Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

User talk:CarbShark

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, CarbShark!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Greetings, CarbShark, and thank you for joining the repugnant salad fork of wikis! I hope you enjoy your time here. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits to the low-carb article[edit]

You seem to be removing critiques, some of them documented, with advocacy which is entirely undocumented. We make no attempt to be "neutral" here -- if something requires critical analysis or even derision, that's what we want to give it. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All of the above still applies. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 04:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

These are perfectly reasonable edits. Most of what was under the heading Atkins referred to other diets.

Allowing false and misleading and poorly organized information to remain on the page doesn't help anyone. How can we fix this?

Sign[edit]

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 22:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

He's been told to do this countless times over the last five months. It's easier just to block him and his idiocy anyways.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I see nobody having told him to do so here, and being an idiot isn't a blockable offence. You're still here, right? Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 23:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Try reading the cluster fuck he's made the low carb article. He's been told to several times. Also, fuck off.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Mop and bucket. Revert and move on. Vandal bin if it's persistent. Let my inspiration flow/In token lines suggesting rhythm. 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Booze and weight loss[edit]

I've looked on Pubmed to no avail for papers supporting what I've heard from my nutritionist and doctor: that you can't lose weight while there's alcohol in your blood. I'm at my ideal weight, but at this point, a weekend of boozing and eating shitty food leads to visible weight gain of a few pounds, or whatever it takes to show on someone who's 6 foot, 163, and works out pretty regularly. Does this make any sense or am I seeing things? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 23:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how much you drink. Alcohol has calories and the body will metabolize calories from alcohol before fat. Your goal is probably to burn stored fat, while preserving lean tissue (muscle) and alcohol slows or delays fat metabolism.CarbShark (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use deceptive edit summaries, like this one. Hipocrite (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe I was being deceptive. There were references that weren't really references and I removed them and clarified. I didn't detail all the changes I made on the page, but that seems consistent with the edit summaries everyone else is using. You're "Yeah" for example, doesn't describe the changes you made. --CarbShark (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Totally useless is dramatically better than intentionally deceptive, you Objectivist shill. Hipocrite (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, in what way was I deceptive? (That was not my intention). (Re the info on Atkins nutritionals, I did not know those details. A reference would be helpful (not disputing it). --CarbShark (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You documented the irrelevancy of your edit, but ignored the far more major change. [1], [2]. Shouldn't you be in touch with your employers? Hipocrite (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any relationship with Atkins and I am critical of their products (except for the diet and diet book). That said, you may be overstating your case, the refs you provided simply indicate that while they were taken over by a private equity firm they kept many of the same board members. Also, the authors of the new Atkins book worked with Dr. Atkins, and I believe were picked by him to update the book. --CarbShark (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
So you'd say that if I could prove to you that Paul D. Wolff and Scott Kabak were no longer related to Atkins, the new "Atkins Diet," would be unrelated to the Atkins Diet? You'd say that if I could prove to you that Eric C. Westman, Stephen D. Phinney, and Jeff S. Volek did not work with Dr. Atkins, you'd stop making shit up? Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No and no. First, I don't make this stuff up. Second, I know that both Phinney and Volek knew and worked with Atkins (they mention it in their writing). Plus, I'm not sure why it's particularly relevant. They are both low-carb high fat diets. The updated version follows the original fairly closely and references it repeatedly, and makes only moderate changes to the diet. Some of those changes are pretty good, emphasizing even more veggies than the original, one particular change (allowing sugar alcohols) is not that good for dieters, but does make it possible to sell the Atkins bars. --CarbShark (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
You seem to know lots of things that aren't true. Hipocrite (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
If you can prove otherwise, go ahead. Still not sure how relevant it is--CarbShark (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are we debating the relationship of the Atkins and new Atkins diets, when they're both bunk? Cannot we just talk about how terrible they are?--Token Conservative (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree the relationship of the old and new is not relevant, but neither one is bunk. At least if you believe the results of RCTs published in peer reviewed journals. If you follow the science, then the worst that could be said about them is that they are no better than other diets when it comes to weight loss and they need longer term studies to show safety (as do other diets).--CarbShark (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)