Thanks Ann, this will help me in making my decision about purchasing knfb. It looks like Prismo actually did the better job of all. That is, it seems to have chunked out the text into proper paragraphs better then either knFB or text grabber. KnFB seems to have placed it all into one long paragraph while text grabber seem to chunk it out in way too many paragraphs.
I have the stand scan pro with the 12 V adapter coming soon and I'll probably give it a good workout using Prizmo. If that suits my needs then I won't spend the hundred dollars for knfb. Thanks a lot for your efforts here this was great. Sent from my IPhone > On Sep 4, 2015, at 6:14 AM, Anne Robertson <a...@anarchie.org.uk> wrote: > > Hello Phil, > > Below my signature are three versions of the same page from a book scanned > using the StandScan Pro with the 12 v battery pack. I used Prizmo, KNFBReader > and TextGrabber. > > Cheers, > > Anne > > Prizmo > The "Modern" History of Carbohydrate Restriction > > clear from the beginning that the outcome would be in favor of reduced > dietary fat and cholesterol independent of what the science showed. > Unfortunately, this bureaucratic intransigence in the face of data has not > slackened. After their initial goals and guidelines between 1977 and 1980, > the results of the MRFIT and LRC studies came in and were summarily ignored. > Starting from Dr. Handler's position in 1980 "Those who argue either position > strongly are expressing their values; they are not making scientific > judgments", the MRFIT study gave a negative result and the LRC study came out > statistically even. Nonetheless, the advocacy for a low fat, low cholesterol > national policy lumbered forward. > > Why? By the mid1980s, what had changed was that now the academic mainstream > decided that there was more butter (or maybe 'low fat spread' better fits the > analogy) on the 'conformity side of the bread'. No one within the academic > community with Dr. Handler's courage and stature chose to stand up to > question the king's wardrobe. But because the MRFIT and LRC studies had > 'failed', and also becauseboth of these large studies had failed to included > women as subjects, it was decided that a new study should be done to > demonstrate the benefits of a low fat, high carbohydrate diet in women. > > The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) > > The ultimate, and also the most expensive, test of the low fat heart disease > hypothesis was the WHI launched in 1991. This massive study of 50,000 women > tried to simultaneously address a number of health issues in women, including > (but not limited to) the purported benefits of a low fat diet. The > participants were randomized to various treatments, including a group that > was aggressively counseled to reduce their dietary fat to 20% of daily energy > intake (which implies a goal of at least 65% of energy from carbohydrate). > After 8 years, when the WHI investigators tallied the data, this low fat > group was found to have no reduction in heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, > or colon cancer compared to the group that stayed on their usual diet (about > 37% fat). Simply put, a vigorously promoted low fat diet rich in complex > carbohydrates, fruits and vegetables didn't seem to be all that healthful a > > KNFBReader > The 'Modern" History of Carbohydrate Restriction clear from the beginning > that the outcome would be in favor of reduced dietary fat and cholesterol > independent of what the science showed. Unfortunately, this bureaucratic > intransigence in the face of data has not slackened. After their initial > goals and guidelines between 1977 and 1980, the results of the MRFIT and LRC > studies came in and were summarily ignored. Starting from Dr. Handlers > position in 1980 "Those who argue either position strongly are expressing > their values; they are not making sci- entific judgments", the MRFIT study > gave a negative result and the LRC study came out statistically even. > Nonetheless, the advocacy for a low fat, low cholesterol national policy > lumbered forward. Why? By the mid 1980s, what had changed was that now the > academic mainstream decided that there was more butter (or maybe 'low fat > spread' better fits the analogy) on the 'conformity side of the bread; No one > within the academic community with Dr. Handlers courage and stature chose to > stand up to question the king's wardrobe. But because the MRFIT and LRC > studies had 'failed, and also because both of these large studies had failed > to included women as subjects, it was decided that a new study should be done > to demonstrate the benefits of a low fat, high carbohydrate diet in women. > The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) The ultimate, and also the most > expensive, test of the low fat heart disease hypothesis was the WHI launched > in 1991. This massive study of 50,000 women tried to simultaneously address a > number of health issues in women, mduding (but not limited to) the purported > benefits of a low fat diet. The participants were randomized to various > treatments, including a group that was aggressively counseled to reduce their > dietary fat to 20% of daily energy intake (which implies a goal of at least > 65% of energy from carbohydrate). After 8 years, when the WHI investigators > tallied the data, this low fat group was found to have no reduction in heart > disease, stroke, breast cancer, or colon cancer compared to the group that > stayed on their usual diet (about 37% fat). Simply put, a vigorously promoted > low fat diet rich in complex carbohydrates, fruits and vegetables didn't seem > to be all that healthful af- > > TextGrabber > > Ite. A > The "Modern" History of Carbohydrate Restriction > dear from the beginning that the outcome would be in favor of reduced > dietary fat and cholesterol independent of what the science showed. > Unfortunately, this bureaucratic intransigence in the face of data has not > slackened. After their initial goals and guidelines between 1977 and 1980, > the results of the MRFIT and LRC studies came in and were summarily > ignored. Starting from Dr. Handler's position in 1980 "Those who argue either > position strongly are expressing their values; they are not making scientific > judgments", the MRFIT study gave a negative result and the LRC study came out > statistically even. Nonetheless, the advocacy for a low fat, > low cholesterol national policy lumbered forward. > Why? By the mid 1980s, what had changed was that now the academic mainstream > decided that there was more butter (or maybe low fat spread' > better fits the analogy) on the conformity side of the bread; No one within > the academic community with Dr. Handler's courage and stature chose to stand > up to question the kings wardrobe. But because the MRFIT and LRC studies had > 'failed; and also because both of these large studies had failed to > included women as subjects, it was decided that a new study shoiild be done > to demonstrate the benefits of a low fat, high carbohydrate diet in women. > The Women's Health Initiative (WHI) > The ultimate, and also the most expensive, test of the low fat heart disease > hypothesis was the WHI launched in 1991. This massive study of 50,000 women > tried to simultaneously address a number of health issues in women, > including (but not limited to) the purported benefits of a low fat diet. The > participants were randomized to various treatments, including a group that > was aggressively counseled to reduce their dietary fat to 20% of daily energy > intake (which ùnplies a goal of at least 65% of energy from carbohydrate). > After 8 years, when the WHI investigators tallied the data, this low fat > group was found to have no reduction in heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, > or colon cancer compared to the group that stayed on their usual diet (about > 37% fat). Simply put, a vigorously promoted low fat diet rich in complex > carbohydrates, fruits and vegetables didn't seem to be all that healthful af•• > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MacVisionaries" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to macvisionaries+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to macvisionaries@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
