I try, and in the very high majority of cases succeed, not to be
personal in my contributions to lists - but I do think that what you
are saying below, on top of what you have said in your last post,
warrants a a reply. No attack on you - no defense of myself, just a correction.
A few mails back I talked about your "hypothesis" - and you answered
that it was facts.
I tried to slither out of the discussion by saying: "It is interesting
- even though it does not convince me", also a few mails back.
After which you told me that I am not interested in scientific
research.
Only then I took up the challenge by asking that you give me a chance
to see for myself whether your claims are indeed backed up enough to
call them facts. The only way I can do this is by studying the
research relevant to those questions - and for that I need
references. That is the only way to do it - that's why scientific and
scholarly publications are full ot those little footnotes and lists of
literature at the back. No publication is taken serious in any way
when it lacks those references - including refs to one's own previous
research. I think this is one good aspect about science and
scholarship.
If you do not want to spend the time copying a few references from
the book nor even answer my questions whether those references exist -
well, that's up to you - I'll just remain unconvinced;-)
But do not appreciate this trait in others, it seems.
I do not have enough knowledge to have a well-founded opinion on which
of the different opinions make more metabolic sence than others.
But I have an opinion on the issue of conpensatory strategies of the
body - and to me this aspect is severely neglected by scientific
research and the great majority of MDs and alternative therapists.
This claim is made by all authors of books and and articles - no doubt
correctly. This, however, does not seem to show that it is generally
applicable - since there are so many different approaches, especially
to diets, habits of eating etc.working that way for at least some
people - including those the authors use as examples.
And a long list of "used to
Probably the same issue as above.
Exactly. And on the basis of having read so many books and articles,
heard so many discussions while I was in the German version of
"Naturopathic School" (the variety of opinions is even greater than
English-language publications suggest, since even adding only the
German ones it increases vastly), the books and articles being of the
kind Bernstein's et al also seem to be, i.e. talking about what they
have found out without further references, I have come to give them
all the benefit of the doubt and no more.
Doing a bit of research on pubmed last night after receiving your
previous mail I found on my search entering: "postprandial
hyperglycemia healthy individuals" only 11 pages. Scrolling down,
there were only a few showing in the title that healthy individuals
were included - and in the abstracts of those the conclusions of the
authors were in most cases
that checking various parameters no difference on those parameters
during the spikes were found. There were, I think, 2 exceptions.
Concerning one of these exceptions: There was another article on
research on the same parameter, which showed no effect of the spikes.
If you say that in *healthy* individuals there is no postprandial
spike to higher than 90, this seems to mean that the people checked
were already pre-diabetic by your definition - which would seem to
indicate that the people who are concerned about their postprandial
spikes may have no need to worry or should inquire more closely into
the matter - unless they like the close monitoring they are doing and
are comfortable with the results and with the eating habits to get
those results.
I'll do a bit on the other aspects I asked about - will see what I
find out by giving the search engine at pubmed various bits of food.
No doubt! My doubts do not concern your ability to read and understand
what they wrote - they concern the ability and or the willingness of
the authors to be too stringent in determining what of their
research may be rather shaky - influenced by what they expect to find
and the question whether they have given proper attention to research
that may point in different directions.
Last AND LEAST:
You imply that I am too cheap to buy the books and want to get
information etc. without expense.
To a degree this is true: I do not have enough money to buy all the
books that may have some info I need - nor would I have room enough to
put them anywhere.
So I am doing some authors out of their hard-worked-for fees;-)
Also true.
But on one hand I doubt that the authors themselves have bought all
the articles and books they use for their own publications - reading
the pages of literature at the back of publications, I would very much
doubt it (when seeing the amount of copying that is done in university
copy-shops and in the departments for the professors and the people
whho work in the science labs) I very much doubt it.
Further - considering the amount of work I have done for my own
publications - both in journals and on my site + all that is not up
(yet) - without ever seeing single penny for it (people going to my
site will notice that there is no advertising and that I have waived
copyright) Any reputation I might derive from this site and/or any
other publication, including my contributions on lists and forums,
also would be of no benefit to me whatseoever: I have no praxis, I do
not do email consult or treatment, I am no a tutor in any school nor
am I on any loop giving seminars:-) I think I have a perfect moral
right to get information without payment.
Considering the amount of trouble I have taken in the past to get and
provide information when asked, I also feel I have the moral right to
ask for it myself - especially since I would also share at no cost
again the information I might get by doing further research on the
topic.
I have worked some years - rather boring and strenuous work it was -
to copy (correctly down to the last comma and dot) the first casebook
of v. B. This will probably get published as a book - thereby I may
(or not, if it doesn's sell) get some author's fee from it (perhaps
amounting as much as a penny per hour for the work I put into it
) - but this is only because the Institute of History of Medicine (IGM)
insists on publishing it as a book, if they find a publisher to do so.
They hold the copy rights, so I had no choice but to agree to it in
my contract. I also have in my contract, however, that I may publish
it free on my site if they do not find a publisher.
I am not allowed to translate it, since my first language is not
English - otherwise I might even be dumb enough to to do that;-)
I think that it all I have to say, wish to say, will say in the
matter.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========