General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Richard Periut
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

First of all, if your internist has to refer you to a subspecialist, for
every disease you have, then he / she is not a well rounded physician,
but a quack Rx writer--and they are abundant indeed.

Subspecialists should only be used for unusual cases.

True, physicians are not God, it's impossible for physicians to know
everything. He / she should admit that right away. That is a sign of an
honest, and probably well respected doctor.

Richard

Dan Abel wrote:

> In article >, Katra
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Levelwave© wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Periut wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I could go on and on about correcting the absurdities I've been reading
>>>>here over that past days, but no amount of posting is going to change
>>>>their fixations.

>
>
>
>>>Would you like to explain to me what makes you the authority you so
>>>claim to be?... And if you say - "I'm a Doctor" - then your opinion is
>>>no more valid than that of a typical high school lunch lady... Most
>>>Doctors (unless it's a personal hobby) have little to no training in
>>>nutrition outside of the *one* class they (rarely) attend in med school...

>
>
>
>>ROFL! Too damned true!!! :-)
>>I've actually asked the doc's at work about nutritional stuff, and they
>>admit to knowing nada, except for Dr. Gitterle who has taken personal

>
>
>
> We've long passed the time when "doctor knows best", and especially the
> concept that any doctor knows every thing about every health issue. My
> doctor found my cholesterol too high, so he referred me to the Cholesterol
> Management Program. My doctor diagnosed diabetes, so I was referred to a
> diabetes specialist, who does nothing but diabetes. For both of these, I
> attended workshops with other patients with the same issue. In both
> workshops they brought in a dietician. In all these cases, my HMO saved a
> bundle of money, because these specialists are a lot cheaper than
> doctors. Training doctors in nutrition doesn't make sense, since they
> can't treat patients while they are in training, and it is expensive to
> have a doctor explain basic nutrition and provide counseling to patients.
>
>
> However, this thread is not just about nutrition, it is about medication
> and lifestyle changes. I would expect doctors who treat high cholesterol
> to be familiar with all these issues, much more than the typical high
> school lunch lady.
>


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Arri London
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Katra wrote:
>
> Arri London wrote:
> >
> > Katra wrote:
> > >
> > > Dimitri wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Katra" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Levelwave© wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > > Zocor almost killed Mark's wife. :-(
> > > > > It caused her to have a stroke and throw multiple blood clots to the
> > > > > lungs... It's a known side effect according to the PDR.
> > > >
> > > > I what incedents? How many out of 1000 people? Then how was it documents
> > > > that Zocor was the specific cause?
> > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'd try diet and EXERCISE (get off your fat ass and go to
> > > > > the gym) before trying statins!
> > > >
> > > > Your choice.
> > > >
> > > > Dimitri
> > >
> > > Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
> > >
> > > K.
> > >

> >
> > I did. There is *no* mention of clotting in the adverse events section
> > for Zocor.
> > Not in the section for what was reported in up to 1 percent of patients,
> > and not in the section for what was reported in up to 0.5 percent of
> > patients (and those are reported regardless of causality).
> > Those numbers are based on a Swedish study of over 4000 patients and the
> > well-reported Heart Study of over 20,000 patients.

>
> You are right. I was wrong, I already admitted this in my previous
> post... I made the mistake of listening to someone who did not do the
> research and was going anecdotally. Bad mistake. Especially posting it! <cringe>
>
> I, too, followed my own advice and looked it up in the PDR. Plenty of
> other bad stuff, but no blood clotting. I'm going to have to tell Mark. :-)


Blood clotting is common in a variety of groups of patients. It could
have been unfortunate timing.


>
> >
> > Various anaemias and other indications of red cell destruction are
> > reported, as well as forms of vasculitis and sed rate increases (which
> > is not clotting) and these are indicative of hypersensitivity.
> >
> > Muscle destruction and damage to the liver are the most common adverse
> > events.

>
> And kidney damage from the Rhabdomyolysis from the myalgia.... :-P
>
> Bad enough tho' wouldn't you say?
>
> Thanks!
> K.
>
>


That's why most statin-using patients are monitored closely. And in the
prescribing info, the prescriber is supposed to tell the patient about
muscle pains and weakness.
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dan Abel
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

In article >, Richard Periut
> wrote:


> Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > In article >, Katra
> > > wrote:


> > doctor found my cholesterol too high, so he referred me to the Cholesterol
> > Management Program. My doctor diagnosed diabetes, so I was referred to a
> > diabetes specialist, who does nothing but diabetes. For both of these, I
> > attended workshops with other patients with the same issue. In both
> > workshops they brought in a dietician. In all these cases, my HMO saved a
> > bundle of money, because these specialists are a lot cheaper than
> > doctors. Training doctors in nutrition doesn't make sense, since they



> First of all, if your internist has to refer you to a subspecialist, for
> every disease you have, then he / she is not a well rounded physician,
> but a quack Rx writer--and they are abundant indeed.
>
> Subspecialists should only be used for unusual cases.



That's not the Kaiser way, I guess. I picked those two examples because
they were examples of specialization that saves Kaiser money. I also have
high blood pressure, and they don't have a program for that, so my doctor
follows that.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Levelwave©
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Dick Periut wrote:

> Most doctors are too busy within their own specialty. You don't need a
> PhD in nutrition, (WOULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY YOU PLACED A COMMA
> HERE?) to study the large randomized prospective studies that
> have been carried out, not to mention that not all physicins are the
> same. There is the mediocre, and then there are others who go out of
> their way (AND AGAIN YOU DROP COMMAS LIKE DUMB THOUGHTS), to constantly
> learn new things, or expose themselves to concepts out of his / her specialty.



Dick... Before you start expressing opinions, try working on your
English... until then (which more than likely will never happen) you are
a mere **** 'tard... and *nobody* listens to a **** 'tard... not even
with a name like Dick... Dick...


~john!



--
Say hello to the rug's topography...It holds quite a lot of interest
with your face down on it...

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
blake murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:34:47 -0600, Katra >
wrote:
>
>Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
>
>K.


is there an online source to the p.d.r.?

your pal,
blake


  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Katra
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL



blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:34:47 -0600, Katra >
> wrote:
> >
> >Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
> >
> >K.

>
> is there an online source to the p.d.r.?
>
> your pal,
> blake


There is, for sale... :-)

But, I was wrong, so don't worry about it.

It is however a handy dandy reference for drugs,
but is most likely to scare the crap out of you.... <grins>

Did a quick google and this looks interesting:

http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/

K.


--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< >^,,^<


"There are millions of intelligent species in the universe, and they are
all owned by cats" -- Asimov

Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry
http://cgi3.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAP...s&userid=katra
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Levelwave©
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Levelwave© wrote:

> Dick... Before you start expressing opinions, try working on your
> English... until then (which more than likely will never happen) you are
> a mere **** 'tard... and *nobody* listens to a **** 'tard... not even
> with a name like Dick... Dick...



I didn't write this Richard. My roommate, who oddly enough is a ****
'tard, wrote this last night to get back at me for a similar incident.
Sorry.




--
Say hello to the rug's topography...It holds quite a lot of interest
with your face down on it...

  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Arri London
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:34:47 -0600, Katra >
> wrote:
> >
> >Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
> >
> >K.

>
> is there an online source to the p.d.r.?
>
> your pal,
> blake


Only for a subscription. Or you can buy the book, like I do (I'm a
medical/science writer, so it's essential). Unless you can read and
evaluate the information, it's probably not a good idea anyway.

There is a version for consumers: http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/

I think it's still free. Also most of the major drug manufacturers have
information for consumers about their most popular items on their own
websites.
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Richard Periut
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Levelwave© wrote:
> Levelwave© wrote:
>
>> Dick... Before you start expressing opinions, try working on your
>> English... until then (which more than likely will never happen) you
>> are a mere **** 'tard... and *nobody* listens to a **** 'tard... not
>> even with a name like Dick... Dick...

>
>
>
> I didn't write this Richard. My roommate, who oddly enough is a ****
> 'tard, wrote this last night to get back at me for a similar incident.
> Sorry.
>
>
>
>


When I come across an individual of this class, I merely perceive him /
her like a rabid barking pit bull; there is no sense in jumping the
fence and fighting with the ignorant.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
blake murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 01:04:26 -0600, Katra >
wrote:

>
>
>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:34:47 -0600, Katra >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
>> >
>> >K.

>>
>> is there an online source to the p.d.r.?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake

>
>There is, for sale... :-)
>
>But, I was wrong, so don't worry about it.
>
>It is however a handy dandy reference for drugs,
>but is most likely to scare the crap out of you.... <grins>
>
>Did a quick google and this looks interesting:
>
>http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/
>
>K.


thanks. i'll take a look.

your pal,
blake



  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
blake murphy
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:06:21 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>blake murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:34:47 -0600, Katra >
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
>> >
>> >K.

>>
>> is there an online source to the p.d.r.?
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake

>
>Only for a subscription. Or you can buy the book, like I do (I'm a
>medical/science writer, so it's essential). Unless you can read and
>evaluate the information, it's probably not a good idea anyway.
>


in a former career, i was a proofreader of research abstracts. we had
the p.d.r. and dorland's medical dictionary, 3rd edition, maybe 4th.
it was the one before they removed 'virago' as an entry, i think. the
latter book is one i wish i had stolen when i had the chance. (the
entity i worked for was being dissolved, and surely it was trashed.)

your pal,
blake


>There is a version for consumers: http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/
>
>I think it's still free. Also most of the major drug manufacturers have
>information for consumers about their most popular items on their own
>websites.


  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Arri London
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

blake murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:06:21 -0700, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> >blake murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:34:47 -0600, Katra >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Look it up in the 2003 PDR... :-)
> >> >
> >> >K.
> >>
> >> is there an online source to the p.d.r.?
> >>
> >> your pal,
> >> blake

> >
> >Only for a subscription. Or you can buy the book, like I do (I'm a
> >medical/science writer, so it's essential). Unless you can read and
> >evaluate the information, it's probably not a good idea anyway.
> >

>
> in a former career, i was a proofreader of research abstracts. we had
> the p.d.r. and dorland's medical dictionary, 3rd edition, maybe 4th.
> it was the one before they removed 'virago' as an entry, i think. the
> latter book is one i wish i had stolen when i had the chance. (the
> entity i worked for was being dissolved, and surely it was trashed.)
>
> your pal,
> blake


To be fair, being a proofreader doesn't mean absorbing the material.
There's all sorts of material, out of my subjects I've proofread that I
wouldn't say I genuinely understood Normally I don't buy the PDR
every single year; don't make enough money for that. However, you can
often get the previous year's version relatively cheap at a medical book
shop. That's what I try to do.

>
> >There is a version for consumers: http://www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/
> >
> >I think it's still free. Also most of the major drug manufacturers have
> >information for consumers about their most popular items on their own
> >websites.

  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Katra
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL



Richard Periut wrote:
>
> Katra wrote:
>
> >
> > Levelwave© wrote:
> >
> >>Richard Periut wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I could go on and on about correcting the absurdities I've been reading
> >>>here over that past days, but no amount of posting is going to change
> >>>their fixations.
> >>
> >>Would you like to explain to me what makes you the authority you so
> >>claim to be?... And if you say - "I'm a Doctor" - then your opinion is
> >>no more valid than that of a typical high school lunch lady... Most
> >>Doctors (unless it's a personal hobby) have little to no training in
> >>nutrition outside of the *one* class they (rarely) attend in med school...
> >>
> >>~john!
> >>

> >
> >
> > ROFL! Too damned true!!! :-)
> > I've actually asked the doc's at work about nutritional stuff, and they
> > admit to knowing nada, except for Dr. Gitterle who has taken personal
> > time to study the subject, and agrees with me that body building and/or
> > sports nutrition is state-of-the-art more than anything else.
> >

> I would not generalize, as this other person, who absolutely knows next
> to nothing on what he utters. Matter of fact, if his / her advice on
> cooking is similar to his / her knowledge on medicine and health care, I
> wouldn't listen not even on the topic of boiling water.
>
> Most doctors are too busy within their own specialty. You don't need a
> PhD in nutrition, to study the large randomized prospective studies that
> have been carried out, not to mention that not all physicins are the
> same. There is the mediocre, and then there are others who go out of
> their way, to constantly learn new things, or expose themselves to
> concepts out of his / her specialty.
>
> Be careful though, the holistic docs have taken a small amount of truth,
> mixed it well with a bunch of bull shit diets, herbal supplements,
> vitamins, et cetera, and Bang, a multi million dollar industry is alive
> and well.
>
> Richard
>


Depends on the "holistic" doc's... :-)
Some are bullshit artists out to make a buck.

Others have realized that Allopathic medicine does not hold all the
answers... and the good ones have realized that neither does herbalism,
and Homeopathy is questionable at best. <G>

The best ones combine the best of both worlds and walk the middle path.
Ok, I'm not a doctor, but I do have the brains to consult when I am in
doubt and cross reference, cross reference, cross reference!!! I cannot
stress that enough!!!

I am blessed to have access to Dr. Gitterle and make sure to pass on
what I learn to him, so that he is more willing to share as he does not
charge me for his time. :-P

Allopathic meds such as statins DO indeed have their place. It'd be
ignorant to shrug off modern meds. I don't do that!

But, lifestyle change, modification of our usual American crap diet, and
total lack of exercise is still crucial to the total health picture.

It ultimately boils down to freedom of choice. :-)

We are all free to commit suicide if we choose, even if it take several
years! <G>

K.

--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< >^,,^<


"There are millions of intelligent species in the universe, and they are
all owned by cats" -- Asimov

Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...s&userid=Katra
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Katra
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL



Richard Periut wrote:
>
> Katra wrote:
> >
> > Richard Periut wrote:
> >
> >>Oy! Every time I click on a post that has the word Cholesterol, or some
> >>other related subject, I literally fall off my chair!
> >>
> >>To do D-dimer (first you haven't mentioned what type,) and coags studies
> >>on patients receiving statins, would be very much cost ineffective.
> >>
> >>This reaction of statins producing clots, has got to be one of the
> >>rarest. Matter of fact, I know of no physician, that routinely do coags
> >>on patients on statins, unless they suspect hepatic insufficiency.
> >>Matter of fact, it has been documented that statins may actually help
> >>preventing clots from forming; but FDA has not approved this drug for
> >>anything of the sort.
> >>
> >>The drug can cause a vasculitis, and this could induce a hypercoagulable
> >>state, but this would be next to very, very rare.
> >>
> >>Next in order for clots to kill a person, they must produce significant
> >>alterations in perfusion. This would of been evident on a plain
> >>perfusion scan. Unless you are talking about a massive showering of
> >>clots to the lungs, in which case, still wouldn't kill the patient,
> >>unless they organized and obstructed the pulmonary artery to such a
> >>significant degree, that cardiac output would reach close to zero and
> >>hypoxemia would be so profound, that not even mechanical ventilation and
> >>100 % oxygen would remedy it.

> >
> >
> > It was over time, and it caused her to develop Pulmonary hypertension...
> > and yes, it was a massive showering of microclots. :-(
> >
> > She actually died from the secondary right sided congestive heart
> > failure caused by the pulmonary hypertension.
> >

>
> What she had was chronic thromboembolic disease. The other thing is,
> when a patient presents with pulmonary hypertension + rt sided failure,
> the first thing to do is investigate whether it's primary, or secondary.
> One has to distinguish what is causing the secondary type, and
> eliminate it if possible, and treat (anticoags, filter, et cetera,)


It was determined to be secondary...

Some sorry ass hole took her off Coumadin too soon. :-( I'm still
convinced if she had stayed on Coumadin, I'd still have her with me now.
They did re-start her on it, but too little too late. The damage was
done. Her first thromboembolus was 10 years prior to her death. She went
downhill fast that last year. It rilly sux!!! Damn I miss her.


Once PH develops, the outlook is around 5 years. Mom lasted 2. :-(

Oh, she did have an Aortic filter installed. 6 months before we lost her.

>
> >
> >>If you find a case, in which it is well documented, please let me know,
> >>and I'll be the first one to present it in our weekly journal club.
> >>
> >>Also, for previous posters; aspirin is NOT an anticoagulant. It is a
> >>anti platelet aggregation drug.
> >>
> >>I could go on and on about correcting the absurdities I've been reading
> >>here over that past days, but no amount of posting is going to change
> >>their fixations.
> >>
> >>Suffice it to say that certain people here should talk more about food,
> >>rather than little things they pick up on google and by reading here and
> >>there. As I said, to know a little bit, can be very dangerous at times;
> >>especially when you are dispensing advice (practicing medicine IMO,) to
> >>someone else.
> >>
> >>Richard

> >
> >
> > Posting about Zocor causing blood clots was anecdotal, and I now know,
> > wrong. :-( I was going by what Mark told me, as he said he'd heard of
> > other cases of this happening.
> >
> > I followed my own advice and looked it up in the PDR and, while there
> > were many other horrible side effects, blood clots were not one of them.
> >

>
> The PDR has to name every possilbe effect ever noticed on any patient
> while the drug was under investiagion. Thus, there are many sx and
> signs, which had nothing to do with the drug. If you show someone the
> PDR ref on any drug, they probably will not take it, or have second
> thoughts about it.
>
> Richard


Time will tell. Mark might be right in the long run!
Especially with the Lobby power of Monsanto!!!

K.


--
>^,,^< Cats-haven Hobby Farm >^,,^< >^,,^<


"There are millions of intelligent species in the universe, and they are
all owned by cats" -- Asimov

Custom handcrafts, Sterling silver beaded jewelry
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...s&userid=Katra
  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Richard Periut
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Katra wrote:
>
> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>>Katra wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Periut wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Oy! Every time I click on a post that has the word Cholesterol, or some
>>>>other related subject, I literally fall off my chair!
>>>>
>>>>To do D-dimer (first you haven't mentioned what type,) and coags studies
>>>>on patients receiving statins, would be very much cost ineffective.
>>>>
>>>>This reaction of statins producing clots, has got to be one of the
>>>>rarest. Matter of fact, I know of no physician, that routinely do coags
>>>>on patients on statins, unless they suspect hepatic insufficiency.
>>>>Matter of fact, it has been documented that statins may actually help
>>>>preventing clots from forming; but FDA has not approved this drug for
>>>>anything of the sort.
>>>>
>>>>The drug can cause a vasculitis, and this could induce a hypercoagulable
>>>>state, but this would be next to very, very rare.
>>>>
>>>>Next in order for clots to kill a person, they must produce significant
>>>>alterations in perfusion. This would of been evident on a plain
>>>>perfusion scan. Unless you are talking about a massive showering of
>>>>clots to the lungs, in which case, still wouldn't kill the patient,
>>>>unless they organized and obstructed the pulmonary artery to such a
>>>>significant degree, that cardiac output would reach close to zero and
>>>>hypoxemia would be so profound, that not even mechanical ventilation and
>>>>100 % oxygen would remedy it.
>>>
>>>
>>>It was over time, and it caused her to develop Pulmonary hypertension...
>>>and yes, it was a massive showering of microclots. :-(
>>>
>>>She actually died from the secondary right sided congestive heart
>>>failure caused by the pulmonary hypertension.
>>>

>>
>>What she had was chronic thromboembolic disease. The other thing is,
>>when a patient presents with pulmonary hypertension + rt sided failure,
>>the first thing to do is investigate whether it's primary, or secondary.
>> One has to distinguish what is causing the secondary type, and
>>eliminate it if possible, and treat (anticoags, filter, et cetera,)

>
>
> It was determined to be secondary...
>
> Some sorry ass hole took her off Coumadin too soon. :-( I'm still
> convinced if she had stayed on Coumadin, I'd still have her with me now.
> They did re-start her on it, but too little too late. The damage was
> done. Her first thromboembolus was 10 years prior to her death. She went
> downhill fast that last year. It rilly sux!!! Damn I miss her.
>
>
> Once PH develops, the outlook is around 5 years. Mom lasted 2. :-(
>
> Oh, she did have an Aortic filter installed. 6 months before we lost her.
>
>
>>>>If you find a case, in which it is well documented, please let me know,
>>>>and I'll be the first one to present it in our weekly journal club.
>>>>
>>>>Also, for previous posters; aspirin is NOT an anticoagulant. It is a
>>>>anti platelet aggregation drug.
>>>>
>>>>I could go on and on about correcting the absurdities I've been reading
>>>>here over that past days, but no amount of posting is going to change
>>>>their fixations.
>>>>
>>>>Suffice it to say that certain people here should talk more about food,
>>>>rather than little things they pick up on google and by reading here and
>>>>there. As I said, to know a little bit, can be very dangerous at times;
>>>>especially when you are dispensing advice (practicing medicine IMO,) to
>>>>someone else.
>>>>
>>>>Richard
>>>
>>>
>>>Posting about Zocor causing blood clots was anecdotal, and I now know,
>>>wrong. :-( I was going by what Mark told me, as he said he'd heard of
>>>other cases of this happening.
>>>
>>>I followed my own advice and looked it up in the PDR and, while there
>>>were many other horrible side effects, blood clots were not one of them.
>>>

>>
>>The PDR has to name every possilbe effect ever noticed on any patient
>>while the drug was under investiagion. Thus, there are many sx and
>>signs, which had nothing to do with the drug. If you show someone the
>>PDR ref on any drug, they probably will not take it, or have second
>>thoughts about it.
>>
>>Richard

>
>
> Time will tell. Mark might be right in the long run!
> Especially with the Lobby power of Monsanto!!!
>
> K.
>
>


Agree that everything should be looked at with a grain of salt. But 99%
of non scientifically based medicine is adorned BS. Unfortunately, the
ones who are sick, are desperate to hear any news.

What the heck is an Aortic filter???

The decision to stop coumadin, has to be very strict. You can always
correct blood loss, and treat its etiology; you can't transfuse
(transplant) a heart that easily; especially when the waiting list gives
priority to young people--and rightfully it should.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991



  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

John Gaughan > wrote:
>> My doctor went into a tirade about
>> polys and trans-fats, and hydrogenation.......
>> But either he didn't explain it well,
>> or it was just too much jargon to assimilate.


> Try Atkins. It does a good job at lowering tryglicerides and keeping
> insulin levels in check for diabetics.


True, but the big weakness of the Atkins Diet is that its damned
near impossible for many people to sustain it for the remainder
of their lives. I suggest something a lot simpler. A balanced diet
and regular excercise.

  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Richard Periut > wrote:

> Grape juice is high in sugar, and unless you are drinking Manishewitz
> (spelling?) most of the sugars in wine have been fermented into alcohol.


> Unless you are a pre diabetic or diabetic, you shouldn't worry about an
> occasional sugar and starch load. The problem is not the carbo's, you
> need them; the problem is in over eating or not exercising enough to
> burn what you have consumed.


> Beware of the snake oils. Humans evolved (in the hundreds of thousands
> of years,) eating fruits and starchy tubers. The problem is you had to
> hunt and work hard to sustain yourself. Today, highly processed foods,
> and a combination of stress and sedentary life style, contribute to CAD
> and other vascular phenomena.


Exactly. As I understand it, red wine has very little sugar remaining
in it after fermentation. Besides, if the Atkins Diet is the end all
and be all that its advocates claim, why are there millions of people
in China and India and other countries where rice is a staple who
manage to stay thin on a high carb diet?

  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Katra > wrote:

> It still drives me nuts that I see so many people fail to control their
> cholesterol.... on low fat diets! :-P And their providers keep pushing it.


> And the vast majority of Atkins dieters achieve success in a short
> period of time, without the destructive and dangerous lipid lowering
> "drugs". :-(


But are there any longitudinal studies that have looked at people on
the Atkins Diet over a period of a few years? It seems to me that the
Atkins Diet is a short-lived solution that most people cannot sustain
throughout their lives. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of this, he
is a big proponent of the Atkins Diet, and he did lose a heck of a lot
of weight on it, but he has since put a lot of that weight back on. I
suspect his experience is typical.

Better is a diet that fits one's lifestyle and that combines regular
consumption of good quality foods (not processed) with excercise.

  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Levelwave© > wrote:

> By taking Lipitor you end up trading one problem for another... Lipitor
> will lower your cholesterol at the expense of your liver... Statins not
> only destroy your liver but deplete your body of Co-Enzyme Q10... If a
> doctor prescribes Statins to someone who does not have an immediate
> health concern then it's time to find a new doctor... Anything that can
> be controlled with diet and exercise should be... Way too many doctors
> are outdated and/or lazy...


Where's your data to support this claim? There are certainly side
effects to Lipitor, Zocor, etc. that can happen in a limited number
of people, but to claim that all patients who take statins are having
their livers destroyed seems like a stretch to me. I have been on
statins for years and I am very careful to get my blood checked and
my liver functions checked every few months and we've not seen
any problems. I was having a problem with achy muscles when I was
on Lipitor so my doc switched me to Zocor and the problem went away
after a couple of months.

  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Levelwave© > wrote:

> The French and Italians don't eat Pop Tarts... *that's* the reason...
> not because they eat lots of garlic or drink red wine... (though it
> doesn't hurt)...


I also suspect the French and Italians do a lot more walking and
bike riding than the average person does in the United States.
The Italians certainly eat a lot of pasta (which is a high carb
product).



  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Levelwave© > wrote:

> Maybe. The fact is that just because the French and Italians eat garlic
> and drink Red Wine has ZERO responsibility for us (USA) being fat asses
> with heart disease and them (Europe) not... That's why I said taking
> those (Garlic and Red Wine) couldn't hurt... but the real reason is we
> eat too many refined foods... PERIOD


And the French and Italians don't? Have you ever visited either of those
countries? I have. You can't walk down a street in most Italian or French
towns without finding an opportunity to buy a food product that's made of
heavily refined grains or sugars. The Italians are known for their pasta
and pastries. There's a reason for that. The French are known for their
cooking too and it includes pastries made with a staggering amount of
sugar and many entre type dishes with a high butter fat content. But
they tend to eat smaller portions, drink a good deal of wine, and include
a lot of garlic in their diets, olive oil, and EXERCISE through their
daily activities such as biking and walking. We Americans tend to have
a high fat AND high carb diet with little, to no exercise.

Look at the Japanese. They have a very high carb diet and eat a good
deal of seafood, but very little red meat. When Japanese move to the
United States, then tend to become dependent on cars more than bikes
and walking and they eat more red meat and their weight goes up. Working
at a university with a large number of people from other countries,
I see this quite often.

  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Arri London > wrote:
>
> But they eat a lot of white bread and pasta and potatoes. The answer
> isn't that simple, when discussing a population, rather than
> individuals.


The Italians may not eat a lot of white bread, but they do eat
a lot of other kinds of bread and they certainly have a diet
that includes a lot of pasta.

  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Arri London > wrote:

> We just went to a dietary seminar at the local heart hospital about
> this. This information is based on their own patient statistics,


And Atkins' studies of his own patients can hardly be considered
a scientific study with random sampling. Atkins' patients may well
have responded favorably to his recommendations, but that does not
mean his findings can be generalized.

> The summary was: cut down on saturated and trans-fats, which aren't
> necessary to the diet. Cut down on refined carbohydrates, which also
> aren't necessary to the diet. Eat lots of greens, whole grains and
> fruits and vegs. Use natural vegetable oils in place of solid fats
> (including margarine) in cooking.


> Get exercise! Many of their patients bring their cholesterol ratios and
> triglycerides back into line with exercise and minor modifications of
> diet.


Which is what makes the most sense and it is also the kind of
recommendation that people can live with for a long period of time.

  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL


And here's where I developed a sympathy for
drug addicts and alcoholics.

Fortunately, I didn't get the booze gene,
or the smoker gene, or the drug gene.....
But I did get the food gene.

Eating is a social experience,
Cooking is planning, preparing, enjoying.
and the enjoyment of a well prepared meal.

My weight ( and girth ) are the result of a hundred failed diets.
No matter how much resolve you put into the new diet,
sooner or later, food will have its way with you.

( sigh ) <rj>


On 20 Dec 2003 14:06:40 GMT, wrote:

>
>
>But are there any longitudinal studies that have looked at people on
>the Atkins Diet over a period of a few years? It seems to me that the
>Atkins Diet is a short-lived solution that most people cannot sustain
>throughout their lives. Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of this, he
>is a big proponent of the Atkins Diet, and he did lose a heck of a lot
>of weight on it, but he has since put a lot of that weight back on. I
>suspect his experience is typical.
>
>Better is a diet that fits one's lifestyle and that combines regular
>consumption of good quality foods (not processed) with excercise.


<rj>


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Tony Lew
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

wrote in message >...
> Katra > wrote:
>
> > It still drives me nuts that I see so many people fail to control their
> > cholesterol.... on low fat diets! :-P And their providers keep pushing it.

>
> > And the vast majority of Atkins dieters achieve success in a short
> > period of time, without the destructive and dangerous lipid lowering
> > "drugs". :-(

>
> But are there any longitudinal studies that have looked at people on
> the Atkins Diet over a period of a few years? It seems to me that the
> Atkins Diet is a short-lived solution that most people cannot sustain
> throughout their lives.


And exacly what success do people on low-fat diets have in
sustaining it thoughouth their lives?

>Rush Limbaugh is a perfect example of this, he
> is a big proponent of the Atkins Diet, and he did lose a heck of a lot
> of weight on it, but he has since put a lot of that weight back on. I
> suspect his experience is typical.


Well, according to Limbaugh,

"The key, Limbaugh says, "was for me to find a way to stop thinking about food."
And taking himself out of meal preparation and the temptation to sample,
combined with the low-fat, low-carbohydrate dishes made for him and wife Marta,
melted off the pounds. He also cut out tobacco and alcohol but still snacks on
pretzels and chips made with Olestra. No red meat, nothing fried and as few
dairy products as possible, though."

I'm not sure what diet this is, but it certainly isn' Atkins.



>
> Better is a diet that fits one's lifestyle and that combines regular
> consumption of good quality foods (not processed) with excercise.


And what is "a diet that fits one's lifestyle"? That would depend
on the individual, wouldn't it? What fits your lifestyle wouldn't
necessarily fit someone else's.
  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Gypsy-go-lightly
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL



> John Gaughan > wrote:
>>> My doctor went into a tirade about
>>> polys and trans-fats, and hydrogenation.......
>>> But either he didn't explain it well,
>>> or it was just too much jargon to assimilate.

>
>> Try Atkins. It does a good job at lowering tryglicerides and keeping
>> insulin levels in check for diabetics.

>
> True, but the big weakness of the Atkins Diet is that its damned
> near impossible for many people to sustain it for the remainder
> of their lives. I suggest something a lot simpler. A balanced diet
> and regular excercise.
>


the following is a much more balanced and easy to maintain diet (for the
rest of one's life). the first part is a test to see if you're a
carbo-addict; the second part describes what a carbo-addict is and how it
affects the body; and the last part is a list of all the goodies you can
have whilst on the diet and the "do's and don't's"

i've been on it since november 12th and i've lost 12 lbs (of course, the
more you have to lose, the easier it comes off in the beginning) and i'm
using my stationery bike for exercise since i have a physical disability
which prohibits me from being able to walk.

so...look it over and decide for yourself:


CARBOHYDRATE QUIZ

1. After eating a full breakfast, I get hungrier before it's time for
lunch than I would have if I had nothing for breakfast at all or just a cup
of coffee. YES NO

2. I get tired and/or hungry in the mid-afternoon. YES NO

3. I get very sluggish or tired after a large meal. YES NO

4. I sometimes put off plans for evening tasks or activities because I
lose motivation after dinner. YES NO

5. I have more difficulty stopping once I start to eat starches, snack
foods, or sweets, than I have in not eating any at all. YES NO

6. About two hours after eating, I sometimes get tired, hungry, irritable,
shaky, disoriented, unmotivated, or find that I have a headache. Sometimes
a snack may make me feel better.
YES NO

7. Stress makes me want to eat, either immediately or after the stress is
somewhat diminished.
YES NO

8. Foods that include table sugar, fruit sugar (fructose), or artificial
sweeteners are included in most of my meals. YES NO

9. As I get older, I seem to gain weight more. YES NO

10. At least one of my blood relatives in overweight. YES NO

11. I do not lead an active lifestyle. YES NO

12 I am under some stress at home or work on a pretty regular basis.
YES NO

13. I have been told that I have one or more of the following: high blood
pressure, undesirable blood-fat levels (high total cholesterol or
triglycerides, low HDL or high LDL levels), or adult on-set diabetes, heart
disease, vascular disease, or an imminent stroke. YES NO

14. One or both of my parents had any of the above conditions. YES NO

15. I sometimes have a hard time going to sleep without a bedtime snack.
YES NO


SCORING

Score using the value listed for a YES answer and zero for a NO answer:

QUESTION VALUE
YOUR SCORE


1-----------------------------------6---------------------------------------
----- ____


2----------------------------------2----------------------------------------
-----____


3----------------------------------1----------------------------------------
-----____


4----------------------------------4----------------------------------------
-----____


5----------------------------------5----------------------------------------
-----____


6----------------------------------3----------------------------------------
----____


7----------------------------------3----------------------------------------
----____


8----------------------------------1----------------------------------------
----____


9----------------------------------3----------------------------------------
----____


10----------------------------------3---------------------------------------
-----____


11----------------------------------3---------------------------------------
-----____


12---------------------------------3----------------------------------------
-----____

13----------------------------------5--------------------------------------
-------____

14----------------------------------4--------------------------------------
-------____

15----------------------------------4--------------------------------------
-------____

Total Possible Score 50 Your Score
_____


Doubtful-----------------------13 or less
Mild-----------------------------14 to 22
Moderate----------------------23 to 35
Strong-------------------------36 to 50

If you crave carbohydrates and have trouble losing or maintaining your
weight, you may be a "Carbohydrate Addict." This test and score sheet
measures possible addiction/intolerance to carbohydrates. Addiction or
intolerance to carbos makes it almost impossible to lose weight while still
eating high amonts of carbo-rick foods. A change in the foods you eat is
recommended along with hypnosis. If you feel you are, or may be a
"Carbohydrate Addict," we will discuss how to make those changes in your
diet and recommend some reading material to help you understand the
addiction.

INSULIN & CARBOHYDRATE ADDICTION

Insulin is normally released into the blood stream when
carbohydrates are eaten. First, a small measured amount a few minutes after
a meal is begun is released then, about seventy-five to ninety minutes
later, a second release occurs. The amount of insulin is determined by the
amont of carbohydrates in the meal and by how well the first release handled
the carbohydrates. The amount of the first release of insulin is determined
by the amount of carbos eaten in PREVIOUS meals. This is true for everyone.
For those people who are "Carbohydrate Addict," there is a breakdown of this
normal process.

"Carbohydrate Addicts" release too much insulin when
stimulated by carbos, and that insulin has a hard time transporting blood
sugar into the cells where it is needed for energy. The cells "cry" for
energy and the body respond by releasing more insulin that triggers hunger
and more eating of carbos. This craving of carbos happens because the human
body "knows" that carbos are supposed to provide quick energy. I say
"supposed" because with carbohydrate addiction, they don't!

Carbohydrate rich foods raise insulin in the blood. "Carbo
Addicts" respond with too much insulin to carbo rich foods. Body cells are
"insulted" with too much insulin and begin to resist insulin, leaving it to
be stored in the liver as fat or left in the blood if the liver cells also
resist it. In animals, insulin injections have produced obesity, because
insulin appears to stimulate fat synthesis, which means, in the simplest
possible terms, overweight occurs in the presence of excess insulin.

Eventually, the pacreas becomes exhausted by trying to
increase insulin to feed the cells that are starving for energy. Insulin's
job is to carry blood sugar into the cells to be used as energy and to store
unused blood sugar as fat to be used later. It does this with the help of
the liver. It also sends signals to the brain that energy has been
delivered to the cells and they are satisfied. When the pacreas becomes
unable to produce enough insulin "adult onset diabetes" may occur and
insulin levels in the blood drop and blood sugars rise.

There is a method of eating that will help control
carbohydrate addiction and help keep insulin working in a more normal way in
the "Carbohydrate Addict." It will also reduce the resistance to insulin by
cells so that they will use the insulin that is available properly for
energy and call fat out of storage when needed for additional energy instead
of crying for more food. It is done by eating high protein and high fiber,
craving reducing foods for breakfast and lunch then having a full meal at
dinner that includes a balance of protein, craving reduction vegetables and
salads and carbos. And, by limiting the length of your dinner meal to ONE
HOUR. No snacks unless you are trying to maintain your weight and then your
snacks must be from protein and high fiber, craving reduction foods. You
must include carbohydrates ONCE A DAY! Your body NEEDS them. You only need
to limit the frequency, keeping them confined to one meal. You may change
your carbohydrate meal to lunch on special occasions. Beware of changing it
too often...it creates a bad habit and you may find your craving for carbos
returning.

The ONE HOUR TIME LIMIT reduces the amont of insulin needed in
the "second" release period. By avoiding carbos at breakfast and lunch, the
"first" release of insulin is less because that release is based on the
amount of carbos eaten at previous meals. In just a few days, your cells
will notice the difference in the amount of insulin in your blood stream and
reduce their resistance to it.

This is not a short term way of eating. If you are a
"Carbohydrate Addict," it must become a LIFETIME CHANGE!! Consider it a
cheap and painless alternative to insulin therapy for diabetes.

What you get in exchange is MORE energy and that much
desired weight loss. And you do not have to give up your favourite foods,
only change the time you will eat them. You don't have to count calories or
remember "food exchanges" or avoid fats unless your doctor has told you to.
You should "let your conscience be your guide" in the size of your portions.
It is possible to eat MORE FOOD then you need out of habit and, if such is
the case, you can't expect to lose much weight if that is your goal. But
even if you don't feel a need to lose weight, you will notice a dramatic
increase in your energy and comfort levels and lose those food cravings you
can well live without.

This change in eating habits and the craving reductions and
weight loss that goes with it is only appropriate for those people who have
tested mild to strong on the "Carbohydrate Addict" test. It has little
effect on people who do not suffer this addiction, even if they also have a
weight problem. People with mild addictions will, over time, develop a
stronger addiction. So, the time to make a change is NOW before your body
is damaged by excess insulin.

A good source of additional information on the cause of
"Carbohydrate Addiction" and the diet that helps corect it can be found in
the book, "The Carbohydrate Addict's Diet," by Dr. Rachael F. Heller and Dr.
Richard F. Heller. They have written several books which adapt this diet to
individual circumstances. You will find abundant reference material used in
their research of this common addiction. Their books also include recipes
to help you cook for your new lifestyle. **NOTE: Personally, I don't see
the need for recipes as you can cook in your usual manner as long as you
remember, except for the dinner meal, to leave out rice, bread, couscous,
potatoes, etc etc.**











THIS IS YOUR LOW CARBOHYDRATE REDUCING PLAN

The foundation of this diet is limiting the TIME you eat high carbohydrate
foods, once a day. By doing this, you will find your energy increasing,
your blood sugar staying stable, your craving for carbo foods decreasing,
and your weight going down. It is important that you follow the guidelines
and not cheat on the carbos. If you are motivated to lose weight, incrase
your energy and decrease the likelihood of you becoming diabetic at some
point in your life because of obesity, you will find this pattern of eating
easy to follow. The American Diabetic Association has stated that if you
have a body fat ratio of more than 30%, it is not a matter if you BECOME
diabetic, but WHEN!!! Reducing your body fat is the best way to prevent
diabetes and all of the complications that can come with it. This diet has
been shown to be safe for diabetics wishing to lose weight and has even
deceased the need for insulin in some cases. If you have been disagnosed as
diabetic, please check with your doctor before going on this diet. If fats
have been limited by your doctor, please follow his advice and adjust your
meals to include low fat versions of the foods on this diet.

The basic plan is as follows:

Choose your breakfast food from the list of approved foods (list to follow).
Try to include one cup or more of the approve vegetables. This may seem
hard, at first, but think of all the good things you can put in an omelet.
Salads may not be "normal" breakfast food, but what is breakfast, after all?
It is the first meal of the day. That is all...there are no rules as to
what foods make up your first meal of the day. Be creative!

Choose your midday meal from the approved list. Include a salad and as many
of the approved vegetables as you can...they can go in the salad, if you
want. You need 1 or 2 cups...this helps keep you comfortable and your body
functioning properly. Avoid low fat or not fat salad dressings...they
contain more carbohydrates and sugars than the real thing. Sorry...NO BREAD
with breakfast or lunch. Meat rolls made of deli meats and cheeses with a
little mustard or mayonnaise, a dill pickle, sliced thinly, wrapped up in a
large lettuce leaf is a good substitute for a sandwich...have two if you
want them!!!

Snacks, if you feel your weight loss program will support them can be 1/2
portions of any of the foods on the approved list. Again....no bread
products or sweets...also, no fruits....lots of carbohydrates there!

Now, the good part....DINNER!! For dinner, you can have carbohydrates.
That means ANYTHING you like!!! You are not counting calories on this
eating plan. Try to make your meals up in 1/3 portions. 1/3 high protein;
1/3 salad and vegetables; and 1/3 other foods, including your dessert
portion. If you feel a need for seconds, maintain the 1/3 portion schedule.
Have seconds of high protein and vegetables along with your seconds of
carbohydrates. Keep your plate balanced!!

Your dinner or high carbohydrate meal MUST BE FINISHED WITHIN ONE HOUR!! Do
not cheat on this. This includes your dessert. By finishing your meal
within one hour, you help maintain your insulin balance and that leads to
greater feelings of satisfaction with your new eating plan. This plan will
reduce cravings for additional carbos and result in a 1 to 3 lb. weight loss
per week!! You should not lose any faster than that. If you find you are
losing faster than that, increase your portion size at breakfast and midday
from the approved food list. Keep all your high carbohydrates in one meal.
If you are in doubt if a food is low in carbos, check the label. Choose
only foods that are below 4 gr-carbohydrate per serving.

Weigh every day, if possible, and take a weekly average to keep track of
your weight reduction. If you need to, adjust your portion size. If your
craving for carbos is still a problem, check for hidden triggers....like
diet soda. Artificially sweetened foods can keep some people from losing
their cravings by "fooling" the brain with their sweet taste and causing an
over production of insulin which creates a craving for carbos.

You are now on your way to losing weight and creating a higher energy
plateau for yourself.

=====================================
APPROVED FOOD LIST FOR CARBOHYDRATE REDUCING DIET

If you are on a weight adjusting plan, use average size portions (3 to 4
ounces) of any of the foods in the following lists for Breakfast and Lunch.
Snacks should be 1/2 the average quantity. Snacks may be eliminated if
weight adjustment is less than 1 lb. per week, and should be added if weight
adjustment is more than 2 lbs. per week. Add approved snacks or increase
portion size if it is desirable to maintain your weight or gain weight.
DO NOT ADD CARBOHYDRATES TO MAINTAIN OR GAIN WEIGHT.
Breakfast and Lunch should include both protein and approved vegetables or
salads. You need the fiber in the approved vegetables and salads for
comfort and the proper functioning of your body. Don't skimp on them. One
to two cups per meal is good. If you don't feel hunger at normal breakfast
or lunch time, you may compromise and eliminate one meal or postpone it. Do
this only if you're truly not hungry. You may substitute a snack for a meal
if you prefer.

MEAT & POULTRY
bacon; beef; cheeseburger (no bun); chicken; chicken wings; corned beef;
dried beef; duck; frankfurters (all meat); ham; hamburgers (no bun); lamb;
liver (chicken only); luncheon meats (no sugars or fillers); pastrami; pork;
sausages (no sugars or fillers); smoked turkey; tofu; turkey; turkey wings;
veal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
FISH & SHELLFISH
bass; bluefish; clams; cod; crabmeat (real thing); flounder; haddock;
halibut; lobster; mackerel; oysters; perch; salmon (any type); sardines;
scallops; smelt; sole; sturgeon; swordfish; trout; tuna
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
FATS, OIL, & DRESSINGS
*1 to 2 tablespoons*
butter or margarine; corn oil; mayonnaise (real only); olive oil; peanut
oil; safflower oil; sesame oil; sunflower oil; soybean oil; vegetable oil;
prepared salad dressing (low-cal is high in carbs and sugar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------
EGGS & DAIRY
*choose low-fat if possible*
cream/milk...2 oz.; cheese...2 oz.; cottage cheese...1/2 cup; two eggs...can
fry; eggs/1 oz. cheese omelet; these cheeses: american; blue; brie;
camembert; cheddar; colby; cottage, regular or low-fat; cream cheese; edam;
feta; gouda; gruyere; havarti; hot pepper cheese; jarlsberg; monterey jack;
mozzarella; muenster; parmesan; processed cheese food or spread; provolone;
ricotta (regular not skim); romano; string.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
VEGETABLES, SALADS
*1 to 2 cups each meal*
alfalfa sprouts; arugula; asparagus; bamboo shoots; beans...snap,green,wax);
bean sprouts; cabbage...all kinds; capers; cauliflower; celery; collard
greens; cucumbers; dill pickles; eggplant; endive; fennel; kale; kohlrabi;
lettuce; mushrooms; mustard greens; okra; onions...2 tbs.; parsley; peppers;
radishes; scallions; spinach; squash...summer only; tomatoes...1/2 raw;
turnip greens; turnips; watercress; zucchini.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
BEVERAGES
you may drink unlimited quantities of plain water; carbonated water;
seltzer; diet soda; club soda; black coffee; tea.
drink PLENTY of water ... at least 6 glasses DAILY! save juice, dessert,
fruit, and all other foods for your carbohydrate meal.
--
§Greenings fromŠ
http://www.endor.com/~poppy/index.html

  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Frogleg
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

On 20 Dec 2003 14:34:54 -0800, (Tony Lew)
wrote:

wrote in message >...
>
>> But are there any longitudinal studies that have looked at people on
>> the Atkins Diet over a period of a few years? It seems to me that the
>> Atkins Diet is a short-lived solution that most people cannot sustain
>> throughout their lives.

>
>And exacly what success do people on low-fat diets have in
>sustaining it thoughouth their lives?


The Subway guy seems to be doing pretty well so far. :-) Traditional
advice is not to "diet." That is, not to adopt some speciial regime
for quick weight loss, but to permanently alter one's eating and
activity level. *Any* style of calorie reduction will, at the same
activity level, result in weight loss. I believe a great deal of the
'success' of low-carb is due to people simply paying attention to what
they eat. I know an enthusiastic (indeed, fanatic) Atkins follower
who's tickled to pieces with weight loss and increased energy. She's
busying around buying cookbooks with recipes for cauliflower 'mashed
potatoes' and low-carb salads and meat dishes. Previous to this phase,
she *hated* to cook, subsisted on TV dinners and felt guilty about
eating snacks provided in the teachers' lounge. No *wonder* she's lost
weight! She has a plan and an interest in preparing food. It's *gotta*
be better than Healthy Choice and snack food. Her "lifestyle," even if
she falls off the low-carb wagon is likely to influence some good
habits for the rest of her life. It's probably a good thing, too,
that she's now aware of the "just one" aspect of empty carb foods,
whether she thinks a piece of fudge will somehow unbalance her
metabolism or that she can do without and be happy.
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Tony Lew > wrote:

> But what IS a "balanced" diet? The four food groups?
> The food guide pyramid?


No. A balanced diet is a diet that provides an adequate
amount of all the essential nutrients that one needs to
be healthy AND tastes reasonably good. I don't claim that
the food pyramid accomplishes that because the food pyramid
that the USDA put out has too much corporate influence.




  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Frogleg > wrote:

> But alcohol is a similar source of virtually empty calories. I mean,
> there are no carbohydrates in distilled liquor as there are in sugar,
> but there's nothing else, either. Just calories. Nutritionally
> speaking.


A typical wine does not contain a lot of alcohol though, at least not
when compared to liquors and other spirits. The wines I tend to like
are around 12% alcohol. That's not an insignificant amount of alcohol,
but if one drinks wine moderately, such as eight ounces with a meal,
its not a whole hell of a lot of alcohol.

> High carb/lo carb, Atkins, Weight Watchers, "the French Miracle",
> USDA guidelines -- weight loss, if that's what you're after, involves
> fewer calories or increased activity. Atkins *is* a reduced-calorie
> program, even 'though the calories are in a relatively dense form.


True. The key is to reduce overall calories via a reduction in carbs
and fat and add on some excercise. In other words, moderation.
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default CHOLESTEROL

Tony Lew > wrote:

> And exacly what success do people on low-fat diets have in
> sustaining it thoughouth their lives?


Probably very little success, if any. Note that I did not claim such
diets can be sustained any longer than the Atkins type of diet.

> Well, according to Limbaugh,


> "The key, Limbaugh says, "was for me to find a way to stop thinking about food."
> And taking himself out of meal preparation and the temptation to sample,
> combined with the low-fat, low-carbohydrate dishes made for him and wife Marta,
> melted off the pounds. He also cut out tobacco and alcohol but still snacks on
> pretzels and chips made with Olestra. No red meat, nothing fried and as few
> dairy products as possible, though."


> I'm not sure what diet this is, but it certainly isn' Atkins.


Just a few weeks ago, I heard someone call Limbaugh's show and the two
of them discussed the topic of diet. Limbaugh was very clear that he is
a fan of the Atkins diet to take off weight, but he did say he was not
able to maintain the diet. I don't fault Limbaugh for falling off his
diet; he has a huge amount of company in that area.

> And what is "a diet that fits one's lifestyle"? That would depend
> on the individual, wouldn't it? What fits your lifestyle wouldn't
> necessarily fit someone else's.


Exactly.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
cholesterol gregz General Cooking 78 02-10-2012 05:54 AM
Cholesterol James Silverton[_4_] General Cooking 47 02-04-2011 05:00 AM
OT - Cholesterol and triglycerides Cheryl[_3_] General Cooking 48 11-01-2011 12:52 AM
Cholesterol! [email protected] General Cooking 17 31-12-2006 03:34 AM
Fish oil and cholesterol RALF HARTEMINK General Cooking 6 14-05-2006 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:01 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"