4 ms·

>"According to the study, because minimal risk was observed at 50-55% carbohydrate intake. So extreme consumption on either end can't be very close to the minim

by nonbel 8y ago

>"According to the study, because minimal risk was observed at 50-55% carbohydrate intake. So extreme consumption on either end can't be very close to the minimum." Your conclusion does not follow from the premise, so there are some additional assumptions you are making somewhere.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> Your conclusion does not follow from the premise (...) Why not?
- nonbel 8y ago
  Because you have provided no reason that it is reasonable to extrapolate the trend from a 50% to 40% carb diet to 5% carb diet.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    I think it's reasonable to expect that if a small reduction is bad, a big reduction is worse. The opposite is not impossible, but it would be surprising.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      >"I think it's reasonable to expect that if a small reduction is bad, a big reduction is worse." As I originally asked: why?
      - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        Why not?
        nonbel 8y ago
        Because wildly speculating and passing judgement on others based on it generally leads to poor outcomes.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        This is surprising. I didn't think I was passing judgement on anyone, in this thread.
        nonbel 8y ago
        >"I think "the people who adopt a low-card diet" would do well to pay attention to a study that reports increased mortality for people who reduced their carbohydrate intake less than they have." You think the low carb diet people would be mistaken if they dont pay attention to this study that contains no data for low carb diet people at all.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        I didn't say anything about anyone making any mistakes. If I thought that X people are making a mistake by doing Y, wouldn't it be simpler for me to just say that, rather than say something else that could possibly be interpreted as my saying that? Now, this is passing judgement and I apologise, but I don't think you replied to the strongest interpretation of what I wrote.

by nonbel 8y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> Your conclusion does not follow from the premise (...) Why not?

nonbel 8y ago
Because you have provided no reason that it is reasonable to extrapolate the trend from a 50% to 40% carb diet to 5% carb diet.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  I think it's reasonable to expect that if a small reduction is bad, a big reduction is worse. The opposite is not impossible, but it would be surprising.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    >"I think it's reasonable to expect that if a small reduction is bad, a big reduction is worse." As I originally asked: why?
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      Why not?
      - nonbel 8y ago
        Because wildly speculating and passing judgement on others based on it generally leads to poor outcomes.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        This is surprising. I didn't think I was passing judgement on anyone, in this thread.
        nonbel 8y ago
        >"I think "the people who adopt a low-card diet" would do well to pay attention to a study that reports increased mortality for people who reduced their carbohydrate intake less than they have." You think the low carb diet people would be mistaken if they dont pay attention to this study that contains no data for low carb diet people at all.
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
        YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
        I didn't say anything about anyone making any mistakes. If I thought that X people are making a mistake by doing Y, wouldn't it be simpler for me to just say that, rather than say something else that could possibly be interpreted as my saying that? Now, this is passing judgement and I apologise, but I don't think you replied to the strongest interpretation of what I wrote.