Hi:

The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
until such becomes available for $1-per-package?

http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=

I seriously wouldn't mind living off that stuff. Along with at least
30 minutes of vigorous aerobic exercise [preceded by warm-up and
stretch exercises], this would greatly increase the chances of living
a long, healthy life.


Thanks,

Green Xenon

P.S. Feel free to join that group

On 6/5/2010 6:47 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> Hi:
>
> The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
> until such becomes available for $1-per-package?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=

...

You wrote "If only this product existed and was affordable, I’d have no
problem living solely off it. "

My guess is that such food would necessarily be so highly processed that
you wouldn't live long at all.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"GreenXenon" > wrote in message
...
> Hi:
>
> The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
> until such becomes available for $1-per-package?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=
>
> I seriously wouldn't mind living off that stuff. Along with at least
> 30 minutes of vigorous aerobic exercise [preceded by warm-up and
> stretch exercises], this would greatly increase the chances of living
> a long, healthy life.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Green Xenon
>
> P.S. Feel free to join that group


vegan-friendly Now that's a turn on ...... NOT!

Dimitri

On Jun 6, 10:52*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> On 6/5/2010 6:47 PM, GreenXenon wrote:


>
> > Hi:
>
> > The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
> > until such becomes available for $1-per-package?
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=


>
> * *...
>
> You wrote "If only this product existed and was affordable, I’d have no
> problem living solely off it. "
>
> My guess is that such food would necessarily be so highly processed that
> you wouldn't live long at all.


Why would the processing decrease the health of the food?

On 6/6/2010 2:55 PM, Dimitri wrote:
> "GreenXenon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Hi:
>>
>> The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
>> until such becomes available for $1-per-package?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=
>>
>> I seriously wouldn't mind living off that stuff. Along with at least
>> 30 minutes of vigorous aerobic exercise [preceded by warm-up and
>> stretch exercises], this would greatly increase the chances of living
>> a long, healthy life.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Green Xenon
>>
>> P.S. Feel free to join that group
>
>
> vegan-friendly Now that's a turn on ...... NOT!

Sounds like he's looking for packaged rabbit-cud or something of that
nature.

In article
>,
GreenXenon > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 10:52*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:
>
>
> > On 6/5/2010 6:47 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > Hi:
> >
> > > The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
> > > until such becomes available for $1-per-package?
> >
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=
>
>
> >
> > * *...
> >
> > You wrote "If only this product existed and was affordable, I¹d have no
> > problem living solely off it. "
> >
> > My guess is that such food would necessarily be so highly processed that
> > you wouldn't live long at all.
>
>
> Why would the processing decrease the health of the food?

There actually is a "chow" made for Primates. Both Purina and Zupreem
make one:

http://www.angryman.ca/monkey.html

Might consider stocking a storm shelter with some, but I'd not want to
live on it. <g>

I sometimes get monkey biscuits for my cockatoo. She likes them.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

On 6/6/2010 3:09 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:52 am, Jerry > wrote:
>
>
>> On 6/5/2010 6:47 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> Hi:
>>
>>> The below link describes a health product I'm looking for. How long
>>> until such becomes available for $1-per-package?
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/healt...ble?hl=en&lnk=
>
>
>>
>> ...
>>
>> You wrote "If only this product existed and was affordable, I’d have no
>> problem living solely off it. "
>>
>> My guess is that such food would necessarily be so highly processed that
>> you wouldn't live long at all.
>
>
> Why would the processing decrease the health of the food?

Most nutritionists agree that natural food is better for long-term
health than processed food. Humans began to eat processed food only in
the last few thousand years. Our digestive systems' evolution occurred
mostly before that.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 6, 7:26*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> On 6/6/2010 3:09 PM, GreenXenon wrote:

>
> > Why would the processing decrease the health of the food?


>
> Most nutritionists agree that natural food is better for long-term
> health than processed food.


Depends. In this case of my hypothetical product, the processing
removes only undesirable substances.

In article
>,
GreenXenon > wrote:

> On Jun 6, 7:26*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
>
>
> > On 6/6/2010 3:09 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
> >
> > > Why would the processing decrease the health of the food?
>
>
> >
> > Most nutritionists agree that natural food is better for long-term
> > health than processed food.
>
>
> Depends. In this case of my hypothetical product, the processing
> removes only undesirable substances.

The whole history of processing foods shows that as we take out the
unnecessary stuff, like bran, then we discover that we have removed
things that are necessary. Lots of processing removed or destroyed
vitamins, but since we hadn't discovered them yet, we didn't miss them
until people started developing vitamin deficiencies. Once we removed
all the unnecessary stuff and got food down to it's basic sugar, fat and
protein, we found out that those weren't sufficient for good health.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Jun 6, 10:17*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:


> The whole history of processing foods shows that as we take out the
> unnecessary stuff, like bran, then we discover that we have removed
> things that are necessary.


In my case, the opposite would be done. Keep the bran, but remove the
starches/sugars.


> Lots of processing removed or destroyed
> vitamins, but since we hadn't discovered them yet, we didn't miss them
> until people started developing vitamin deficiencies. *


What if the processing does not remove/damage vitamins or other
nutrients [as in the case of my hypothetical product]?


> Once we removed
> all the unnecessary stuff and got food down to it's basic sugar, fat and
> protein, we found out that those weren't sufficient for good health.


From what you're saying, the necessary stuff was removed.

On 6/7/2010 4:02 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 6, 10:17 pm, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>> The whole history of processing foods shows that as we take out the
>> unnecessary stuff, like bran, then we discover that we have removed
>> things that are necessary.
>
>
> In my case, the opposite would be done. Keep the bran, but remove the
> starches/sugars.
>
>
>> Lots of processing removed or destroyed
>> vitamins, but since we hadn't discovered them yet, we didn't miss them
>> until people started developing vitamin deficiencies.
>
>
> What if the processing does not remove/damage vitamins or other
> nutrients [as in the case of my hypothetical product]?
>
>
>> Once we removed
>> all the unnecessary stuff and got food down to it's basic sugar, fat and
>> protein, we found out that those weren't sufficient for good health.
>
>
> From what you're saying, the necessary stuff was removed.

But nobody at the time knew it was necessary. We don't know much now
either. A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
processed) flour are words for your constitution than saturated fat
(which turns out to be not that bad after all.)

Your hypothetical product reminds me of your plan to record a CD's worth
of music in a fraction of a bit. Your faith in your understanding of how
things work is hardly justified.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On 6/7/2010 4:15 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:

...

> either. A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
> processed) flour are words for your constitution ...
worse

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 7, 1:15*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
> processed) flour are words for your constitution


Huh?

On 6/7/2010 10:42 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:15 pm, Jerry > wrote:
>
>
>> A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
>> processed) flour are words for your constitution

Not words, worse. I corrected the typo at 4:26.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 7, 8:28*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> On 6/7/2010 10:42 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 1:15 pm, Jerry > *wrote:
>
> >> A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
> >> processed) flour are words for your constitution
>
> Not words, worse. I corrected the typo at 4:26.
>
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.


My hypothetical product has all the digestible-starches [i.e. "whites"
of the grains] removed.

On 6/8/2010 9:47 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:28 pm, Jerry > wrote:
>> On 6/7/2010 10:42 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 7, 1:15 pm, Jerry > wrote:
>>
>>>> A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
>>>> processed) flour are words for your constitution
>>
>> Not words, worse. I corrected the typo at 4:26.
>>
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>>
>> Jerry
>> --
>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
>
> My hypothetical product has all the digestible-starches [i.e. "whites"
> of the grains] removed.

And what else that you don't know about? Actually, what you don't know
isn't nearly as bad for you as the things you think you know but really
don't. You once thought you knew how to sample a signal, remember?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 8, 7:05*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> On 6/8/2010 9:47 AM, GreenXenon wrote:


>
>
>
> > On Jun 7, 8:28 pm, Jerry > *wrote:


> >> On 6/7/2010 10:42 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 7, 1:15 pm, Jerry > * *wrote:


>
> >>>> A recent report suggests that foods made from white (i.e.,
> >>>> processed) flour are words for your constitution
>


> >> Not words, worse. I corrected the typo at 4:26.
>
> >>http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...against-cardio
>
> >> Jerry
> >> --
> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get..
>


> > My hypothetical product has all the digestible-starches [i.e. "whites"
> > of the grains] removed.
>


> And what else that you don't know about?


What if the removal process only removes the sugars, digestible
starches, saturated fats, and other substances [mentioned in the
welcome message of my group] not beneficial for health?


> You once thought you knew how to sample a signal, remember?


Yes.

On 6/8/2010 10:59 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 8, 7:05 am, Jerry > wrote:

...

>> And what else that you don't know about?
>
>
> What if the removal process only removes the sugars, digestible
> starches, saturated fats, and other substances [mentioned in the
> welcome message of my group] not beneficial for health?

Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
not? Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
prescription? Here's one last thing for you to think about: if the
"white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left? Whole wheat wouldn't
be whole without it.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 8, 8:19*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
> not?


No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
calories.


> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
> prescription?


Usually the latter.


> if the
> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?


The fiber.

In article
>,
GreenXenon > wrote:

> On Jun 8, 7:05*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:
>
>
> > On 6/8/2010 9:47 AM, GreenXenon wrote:

> > > My hypothetical product has all the digestible-starches [i.e. "whites"
> > > of the grains] removed.
> >
>
>
> > And what else that you don't know about?
>
>
> What if the removal process only removes the sugars, digestible
> starches, saturated fats, and other substances [mentioned in the
> welcome message of my group] not beneficial for health?

There's an applicable saying for this:

"What if pigs could fly?"

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 6/8/2010 11:49 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Jerry > wrote:
>
>
>> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
>> not?
>
>
> No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
> calories.

You wouldn't last a month without calories. When is a calorie full?

>> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
>> prescription?
>
>
> Usually the latter.

Right. One diet for everybody. Milk for the lactose intolerant. Nuts for
the seriously allergic.

>> if the
>> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?
>
>
> The fiber.

Why bother growing wheat for the fiber only? Nearly any grass will do. I
would have thought that you'd have grown up by now.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> On 6/8/2010 11:49 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Jerry > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
> >> not?
> >
> >
> > No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
> > calories.
>
> You wouldn't last a month without calories. When is a calorie full?
>
> >> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
> >> prescription?
> >
> >
> > Usually the latter.
>
> Right. One diet for everybody. Milk for the lactose intolerant. Nuts for
> the seriously allergic.
>
> >> if the
> >> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?
> >
> >
> > The fiber.
>
> Why bother growing wheat for the fiber only? Nearly any grass will do. I
> would have thought that you'd have grown up by now.


"No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty calories."

GreenXenon might want to study up on nutrition then come back later with a
more educated theory. Good grief! :-O

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Jun 8, 2:55*pm, Gary > wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote:
>
> > On 6/8/2010 11:49 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
> > > On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Jerry > *wrote:
>
> > >> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
> > >> not?
>
> > > No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
> > > calories.
>
> > You wouldn't last a month without calories. When is a calorie full?
>
> > >> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
> > >> prescription?
>
> > > Usually the latter.
>
> > Right. One diet for everybody. Milk for the lactose intolerant. Nuts for
> > the seriously allergic.
>
> > >> if the
> > >> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?
>
> > > The fiber.
>
> > Why bother growing wheat for the fiber only? Nearly any grass will do. I
> > would have thought that you'd have grown up by now.
>
> "No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty calories."
>
> GreenXenon might want to study up on nutrition then come back later with a
> more educated theory. *Good grief! *:-O
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---


In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones and
free fatty acids for energy.

On Jun 8, 10:29*am, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> On 6/8/2010 11:49 AM, GreenXenon wrote:


>
> > On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Jerry > *wrote:


>
> >> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
> >> not?


>
> > No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
> > calories.


>
> You wouldn't last a month without calories.
>


True. However, when digestible starch is absent in the diet, the body
starts using lipids and their byproducts for calories.


> >> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
> >> prescription?
>


> > Usually the latter.
>


> Right. One diet for everybody. Milk for the lactose intolerant. Nuts for
> the seriously allergic.
>


1. My hypothetical product does not have lactose in it. It is vegan.
Assuming it did have lactose, the processing would remove it as it is
a simple sugar

2. Nuts cause allergies in patients due to un-digested proteins. While
my product does contain nuts, their proteins are pre-digested and thus
broken down to amino acids. This prevents allergic reactions that
would otherwise occur.


> >> if the
> >> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?
>


> > The fiber.


> Why bother growing wheat for the fiber only? Nearly any grass will do.


Actually oats are better than wheat or grass. Oats contain more
soluble fiber than wheat. Wheat fiber is mostly insoluble. Soluble
fiber has benefits that insoluble fiber doesn't.

On 6/8/2010 6:50 PM, GreenXenon wrote:

...

> In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones and
> free fatty acids for energy.

Why do you suppose that ketones and free fatty acids are second choice?
You don't knpw half what you think you do. I don't know much either, but
I don't kid myself that I do.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 8, 4:09*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:


> On 6/8/2010 6:50 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
> * *...
>


> > In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones and
> > free fatty acids for energy.


>
> Why do you suppose that ketones and free fatty acids are second choice?


I'm not sure.

On 6/8/2010 9:59 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> On Jun 8, 4:09 pm, Jerry > wrote:
>
>
>> On 6/8/2010 6:50 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>
>
>>> In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones and
>>> free fatty acids for energy.
>
>
>>
>> Why do you suppose that ketones and free fatty acids are second choice?
>
>
> I'm not sure.

Try to guess. When something needs glueing and I run out of Titebond, I
use Elmer's.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Jun 8, 8:47*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> On 6/8/2010 9:59 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 4:09 pm, Jerry > *wrote:
>
> >> On 6/8/2010 6:50 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
> >> * * ...
>
> >>> In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones and
> >>> free fatty acids for energy.
>
> >> Why do you suppose that ketones and free fatty acids are second choice?
>
> > I'm not sure.
>
> Try to guess. When something needs glueing and I run out of Titebond, I
> use Elmer's.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.


Glucose is more efficient than fatty-acids/ketones. However, this
metabolic efficiency also leads to obesity [and associated health
risks] when calorie input exceeds energy output.

In article
>,
GreenXenon > wrote:

> On Jun 8, 8:47*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> > On 6/8/2010 9:59 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 8, 4:09 pm, Jerry > *wrote:
> >
> > >> On 6/8/2010 6:50 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
> >
> > >> * * ...
> >
> > >>> In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones and
> > >>> free fatty acids for energy.
> >
> > >> Why do you suppose that ketones and free fatty acids are second choice?
> >
> > > I'm not sure.
> >
> > Try to guess. When something needs glueing and I run out of Titebond, I
> > use Elmer's.
> >
> > Jerry
> > --
> > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>
>
> Glucose is more efficient than fatty-acids/ketones. However, this
> metabolic efficiency also leads to obesity [and associated health
> risks] when calorie input exceeds energy output.

So in other words, eat less and move more?

There's a new concept...<g>

I am actually a devoted low carber, but the years have taught me three
things. It does not work for everyone even tho' it works for me, and
low carb does not mean NO carb.

The third thing is that total calories still count no matter what diet
you mess with. Output must be higher than input in order to burn the
flab off.

Diet concepts do not change physics.

Elite athletes often NEED simple carbs to stay functional. Couch
potatoes don't.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

what i find is very similar, total calories makes for weight loss/gain...for
me kind of calories affect general health/well being and condition... Lee
"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article
> >,
> GreenXenon > wrote:
>
>> On Jun 8, 8:47 pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
>> > On 6/8/2010 9:59 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > On Jun 8, 4:09 pm, Jerry > wrote:
>> >
>> > >> On 6/8/2010 6:50 PM, GreenXenon wrote:
>> >
>> > >> ...
>> >
>> > >>> In the absence of digestible starches, the body will use ketones
>> > >>> and
>> > >>> free fatty acids for energy.
>> >
>> > >> Why do you suppose that ketones and free fatty acids are second
>> > >> choice?
>> >
>> > > I'm not sure.
>> >
>> > Try to guess. When something needs glueing and I run out of Titebond, I
>> > use Elmer's.
>> >
>> > Jerry
>> > --
>> > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
>>
>>
>> Glucose is more efficient than fatty-acids/ketones. However, this
>> metabolic efficiency also leads to obesity [and associated health
>> risks] when calorie input exceeds energy output.
>
> So in other words, eat less and move more?
>
> There's a new concept...<g>
>
> I am actually a devoted low carber, but the years have taught me three
> things. It does not work for everyone even tho' it works for me, and
> low carb does not mean NO carb.
>
> The third thing is that total calories still count no matter what diet
> you mess with. Output must be higher than input in order to burn the
> flab off.
>
> Diet concepts do not change physics.
>
> Elite athletes often NEED simple carbs to stay functional. Couch
> potatoes don't.
> --
> Peace! Om
>
> Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
> Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food
> groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On Jun 8, 1:29*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> On 6/8/2010 11:49 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Jerry > *wrote:
>
> >> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
> >> not?
>
> > No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
> > calories.
>
> You wouldn't last a month without calories. When is a calorie full?
>
> >> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
> >> prescription?
>
> > Usually the latter.
>
> Right. One diet for everybody. Milk for the lactose intolerant. Nuts for
> the seriously allergic.
>
> >> if the
> >> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?
>
> > The fiber.
>
> Why bother growing wheat for the fiber only? Nearly any grass will do. I
> would have thought that you'd have grown up by now.

It's not that he's immature; it's that he's mentally ill.

On 6/9/2010 9:23 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Jun 8, 1:29 pm, Jerry > wrote:
>> On 6/8/2010 11:49 AM, GreenXenon wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 8:19 am, Jerry > wrote:
>>
>>>> Which digestible starches, for example, are beneficial and which are
>>>> not?
>>
>>> No digestible starch is beneficial. All of them are just empty
>>> calories.
>>
>> You wouldn't last a month without calories. When is a calorie full?
>>
>>>> Does an individual's genetic makeup matter, or is there a universal
>>>> prescription?
>>
>>> Usually the latter.
>>
>> Right. One diet for everybody. Milk for the lactose intolerant. Nuts for
>> the seriously allergic.
>>
>>>> if the
>>>> "white" of wheat grains is removed, what is left?
>>
>>> The fiber.
>>
>> Why bother growing wheat for the fiber only? Nearly any grass will do. I
>> would have thought that you'd have grown up by now.
>
> It's not that he's immature; it's that he's mentally ill.

Maybe that also, but the simplistic notions that more must be better if
a little is good, and none is acceptable if too much is bad are surely
signs of immaturity.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Stormmee wrote:
>
> what i find is very similar, total calories makes for weight loss/gain...for
> me kind of calories affect general health/well being and condition...

Well yeah.
complex carbs give you the energy to do what you want to do.
eat more fat than recommended and you will fell sluggish
No one needs more than 5% protein unless they are trying to build muscle

For healthy people that want to stay healthy, the old food pyramid is the
proper guideline.
- 60-65 percent carbohydrates
- 30-35 percent fat
- 5 percent protein

Exercise aerobically at least 3 times a week for 20 minutes each plus some
non-aerobic strength training regularly.

And of course, don't eat more calories that you burn in a day. Your
lifestyle/activity level should dictate your caloric intake.

That said, I realize that people with diabetes have to be on a low carb diet
but that's not the best option...it's only because they can't feed the
disease. If you don't get enough carbs in your diet, your body will convert
fat calories into sugars. But that's a harder process and will make you
feel sluggish if you are an active person.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 6/9/2010 4:58 PM, Gary wrote:
> Stormmee wrote:
>>
>> what i find is very similar, total calories makes for weight loss/gain...for
>> me kind of calories affect general health/well being and condition...
>
> Well yeah.
> complex carbs give you the energy to do what you want to do.
> eat more fat than recommended and you will fell sluggish
> No one needs more than 5% protein unless they are trying to build muscle
>
> For healthy people that want to stay healthy, the old food pyramid is the
> proper guideline.
> - 60-65 percent carbohydrates
> - 30-35 percent fat
> - 5 percent protein
>
> Exercise aerobically at least 3 times a week for 20 minutes each plus some
> non-aerobic strength training regularly.
>
> And of course, don't eat more calories that you burn in a day. Your
> lifestyle/activity level should dictate your caloric intake.
>
> That said, I realize that people with diabetes have to be on a low carb diet
> but that's not the best option...it's only because they can't feed the
> disease. If you don't get enough carbs in your diet, your body will convert
> fat calories into sugars. But that's a harder process and will make you
> feel sluggish if you are an active person.

You know, there's more to weight gain than is in the books. If your
weight is steady -- your calorie intake and exercise in perfect balance
-- and you eat an extra saltine a day, theory predicts that you would
gain several pounds a year. That clearly doesn't happen, so there must
be some regulatory mechanism. I recently went on a week-long vacation
trip and ate, pardon the expression, like a pig. I came home six pounds
heavier than when I left. I lost five of that over the next week, during
which I ate all I wanted. It's not only how much I eat, but how
efficiently I absorb it that matters. I may be luckier than most.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

i think the amount of carbs you list is too high for more than diabetics,
don't get me wrong, i would love to eat at that percentage, but i wold puff
up even if calories were less than i burn, i have a very effecient metabolic
rate, and while i can eat some carbs the whiter they are the worse for
overall weight loss, i lose but at a much slower rate, diet, food plan
whatever, is NEVER in my experience a one size fits all thing, Lee
"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Stormmee wrote:
>>
>> what i find is very similar, total calories makes for weight
>> loss/gain...for
>> me kind of calories affect general health/well being and condition...
>
> Well yeah.
> complex carbs give you the energy to do what you want to do.
> eat more fat than recommended and you will fell sluggish
> No one needs more than 5% protein unless they are trying to build muscle
>
> For healthy people that want to stay healthy, the old food pyramid is the
> proper guideline.
> - 60-65 percent carbohydrates
> - 30-35 percent fat
> - 5 percent protein
>
> Exercise aerobically at least 3 times a week for 20 minutes each plus some
> non-aerobic strength training regularly.
>
> And of course, don't eat more calories that you burn in a day. Your
> lifestyle/activity level should dictate your caloric intake.
>
> That said, I realize that people with diabetes have to be on a low carb
> diet
> but that's not the best option...it's only because they can't feed the
> disease. If you don't get enough carbs in your diet, your body will
> convert
> fat calories into sugars. But that's a harder process and will make you
> feel sluggish if you are an active person.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

this is the differental that many do not take into consideration, for me and
a few others, eating something with a face is what has helped me to lose
weight more than almost everything else, of course portion control,
exercise, and all that, but if i eat red meat twice to three times a week,
everything else being equal i will lose a pound rather an a half pound...
Lee
"Jerry Avins" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/9/2010 4:58 PM, Gary wrote:
>> Stormmee wrote:
>>>
>>> what i find is very similar, total calories makes for weight
>>> loss/gain...for
>>> me kind of calories affect general health/well being and condition...
>>
>> Well yeah.
>> complex carbs give you the energy to do what you want to do.
>> eat more fat than recommended and you will fell sluggish
>> No one needs more than 5% protein unless they are trying to build
>> muscle
>>
>> For healthy people that want to stay healthy, the old food pyramid is the
>> proper guideline.
>> - 60-65 percent carbohydrates
>> - 30-35 percent fat
>> - 5 percent protein
>>
>> Exercise aerobically at least 3 times a week for 20 minutes each plus
>> some
>> non-aerobic strength training regularly.
>>
>> And of course, don't eat more calories that you burn in a day. Your
>> lifestyle/activity level should dictate your caloric intake.
>>
>> That said, I realize that people with diabetes have to be on a low carb
>> diet
>> but that's not the best option...it's only because they can't feed the
>> disease. If you don't get enough carbs in your diet, your body will
>> convert
>> fat calories into sugars. But that's a harder process and will make you
>> feel sluggish if you are an active person.
>
> You know, there's more to weight gain than is in the books. If your weight
> is steady -- your calorie intake and exercise in perfect balance -- and
> you eat an extra saltine a day, theory predicts that you would gain
> several pounds a year. That clearly doesn't happen, so there must be some
> regulatory mechanism. I recently went on a week-long vacation trip and
> ate, pardon the expression, like a pig. I came home six pounds heavier
> than when I left. I lost five of that over the next week, during which I
> ate all I wanted. It's not only how much I eat, but how efficiently I
> absorb it that matters. I may be luckier than most.
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

In article >,
"Stormmee" > wrote:

> what i find is very similar, total calories makes for weight loss/gain...for
> me kind of calories affect general health/well being and condition... Lee

Yes. The body has to work a little harder to use protein carbs than
starch carbs.
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
*Only Irish *coffee provides in a single glass all four *essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar *and fat. --Alex Levine

Stormmee wrote:
>
> i think the amount of carbs you list is too high for more than diabetics,
> don't get me wrong, i would love to eat at that percentage, but i wold puff
> up even if calories were less than i burn, i have a very effecient metabolic
> rate

Please allow me to disagee there. If you do the math, you will *always*
lose weight if you eat less calories than you burn. Remember this though -
once you start a diet and eat less calories (than you burn), your body will
sense that it's starving and will slow down your metabolism to conserve
calories. That's why it's imperative to exercise aerobically during that
time. The exercise will raise your metabolism and even keep it higher for
several hours.

If you don't exercise, each day your calorie requirement will get lower.
Eventually, your body will start converting stored fat into sugars to fuel
your muscles. This is when you start to lose true weight, not just water
weight.

If you get too low on the body fat percentage, it will convert to using
muscle tissue to turn into sugars. This is the point that you are TOO
skinny and starts to become dangerous for your health. Your heart is also a
muscle and will get slowly eaten away.

This is not just "my" personal opinion. No need to argue the point. I can
go on if you still disagree though.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

Stormmee wrote:
>
> this is the differental that many do not take into consideration, for me and
> a few others, eating something with a face is what has helped me to lose
> weight more than almost everything else,

So many people have never done the research on their own. This is why all
the different fad diets get so popular (but only for a short while). I've
done the research. Here's a few "foods with faces" facts I'll bet you didn't
know. heheh

Did you know that soy beans have faces? They are very friendly too, btw.
http://i45.tinypic.com/smwzes.jpg

And also cauliflower? Who ever would have guessed this one?
http://i47.tinypic.com/16jh6rd.jpg

Ever ask yourself where kiwi fruit comes from?
http://i46.tinypic.com/2guioa1.gif

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

agree about everything in a general way, but i took medications that
affected my metabolic rate... as an example, I once went on a very low
calorie plan, balanced, the DH prepared accrording to the plan, it was 400
calories a day... i walked 30 minutes a day... i did it all perfectly, and
after the 31 day program i gained a half pound...

my point is that "in general" there are rules/conventions but food
intake/nutrition/and calorie usage is NOT a one size fits all, the
"generalities" are a good starting place but that is all they are. I found
that part of my issue is that i need to eat more food that once had a face.
I don't dislike most meat it just doesn't occur to me to eat it, beyond some
greasy thing i never think "oh i want a steak" after years of research and
trial and error i am very slowly losing weight but the biggest part after
portion control is the balance of food for MY body...

Lee
"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Stormmee wrote:
>>
>> i think the amount of carbs you list is too high for more than diabetics,
>> don't get me wrong, i would love to eat at that percentage, but i wold
>> puff
>> up even if calories were less than i burn, i have a very effecient
>> metabolic
>> rate
>
> Please allow me to disagee there. If you do the math, you will *always*
> lose weight if you eat less calories than you burn. Remember this though -
> once you start a diet and eat less calories (than you burn), your body
> will
> sense that it's starving and will slow down your metabolism to conserve
> calories. That's why it's imperative to exercise aerobically during that
> time. The exercise will raise your metabolism and even keep it higher for
> several hours.
>
> If you don't exercise, each day your calorie requirement will get lower.
> Eventually, your body will start converting stored fat into sugars to fuel
> your muscles. This is when you start to lose true weight, not just water
> weight.
>
> If you get too low on the body fat percentage, it will convert to using
> muscle tissue to turn into sugars. This is the point that you are TOO
> skinny and starts to become dangerous for your health. Your heart is also
> a
> muscle and will get slowly eaten away.
>
> This is not just "my" personal opinion. No need to argue the point. I can
> go on if you still disagree though.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---