Comments on: Tuesday’s Missing Link

By: Bannerman

Bannerman — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:00:56 +0000

Personally I think its suitable only for particularly credulous, uncritical pubescent boy computer gamers

Why am I not surprised, Ken?

By: Amanda

Amanda — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:17:21 +0000

This?
http://clubtroppo.com.au/2007/04/16/becoming-jane-a-lot-better-than-i-expected/

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:45:10 +0000

Hi, your search button won’t work for me – I’m trying to find Nick’s piece about Jane Austen: where should I be looking?

By: cs

cs — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:24:09 +0000

KP: Youd reckon it must be showing up as such in Coalition focus groups, otherwise they wouldnt be bashing this angle

Perhaps, but not necessarily, Ken. It can also be a sign of real trouble when a party (either of them) starts banging issues that play primarily to their own base. This is the standard way to re-establish traction, on which they can then build to swinging voter issues via focus groups etc.

By: hc

hc — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:02:10 +0000

The wikipedia entry you cite as being equivocal about the Aitkins diet is actually fairly strongly in favor of it – read the entry through to the end! Most of the critisisms of the diet – water loss, nausea, ineffectiveness have been discredited.

I wasn’t in fact arguing for the diet but to defend Atkin’s long held notion that it is the lack of control of sugar content rather than fat content that is the primary health problem. Also that fats are important to health and that some – e.g. olive oil, fats from cold water fish – might solve many health problems.

Atkins got a bum rap because he wrote at a time of mass ‘fat-phobia’. His basic inbsight was to say if we are cutting back fat intake so much why is obesity and diabetes 2 at at record levels. Does it have something to do with the fact that the average American kid drinks 200 litres of soft-drink per year each litre of which contains more than the daily recommended intake of sugar?