From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 05 2003 - 19:40:29 MDT
Brian Atkins wrote,
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > Brian Atkins wrote,
> >>Harvey, which study are you referring to?
> >
> > I was referring to the original URL being discussed:
> > <http://www.betterhumans.com/News/news.aspx?articleID=2003-05-02-2>
> >
> > I was not referring to the URL you posted in response to the
> previous URL:
> > <http://www.ism.uit.no/kk/e/key_findings.htm>
> >
> > You are applying my response to the wrong posting!
>
> The original URL was not a "study". It was a piece of reporting. It had
> quotes from scientists who as far as I can tell did not even work on the
> two studies. At any rate, my comments were not about the reporting, but
> rather the underlying studies, most specifically the second one
> mentioned. So again I ask, which study were you referring to with your
> comments?
Sorry, I must not have been clear enough. The URL I was referencing was a
piece of reporting about "Two Large Studies." The specific one I was
referencing was the first one, the US study. You apparently were
referencing the second one, the European study. My comments on the first
study did not apparently apply to your understanding of the second study.
You therefore jumped all over me saying that I must have misread "the"
study. I followed back through the threads and figured out where I was
referring to one URL and one study, while you posted a second URL and was
specifically discussing the second study. I think this was a simple
misunderstanding. I did not criticize the study you thought I did. I have
no problems with the study that you seem to favor, and you do not seem to be
supporting the study that I criticized.
> I am obviously missing something... I don't understand. You replied to
> Mike and claimed that I was reinterpreting the "studies" (i.e. plural)
> to say the opposite of their results. What exactly were you talking
> about? Did you mean to say that I was reinterpreting what the news
> article said?
I thought you were claiming that both studies, including the first one,
supported the Paleo Diet. The Paleo Diet forbids eating grains and cereals.
The first study found good results with people eating high-fiber diets
including grains and cereals. It seemed that these positions were in
conflict: eating grains is good versus eating grains is bad. That was my
complaint. It now appears that maybe my criticism and your support may have
been directed at different studies within the same article.
> I clearly stated in my original post to Bill K that I was discussing the
> underlying studies, not the BH article. I even mentioned going to the
> web pages of them. So I am still not understanding your complaints
> regarding my post.
As you pointed out above, "studies" (i.e. plural).... I am not sure now if
you supported the first study or not, or if you thought it supported the
Paleo Diet. I think we are agreed that high-fiber is good, and that the
Paleo Diet is high fiber. So in that sense, we agree on the nutritional
aspects of fiber.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 05 2003 - 19:53:28 MDT