I actually think we'd get more attention and credit if our weight results were included in a national registry with the results of those using other approaches. As long as there's a chance to click on "paleo/ancestral" we could see how we stand within the whole.
I have a negative reaction to the AWLR because I'm not low-carb. Oh, I may be a day or 2 per week but I also have days with marrow broth but little meat.
I'm very turned off by the "low carb or paleo" phrase on the front page of AWLR. Are they taking a position that you have to be low carb to be paleo? Or that paleo and low carb are 2 different things? I disagree with both of those possible meanings.
Grrr. As I said on Twitter, I am ancestral. I am not low carb. I am not pleased.
FINAL EDIT/UPDATE: Based on Larry's responses below, and completing the questionnaire then thinking about it overnight, I am now much more comfortable with this projectbelieve the questionnaire is a harmless exercise that changes nothing but also won't do harm. I'd There is no statistical sample, the questions are not rigorous (for example, I checked many boxes and still prefer one national weight loss registry with useful stratifiers had to use Other on most questions) and I'd rather see "ancestral foods" than the self-reporting bias is huge. The people Larry hopes to reach are unlikely to respect this data. On the other hand, it was fun filling it out and I enjoyed the debate. I learned that, to my surprise, I can be defined as "low carb" on in the front page but it looks like overall American population--I'm so used to the data may be better stratified than benchmarks spoken on PH that I feared. So thought I can't have everything, right?was moderate- to high-carb and of course I am within this community.