the most widely recognized failing of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox."[61]
Tai's method, in which the method of Riemann sums for numerical integration was republished in a Diabetes research journal, Diabetes Care.[62] The method is almost always taught in high school calculus, and was thus considered an example of an extremely well known idea being re-branded as a new discovery.

Bit hard to read but in short peer review leaves a lot to be desired.

This is a key paragraph

"But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Problem is it is done behind closed doors.
That is always a big problem.

Quasar

Where is Kronks these days??? Oh.

jomt321

Anyway, there you have it, everyone on a diet is struggling because of course diets don't work.

A diet is essentially a commitment to go back to your old bad eating habits after a short break.

The results of that should be pretty obvious, so obvious that only an 'expert' would fail to see what they would be.

Quasar

jomt321 wrote: »

Anyway, there you have it, everyone on a diet is struggling because of course diets don't work.

A diet is essentially a commitment to go back to your old bad eating habits after a short break.

The results of that should be pretty obvious, so obvious that only an 'expert' would fail to see what they would be.

That I agree with, and you'll find that "experts" agree also. In fact, the proper medical "expert" advice is far from encouraging fad diets, but instead is to go back to what nature means us to eat: vegetable, fruits, natural oils, some protein and some wholegrains. No doctor or medical nutritionist would advise otherwise.

Also, you should either provide a link or the appropriate source of the long passage you quoted.