User talk:Astanton

Astanton - Thank you for your recent additions to Ultimatum game and also welcome to wikipedia! Those studies sound really interesting, I had not heard of them. Do you have a citation for one? If so, if you could add it into the article or tell me where I might find it. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

articles on how the brain sees "utility"
Hi there, I would love to link some articles but most are not openly publishable for copyright reasons. However, I can give you a quick list of references and post later as my time affords. Here is a short reading list to get you started and these will lead you to others until I have time to sort things through: - "Physiological Utility Theory and the Neuroeconomics of Choice" by Paul W. Glimcher, Michael C. Dorris and Hannah M. Bayer (cannot find the publication so please Google it...) - "Functional Imaging of Neural Responses to Expectancy and Experience of Monetary Gains and Losses" by Hans C. Breiter at al. Neuron, Vol. 30, 619–639, May, 2001 - "Event-related potentials can reveal differences between two decision-making groups" by Tim R.H. Cutmore and Tammy D. Muckert. Biological Psychology 47 (1998) 159–179

Hope this helps and good reading!

September 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Low-carbohydrate diet‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Biomedical content
Hi! Please see WP:MEDRS, it is important that our sources conform to this guideline. Alexbrn (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Sorry, this is my first "talk" and I have no idea how to do some things, so I just write and I hope I am doing it right.

You wrote "...You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Low-carbohydrate diet‎. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page." I am unsure how to discuss the situation. Hoping this is what you meant.

I have edited twice a statement "The U.S. Institute of Medicine recommends a minimum intake of 130 g of carbohydrate per day.[5]" because this is incorrect. The RDA is 130 gr--see citation I took from here: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/D5_Carbs.htm. RDA stands for "the recommended daily allowance" and doesn't mean that anything below that is automatically considered to be low carbohydrate diet. It is a misplaced understanding of the meaning of RDA. The citation for stating that the 130 gr represents a low carbohydrate diet comes from an academic article " Westman EC, Feinman RD, Mavropoulos JC, Vernon MC, Volek JS, Wortman JA, Yancy WS, Phinney SD (2007). "Low-carbohydrate nutrition and metabolism". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. (Review). 86 (2): 276–84. PMID 17684196." that is not representative of the government's definition of what 130 gr carbohydrates means.

I didn't think this was a controversial edit, after all, I was (am) citing the government's definition of what 130 gr carbs means. _____

I also made changes in this section that looked like this after my edits: "However any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes from a reduced overall calorie intake not from "metabolic hocus pocus".[10]
 * Note "any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes from.." is not a scientific evidence in any shape or form and cannot stand alone. Also "hocus pocus" is lovely but is that a scientific statement worthy of Wikipedia?**

I**I added: However, another popular misconception is that adopting a low or very low carbohydrate diet is only for weight loss. The low or very low carbohydrate diets have successfully been used in clinical trials to reverse type 2 diabetes[11] and thereby reducing obesity[12] and cardiovascular risks[13]."** the citations here show my screen capture and are thus out of range. But note that I added a valuable sentence with legitimate, published, clinical trial academic research showing facts the previous sentence labeled "probably" and "hocus pocus" to show what the real science is.

The statement "metabolic hocus pocus" doesn't represent (makes fun of) a nutritional approach that has clinically proven to reverse type 2 diabetes, obesity,and cardiovascular disease and is therefore a valuable tool for health conditions and also for weight loss.

The entry on low carbohydrate diets on Wikipedia is one-sided and insufficient for an informative, non-biased, and neutral scientific entry. To be a legitimate Wikipedia educational material, it needs to cover all sides of the story and as long as the statements are supported by valid academic publications, it should be held valid. The published material I cited with it was https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13300-018-0373-9 and here is another one: https://www.ajmc.com/focus-of-the-week/after-a-year-low-carb-diet-helps-many-patients-reverse-type-2-diabetes-lose-weight-and-stop-insulin or another: https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2013290 and there are a ton more. This information needs to be represented in the details of the low carbohydrate diets to give a fair representation of what it is from both sides.

Wikipedia is not about the editors being right or wrong or their preferences--it is about the material it makes available to the public and students all over the world to learn and get informed. It needs to incorporate all sides of the discussion, whether the editors agree to the findings or not.

Thanks, Astanton
 * In general please discuss article content at the article's talk page. To learn more about how Wikipedia works please start at WP:5P. In particular note that Wikipedia does not feature "all sides of a discussion" but reflects accepted knowledge: see WP:NPOV and WP:GEVAL. There is a lot of hype about low-carb diets (about all diets in fact, we have a constant problem with zealous diet fans) and Wikipedia will not buy into it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn I am thinking I am on talk--so responding to your comment above with respect to "Wikipedia does not feature "all sides of a discussion" but reflects accepted knowledge" which is not the case according to WP:5P2, which I copy below:

"Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view	WP:5P2 We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong."

The points I posted was not advocating either side. I advocate for a balanced view on all sides and studying up on Wikipedia's information about low carbohydrate diets I found in a dismal state, lacking information to guide and educated discussion. In fact, it seemed to be biased by whomever had done the editing before me toward anti low carbs and that defies the "multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context" requirements. Astanton (talk) 13:16, 19, September 2018 (PSDT)
 * This is your user talk page, which hardly anybody will see. To make progress on an article, you can discuss at that article's talk page. Your selective bolding of text from WP:5P2 misses the points about "major" points of view and "due weight", both of which lead back to a consideration of sources, which are the mainspring of evrything here. Anyway, for discussion on the article go to Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet. Please also be sure to WP:INDENT posts as a courtesy to other editors. Alexbrn (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Low carbs diet edit
Funny that I just discovered this quote in the previous discussion with user:Alexbrn who wrote "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong" after I wanted to remove the sentence with the word "probably" and replace it with proper academic information and update. there have been about 70 clinical trials and various other longitudinal studies published in academic papers that explain how the low carbs diet work and why weight reduction has nothing to do with reduced calories. The "reduced calories" part is misinformation and the "probably" is definitely equal to "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong" which, as per this note, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

There is a discussion on twitter about the impossibility of Wikipedia edits as a result of editorial-sitters' personal bias. This article was now brought to Wales' attention. I highly recommend that an update is made and finalized to reflect real encyclopedia and not a useless, outdated, ambiguous page.

The areas of immediate concern:

"A popular misconception driving adoption of the diet for weight loss, is that by reducing carbohydrate intake dieters can in some way avoid weight gain from the calories in other macronutrients.[11] However any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes merely from reduced overall calorie intake.[11]

A category of diets is known as low-glycemic-index diets (low-GI diets) or low-glycemic-load diets (low-GL diets), in particular the Low GI Diet.[12] The low-insulin-index diet, is similar, except it is based on measurements of direct insulemic responses i.e., the amount of insulin in the bloodstream to food rather than glycemic response to the amount of glucose in the bloodstream. Although such diet recommendations mostly involve lowering nutritive carbohydrates, some low-carbohydrate foods are discouraged, as well (e.g., beef).[13]"

This sentence: "However any weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet probably comes merely from reduced overall calorie intake.[11]" needs to change. Citation 11 that is refers to is a book and not a scientific and peer reviewed product: Sizer FS, Whitney E (2008). "Chapter 9: Energy Balance and Healthy Body Weight". Nutrition Concepts and Controversies (11th ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 341. ISBN 978-0-495-22011-4. According to comments on other edits--such as the removal of some people of late, with the argument that they only wrote a book and that it is not a scientific peer reviewed publication, if that is the general Wikipedia rule by which we go, then this citation is not a peer reviewed scientific publication and it should not be referenced. Furthermore, it is a reference from 2008, and now we are 10 years later--scientific research has not stopped in 2008.

That sentence should say: "The weight loss resulting from a low-carbohydrate diet comes from the change of metabolic process from glucose burning to fat burning, in which the body burns its own stored fat in the form of ketones" The two citations that are the most relevant:

The next part I highlighted with"...some low-carbohydrate foods are discouraged, as well (e.g., beef)" makes no sense. Beef is not a low-carbohydrate food so listing it there makes no sense. Beef is meat. Furthermore, the citation [13] is from 1997 and as such it is likely older than many of the editors. It should not be the only one referenced. If a reference is needed, use a modern one from banting or others. I can find more. N one is looking at the glycemic indec or load in the low carbohydrate diets. Astanton (talk) 02:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton


 * Please see WP:MEDRS; primary sources are not considered reliable. Furthermore, you really need to read what I have written above on this page: hardly anybidy will see this page, so discussion here is of limited use. If you don't make an effort to participate properly your time here is likely to prove frustrating. Alexbrn (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the WP:SOCK policy. ''You write above about removing the word "probably" at the LC diet article, yet the edit itself was made by a different account. This looks like WP:MEAT.'' Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I only have one user name user:Alexbrn
Your reference to another user: Russ and me doesn't mean I am sock puppetry--he is a different user whom I personally know. Ask first please before you judge and jump head first into something of your imagination that is not true!

Russ and I talked about trying to change the low carbs page--as I was also talking to Jimmy Wales today and yesterday and other editors on twitter. Neither Russ nor I are in the field of nutrition; we are just trying to help. There is much conversation going on on twitter about this--and you. I have many Facebook contacts, where we freely speak about how to update this page that is a total disaster, and which you block from editing with all your might. One gets suspicious.

No one appreciates an authoritative block for no reason, when science has moved on. Your understanding of the field is less than mine--and I am not even in this field! You are pushing some agenda--I can only speculate and that is never nice.

People talk about the reasons for your determination that this page cannot be edited--and basically you singlehandedly rob Wikipedia from funds--people are now asking for refund and back out of their donations because of what you do, holding back from edits. I to stopped donating and advertised this everywhere, recommending all whose reach I get to stop donating to Wikipedia as long as edits cannot be made in an unbiased and professional way.

I find it funny how you break the very rules you keep on repeating that we cannot break and that you can block anyone from correcting it--destroying Wikipedia reputation in the process. Astanton (talk) 08:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton
 * Nobody said you had more than one user name. The concern was WP:MEAT puppetry, and you have now confirmed you did it. Caution: this could end in both accounts being blocked. What is not going to happen is that reliably-sourced knowledge gets removed because of a load of asinine comments on twitter. Alexbrn (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

conversation here is now posted to Jimmy Wales on Twitter
I am uploading my message to Jimmy Wales on twitter. I sure hope he gets involved. Please stop blocking a legitimate edit and proper scientific citations Astanton (talk) 08:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton

WP:MEAT. user:Alexbrn not correct
Talking about the same edit in Wikipedia and its associated impossibilities because f an editor (you) on Twitter is not WP:MEAT. We are not trying to edit for the fun of it. You are deliberately making this up and into a "thing' that it is not. We are talking about its impossibility to edit and others join and tell me that "let me do it; I do edits other times, maybe I can." This is not sock puppet and not meat. This is scientists trying to go around your blocking a totally legitimate entry and update from being added. What is your reason for trying to get rid of everyone who wants to edit the same thing? It just so happens that the article we want to add, was just recently published and we now have access to it---it is open source. So many of us want to add the same thing. Talking about a research and trying to update a page is not against any rules, not even in Wikepedia. What YOU do is against the riles user: Alexbrn! It has been reported now and we hope that you will change your practice and whatever attitude you hold against low carbs diets will be over ruled by the science advancing. You need to let go of the non-scientific and non-professional entry of "probably" and the others that don't belong into Wikipedia under any condition. I am surprised you got away with it until now. I am looking forward to your changing your mind and coming to your senses. Astanton (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton
 * Our medical sourcing guidelines are at WP:MEDRS. For background, the WP:WHYMEDRS essay is useful. It is important that Wikipedia properly reflects accepted knowledge on human health, as on other topics. Alexbrn (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

in response to USER: RussNelson
USER:RussNelson and USER:Alexbrn most research keeps isocaloric (keeps calories constant) or ad liberty (eat as much as they wish) diets in humans when comparing low carbs versus some other nutritional paradigm. Here are two in the quick--there are many more that I will look for in the holiday break:

The idea that fewer calories are "consumed" not digested or absorbed comes from the misunderstood fact that the metabolic process for fat requires fewer steps; no pyruvate process ==> no lactase and no ROS--reactive oxygen species--created in the metabolic process, unlike in carbs processing and minimally from protein processing. Because there is no reason to activate the immune system for ROS and no need to get rid of the lactase, the fat-burning process is more efficient and thus "fewer consumed calories" yield "more usable calories" in the body. It is like comparing two identical cars (think identical twin human bodies) and one getting low octane fuel and the other high (one twin gets all carbs and the other all fat diet, respectively). The same energy (same calories in the two meals) but the two cars will go with different speed and for a different distance--the twins will gain different energy levels and get different levels of "usable energy" given the metabolic processes. Thus caloric comparison in terms of how much was consumed has no meaning.

Furthermore, since the fat-burning process is more efficient, eating fewer calories in the high-fat diet equals to calories digested and absorbed and used for energy, whereas in a higher carbs diet, the actual calories consumed doesn't equal to the calories absorbed and used for energy, because carbs metabolism is wasteful. So the difference in terms of caloric consumption differences come from the fact that different macronutrients absorb with different efficiency and so the actual "absorbed" usable calories available for the body from the high carbs versus a high fat diet differ.

I know of no study that has so far studied this beyond what is in text books that explain the differences--and are facts that all students/professionals of metabolism/medicine/biochemistry/physiology learn for over several decades as this is a class 101 material. Because of the more efficiency, fats are actually the body's preferred fuel. Here I include a screen capture from a textbook I happen to have in e-book format so I can capture a page from Metabolic Regulation from Frayn (https://www.amazon.com/Metabolic-Regulation-Perspective-Keith-Frayn-ebook/dp/B00BY3OSLY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1545427545&sr=8-1&keywords=Frayn+Metabolic+Regulation)

So USER:Alexbrn and others, who are not familiar with metabolism at all should not be babysitting a page for editing that they have no expertise in. Page edits and supervision of those edits should be left for those who know the material--such as it is in the peer review process.

The low carbohydrate page is completely wrong, outdated, even the ADA (as you wrote USER:RussNelson in your Talk) is already implementing low carbs diets bit Wikipedia decided that such is not to be published no matter what. Mind you ADA is a secondary source of information and must therefore be 'reliable" since it seems that Wikipedia only accepts something if it is referred to by others--be it wrong or right...

Hope this helps Astanton (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton


 * Yes, primary medical research is considered unreliable for Wikipedia's purposes. The ADA is a good source. Alexbrn (talk) 04:42, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, that wasn't me writing about the ADA's sea change. RussNelson (talk) 05:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

In response to user:Alexbrn in response to medical sources editing
If you are correct, then 50% of the citation need to be removed from Ancel Keys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys About 50% of the citation removed from Walter Willett: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Willett About 60% of the citations of Frank Hu The whole page of Eric Rimm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Rimm Most of the citations on the Nurses Health Study as they are primary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study Several citations of the Seven Country Study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Countries_Study And I can go on. user:Alexbrn I understand what the rules are but I see major inconsistencies and also am reading much about other people's general experience of trying to edit Wikipedia right. I can see that such is impossible because of the bureaucracy the editors have created within what they consider their fiefdom. I got it. Astanton (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton
 * I have not read or edited those article, so for all I know they may well have problems; many articles do. Our guidelines are clear. In general we do not use primary sources for WP:Biomedical information. But there are rare circumstances where primary sources are acceptable, such as for historial purposes, and overall there is no absolute prohibition on the use of primary sources, when used with appropriate care (e.g. for non-contoversial plain facts which fill in details of a topic). Alexbrn (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Alexbrn hoping I am doing this insertion right--no clue. Your not being responsible for other articles doesn't make it (or your action or lack thereof) right--we are trying to get some of those articles off. Using a single published book as a credible source (as it is now citation 11) is not meeting your criteria. There is inconsistency on your part. That sentence has no meaning in medicine and the citation is a joke and worse than the citations I am trying to add but I understand, you need a secondary source. The problem is time.

We just had a guy get the Nobel Price for research on cancer that everyone refused to cite or read or work with for 10 years because it was against everyone's views. Millions of people died while everyone was in denial in that 10 years and there: now he got the Nobel for what was ignored and ridiculed and all of a sudden now he is fine, reputable, reliable, and great. Does that make sense to you? I hope not.

Rules are only good if they work and are consistent. I will let wikipedia be as is and am giving up on my attempts at correcting this page because the research is new and I don't care one way or another if updated--my field is not nutrition and I get all my info on PubMed. I just found it an eye-sore and laughable reading the wikepedia entry. I suppose I just won't read it anymore--and most certainly won't fund it. Astanton (talk) 07:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton
 * What does "we are trying to get some of those articles off" mean? Who is we? Alexbrn (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

in response to user:RussNelson on ADA
Thanks user:RussNelson, it was hard to figure out who commented and what. In any case, ADA is a secondary source providing the same information I was trying to put in and cannot bypass user:Alexbrn. I did find it interesting that the ADA was considered to be a secondary source, after all, they just repeated the same article as a citation-equivalent. by no means is that a scientific secondary source.

The USDA guidelines are primary source--there is no way to place the USDA guideline into wiki without putting it in as a primary source. Also, releases from he FDA, CDC, and other agencies are all primary sources and there is no way to place them in here as secondary. So this dream about placing only secondary sources into wiki makes it unreliable, and not worth reading. Same with listing the Constitution. All primary. What's with needing secondary? Who on earth decided that secondary sources are better? Astanton (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Astanton
 * As WP:MEDRS says, "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies" are considered reliable sources. Alexbrn (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

ADA 2019 Standard for Medical Care in Diabetes booklet out to see
I have no intention to edit anything Alexbrn because I know you will remove whatever I post but just an update on a comment I tried to edit. I am also referring to a message I just received on one of my blogs from a friend that has your name attached to it and found it fascinating:

"There is NO long-term scientific evidence this fad diet has any health benefits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-carbohydrate_diet I have had low-carb cranks BANNED if they come anywhere near this article. Amanda ZZ and her sock-puppets were BANNED. The skeptics will always run Wikipedia. We have science on our side Astanton (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton]]. If any crank defenders of low-carb turn up, I will revert and get them banned Astanton (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton]]. I will not tolerate quackery. Skeptic from Britain and Jytdog may have left Wikipedia temporarily Astanton (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton]] but there are many any of us pro-science skeptics Astanton (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton]] left."

This is a lovely statement up front that is open for Jimmy to view--and I hope he enjoys it....

However, in the meantime the ADA released its 2019 recommendations and one of the articles it cites for the use of low carbs diets (indeed it recommends the low carbs diet!) is the one I wanted to cite:

So you are wrong. Low carbs is coming your way, whether it is cited in Wikipedia or not or whether you like it or not. None of us uses Wikipedia anymore and we just wish it to blow over one day when you are no longer an editor--perhaps your diet will help in that.

Bye Alexbrn! it wasn't lovely to chat with you and I am glad you will probably kick me off now. Honestly, the last thing I want to do is to have to convince people like you of anything.

Astanton (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Astaton
 * As discussed elsewhere, it seems I (and others, like ) have impersonators who go trolling on blogs. In fact looking at that blog I suspect one person is responsible for around half the posts with multiple fake identities, as a trolling exercise. I am not interested in these silly diet wars elsewhere on the web; I have informed Malcolm Kendrick I am being impersonated on his blog. As to the ADA: their position is well covered in multiple of our articles. They have been listing LC diets as an option for weight-loss for over a decade. Alexbrn (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________
 * So then Alexbrn, given that Wikipedia--supposedly--cites such secondary sources and reviews and considers them valid interpretation of science--particularly since the ADA sets the standard--what is your objection for changing that sentence??? As per Wikipedia guidelines, that sentence with "probably" is no longer valid (or scientific) since we know it is incorrect. The ADA reference is the one that should replace it, after all, it is the regulating body of what is and is not accepted as a scientific body of evidence. You are saying that you are aware that the ADA has been advocating the low carbs diet for some time, and given that now it is one of the recommended nutritional methods that is used to reverse type 2 diabetes, if this citation doesn't show up in Wikipedia, the blame of spreading false science--on this page--is yours. You are then possible to be called biased and an unprofessional Wikipedia editor.

Cheers Astanton (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton
 * We _do_ cite the ADA, and their position is accurately summarized. If you want to discuss article content you need to do so at the article's talk page (or at WT:MED where this has been discussed at length already). Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * this is the page that comes up for me for article talk Astanton (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton
 * This is your personal ("User talk") page. Hardly anybody will see it (well, apart from the fact you keep screenshotting bits of it onto twitter with a load of daft commentary). The _article_ talk page can be accessed via the "Talk" tab above the article itself. The link is here: Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet. Alexbrn (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * lol.. so you are watching. Good. So are others. You have most certainly earned a name. :) Astanton (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton
 * The trolls will come and go. However the Low-carbohydrate diet article will remain, and it consistently gets ~1,000 page views per day.. This is why it is important that it accurately reflects accepted knowledge on the topic, and does not contain bogus information. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do laugh at the impersonator, but I really don't care. I only use the name Roxy here. May I also say "hear, hear" to Alex. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 11:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "This is why it is important that it accurately reflects accepted knowledge on the topic, and does not contain bogus information." said you... but it does contain bogus information... majorly bogus. And it doesn't contain the real information, which is important to be posted there. Or are you saying that the ADA uses bogus information to help people with T2D? Mind you the note earlier you made was about LC was wrt weight loss. The ADA is recommending LC for T2D. Read the regulation. Also recommends that T2D's stop eating sugar, starches, non-caloric sweeteners, eat LC, and start drinking milk. You need to do a little reading. You are major ignorant and arrogant Alexbrn and far from being professional--like Wikipedia users expect. Most of the people coming to the Wiki page on low carbs have no idea what's going on in the background but that will only last for so long. Many Wiki pages are totally bogus. There will always be stupid people and glad to see Wiki cater to them and keep them stupid. Those who could really use your page are gone. Astanton (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Astanton
 * Many experienced editors have discussed/reviewed our ADA-related text and there is consensus we represent the ADA position well. But anyway you are just ranting now - if you want to raise a specific point do so at Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet where many people will see it and there is sure to be a response. I will not reply here again as this exchange is not proving productive. Alexbrn (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)