oinks:
>
>Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word.

Yes it is... check your dictionary.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

Steve Wertz > wrote in
news
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:32:25 -0500, wrote:
>
>>Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word. Until this fad started, a
>>carb used to mean the carburetor on my car.
>
> You must be high on something other than weed since you don't know
> that a carb is the hole that lets air into a water bong.
>
> This is your fifth rant about low-carb this year (all under
> different names). Don't you ever get tired of this?
>
> If you haven't been by there already, alt.diet.support.low-carb is
> a good place to troll.
>
> -sw
>

Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.

It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb dieting
was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped Cream_
and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was published
in 1972.

In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the onset of
illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible with my
system.

If it works successfully for some, then I'm happy for them, but it
appears to be a danger for some. Personally, I feel low-carbing along
with higher fat intake is patently unhealthy.

Seriously, this is not a rant, but a string of thoughts I've collected
about this over the past 30 odd years.

--
Wayne

Big on natural foods?? 82.38% of people die of "natural" causes.

"Wayne" > wrote in message
...
>
> Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
> to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
> the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
>
> It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb dieting
> was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped Cream_
> and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was published
> in 1972.
>
> In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
> Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the onset of
> illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible with my
> system.
>
> If it works successfully for some, then I'm happy for them, but it
> appears to be a danger for some. Personally, I feel low-carbing along
> with higher fat intake is patently unhealthy.
>
> Seriously, this is not a rant, but a string of thoughts I've collected
> about this over the past 30 odd years.
>

It fits the american 'get rich quick' mentality. We've finally realized
that there's no pill to enact weight loss, so this is the next best thing.
Shoulda ate something else besides all that sugar for the last 30 something
years, asshole! That brown cola, wonder bread and bologna does not a
healthy lunch make. Bwhahahahahaha!

Jack RantoRamen

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:12:19 GMT, Wayne > wrote:
>
> >Steve Wertz > wrote in
> >news > >
> >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:32:25 -0500, wrote:
> >>
> >>>Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word. Until this fad started, a
> >>>carb used to mean the carburetor on my car.
> >>
> >> You must be high on something other than weed since you don't know
> >> that a carb is the hole that lets air into a water bong.
> >>
> >> This is your fifth rant about low-carb this year (all under
> >> different names). Don't you ever get tired of this?
> >>
> >> If you haven't been by there already, alt.diet.support.low-carb is
> >> a good place to troll.
> >>
> >> -sw
> >>
> >
> >Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
> >to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
> >the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> >about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> >
> >It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb dieting
> >was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped Cream_
> >and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was published
> >in 1972.
> >
> >In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
> >Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the onset of
> >illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible with my
> >system.
> >
> >If it works successfully for some, then I'm happy for them, but it
> >appears to be a danger for some. Personally, I feel low-carbing along
> >with higher fat intake is patently unhealthy.
> >
> >Seriously, this is not a rant, but a string of thoughts I've collected
> >about this over the past 30 odd years.
>
>
> This article is on
> http://www.environmental-wellness.co...-diet-plan.htm
>
>
> Atkins Diet Plan - The Truth Revealed
> According to many legitimate postings on the World Wide Web, the
> Atkins "low carb diet" is just another fad and laced with fraud to the
> core.
>
> Atkins' Death Reveals Fat Man with Heart Disease
> By Randy Sink -February 16, 2004
>

<article snipped>

The author of this article is ignorant to the core. It is astounding how
little he knows about the Atkins diet or its effects on people's health. The
title itself is a case study in ignorance. It has been published in a huge
number of places that Atkins heart disease was the result of a viral
infection, not his diet, and that he was not overweight when he had his
accident but gained the weight in the hospital.
--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

> It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb dieting
> was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped Cream_
> and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was published
> in 1972.

I was doing some research into diabetes & hypoglycemia and came across a
low-carbohydrate diet from the 1920's. Before medicine discovered how
to control diabetes with drugs and insulin the only option was a diet
option.

--Charlene

--
Curiosity is a willing, a proud, an eager confession of ignorance. --
Leonard Rubenstein

--

email perronnelle at earthlink . net

Wayne wrote:
....
>
> Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
> to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
> the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
....

Food producers have "gone over the edge" about it because there's money to
be made. Bottled water companies could probably sell more bottles by
labeling them "low carb".

---jkb

--
"There's some milk in the fridge that's about to go bad....
And there it goes!"
-- Bobby Hill

"Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message
...
> Wayne wrote:
> ...
>>
>> Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
>> to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
>> the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
>> about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> ...
>
> Food producers have "gone over the edge" about it because there's money to
> be made. Bottled water companies could probably sell more bottles by
> labeling them "low carb".
>
> ---jkb
>
> --
> "There's some milk in the fridge that's about to go bad....
> And there it goes!"
> -- Bobby Hill

The worst that I have seen in the cashing in on "Low/No Carb" is a billboard
for a cellular company. There billboard says that all of there wireless
plans are "The No Carb Option". This is almost as bad as the Carb Free
stickers on chickens and pork chops at Krogers.

Chef

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message om>...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:12:19 GMT, Wayne > wrote:
> >
> > >Steve Wertz > wrote in
> > >news > > >
> > >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:32:25 -0500, wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word. Until this fad started, a
> > >>>carb used to mean the carburetor on my car.
> > >>
> > >> You must be high on something other than weed since you don't know
> > >> that a carb is the hole that lets air into a water bong.
> > >>
> > >> This is your fifth rant about low-carb this year (all under
> > >> different names). Don't you ever get tired of this?
> > >>
> > >> If you haven't been by there already, alt.diet.support.low-carb is
> > >> a good place to troll.
> > >>
> > >> -sw
> > >>
> > >
> > >Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
> > >to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
> > >the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> > >about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> > >
> > >It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb dieting
> > >was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped Cream_
> > >and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was published
> > >in 1972.
> > >
> > >In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
> > >Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the onset of
> > >illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible with my
> > >system.
> > >
> > >If it works successfully for some, then I'm happy for them, but it
> > >appears to be a danger for some. Personally, I feel low-carbing along
> > >with higher fat intake is patently unhealthy.
> > >
> > >Seriously, this is not a rant, but a string of thoughts I've collected
> > >about this over the past 30 odd years.
> >
> >
> > This article is on
> > http://www.environmental-wellness.co...-diet-plan.htm
> >
> >
> > Atkins Diet Plan - The Truth Revealed
> > According to many legitimate postings on the World Wide Web, the
> > Atkins "low carb diet" is just another fad and laced with fraud to the
> > core.
> >
> > Atkins' Death Reveals Fat Man with Heart Disease
> > By Randy Sink -February 16, 2004
> >
>
> <article snipped>
>
> The author of this article is ignorant to the core. It is astounding how
> little he knows about the Atkins diet or its effects on people's health. The
> title itself is a case study in ignorance. It has been published in a huge
> number of places that Atkins heart disease was the result of a viral
> infection, not his diet, and that he was not overweight when he had his
> accident but gained the weight in the hospital.

Note that he refers to the Physician's Committee for Responsible
Medicine - a front group for PETA - as an authority on nutrition.

WROTE:
I am not on a diet, nor do I need to be. It appears to have started
about a year ago, and all I hear lately is "low carb". I am so F^&#*)!
tired of hearing those words. It's obviously just another fad or gimmick
that everyone is using to make money. But please, those of you who are
stupid enough to buy into these fads, do it somewhere, anywhere, where I
dont have to see it. In other words, GO AWAY !!!!
Am I the only person who is sick of seeing these words everywhere, or
are there others?
Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word. Until this fad started, a
carb used to mean the carburetor on my car. If anyone really wants to
define the words "low carb". how about someone coming up with a "low
carb" CARBuretor with LOW gas consumption, considering todays gas
prices.
---------------------------------------------------------------
response: This low carb fad diet has been a blessing to diabetics such
as I with their products on the market.
American Diabetic Association has not modify
the food program for diabetics going on 50 years which is ladden with
high carb foods.
Products like Dreamfields pastas which appear on the market this past
March 1st. has given me the freedom to fix one meal for all in this
family instead of two.
I highly recommend people to try Dreamfields pastas if they are on a low
carb diet.
Unlike Atkins, the price is only around $3.00 pound box and TASTES like
real pasta. My BG'S are still stable 3 hours after meal.
The corporation is now in process of marketing rice, instant potatoes,
bread using the new technology.
Sorry you feel this way about the low carb craze, but alot of people
like myself this fad has given us the joy of being able to go out and
eat with friends family again without worrying about high BG"S being
sick afterwards.

In article >,
says...
> My dog has been known to go into the tootsie roll factory (what we call the
> litter box) on several occasions.
>
TMI!!!! (laughing)
--
Donna
A pessimist believes all women are bad. An optimist hopes they are.

wrote:

>
> Tha's exactly my original point. This whole thing is nothing but a
> rediculous fad. Everything needs those little stickers now.
> Apparently it's a selling point for those on the diet, and the rest of
> us got to keep seeing those words everywhere. I refer to this as
> negative advertising and has become the way to advertise foods in
> recent years. Instead of telling you what IS in a food, they tell you
> what IS NOT in it. NO FAT, NO CARBS, NO CHOLESTROL, NO SUGAR, etc.
> I don't want to know what IS NOT in food, I want to know WHAT IS in
> it. Both the good and bad stuff. What if they advertised by telling
> us "good source of protein" "good source of vitamin A", "contains lots
> of harmful chemicals". etc.
>
> Maybe I should tell my boss to advertise our construction company as
> "low carb". Maybe we'd get more work and be able to charge higher
> prices..... Oh heck, I may as well put a sign that says "low carb" on
> my sink faucets too.... Maybe even in the cat litter box too, just in
> case someone brings over a dog that eats poop.
>
>

I think you must be dumped by your low-carbing girlfriend and disowned by your
low-carbing family, possibly you also failed all your exams by your low-carbing
professors.

Is that why you're having a major rant?

Your anger should be directed to coroporate america (or
corporate-whatever-country), not dieting, or cooking, which is what this group
is about.

kilikini wrote:

> My dog has been known to go into the tootsie roll factory (what we call the
> litter box) on several occasions.

(grrrrr) My dog did that as a puppy. I bought one of those litter
boxes with a full lid and placed the opening facing the wall, enough
room for the cat to get in and out but not enough room for the dog.
That and a *STERN* explanation that she is not to go in there gave
her the idea that eating cat poop was not a good thing.

nancy

Last go round was the diet to end high cholesterol which meant eating what
is now so bad for you and dropping all the things that you can now devour.

I saw this posted somewhere and liked the idea.

My idea of a perfect NO CARB diet:

No Cheney
No Ashcroft
No Rumsfeld
No Bush

And definitely omit the Rice.

"kilikini" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wayne wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I
> fail
> > > to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone
> over
> > > the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> > > about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> > ...
> >
> > Food producers have "gone over the edge" about it because there's money
to
> > be made. Bottled water companies could probably sell more bottles by
> > labeling them "low carb".
> >
> > ---jkb
> >
>
> I literally laughed out loud at your statement and then smiled realizing
> that you're absolutely correct! I'm so surprised no one's thought of it
> yet.
>

Laugh if you will, but I'm gonna get rich selling "Negative carb water"


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:20:27 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:12:19 GMT, Wayne > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Steve Wertz > wrote in
> >> >news > >> >
> >> >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:32:25 -0500, wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word. Until this fad started, a
> >> >>>carb used to mean the carburetor on my car.
> >> >>
> >> >> You must be high on something other than weed since you don't know
> >> >> that a carb is the hole that lets air into a water bong.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is your fifth rant about low-carb this year (all under
> >> >> different names). Don't you ever get tired of this?
> >> >>
> >> >> If you haven't been by there already, alt.diet.support.low-carb is
> >> >> a good place to troll.
> >> >>
> >> >> -sw
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I
fail
> >> >to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone
over
> >> >the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> >> >about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> >> >
> >> >It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb dieting
> >> >was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped
Cream_
> >> >and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was
published
> >> >in 1972.
> >> >
> >> >In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
> >> >Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the onset
of
> >> >illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible with
my
> >> >system.
> >> >
> >> >If it works successfully for some, then I'm happy for them, but it
> >> >appears to be a danger for some. Personally, I feel low-carbing along
> >> >with higher fat intake is patently unhealthy.
> >> >
> >> >Seriously, this is not a rant, but a string of thoughts I've collected
> >> >about this over the past 30 odd years.
> >>
> >>
> >> This article is on
> >> http://www.environmental-wellness.co...-diet-plan.htm
> >>
> >>
> >> Atkins Diet Plan - The Truth Revealed
> >> According to many legitimate postings on the World Wide Web, the
> >> Atkins "low carb diet" is just another fad and laced with fraud to the
> >> core.
> >>
> >> Atkins' Death Reveals Fat Man with Heart Disease
> >> By Randy Sink -February 16, 2004
> >>
> >
> ><article snipped>
> >
> >The author of this article is ignorant to the core. It is astounding how
> >little he knows about the Atkins diet or its effects on people's health.
The
> >title itself is a case study in ignorance. It has been published in a
huge
> >number of places that Atkins heart disease was the result of a viral
> >infection, not his diet, and that he was not overweight when he had his
> >accident but gained the weight in the hospital.
>
> That's exactly what they WANT you to believe, so they can keep getting
> into your wallet.
>

It is clear you know less than nothing about this topic - does it ever occur
to you to learn something about a topic before sounding off about it? Sure,
low carb has become a fad and is way overdone by advertisers, but that
doesn't mean that the approach is without value. It has helped a lot of
people take off and keep off weight, and there's a lot of good medical
evidence that it is safe. Also, anyone can do low carb without spending an
extra cent, relyung completely on normal supermarket food. No one is in
anyone's wallet. Sure, lots of companies are selling low carb this and low
carb that, but so what? No one has to buy that stuff to do the diet. Your
arguments are, in short, a complete load of crap.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Master Chef Richard Campbell wrote:

> The worst that I have seen in the cashing in on "Low/No Carb" is a billboard
> for a cellular company. There billboard says that all of there wireless
> plans are "The No Carb Option". This is almost as bad as the Carb Free
> stickers on chickens and pork chops at Krogers.
>
> Chef

This reminds me of the hysterical essay by Thurber on annoying popular
phrases, the best being his objection to the "what price....x" (from
"what price freedom") craze that plagued his middle years. I can't even
remember a direct quote yet I'm barely able to type from laughing, so
strong is my memory of sitting in a chair in the sun, somewhere back in
my twenties, and laughing until I wept.
blacksalt
OBfood: (R.W) Knudsen's apple butter is the best apple butter I've ever
had

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 13:20:27 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >> On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:12:19 GMT, Wayne > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Steve Wertz > wrote in
> > >> >news > > >> >
> > >> >> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:32:25 -0500, wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>Come to think of it, "carb" is not a word. Until this fad started,
a
> > >> >>>carb used to mean the carburetor on my car.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You must be high on something other than weed since you don't know
> > >> >> that a carb is the hole that lets air into a water bong.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> This is your fifth rant about low-carb this year (all under
> > >> >> different names). Don't you ever get tired of this?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If you haven't been by there already, alt.diet.support.low-carb is
> > >> >> a good place to troll.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -sw
> > >> >>
> > >> >
> > >> >Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I
> fail
> > >> >to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone
> over
> > >> >the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old
saw
> > >> >about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> > >> >
> > >> >It's certainly nothing new, asmy first encounter with low-carb
dieting
> > >> >was in in the early 70s with Sidney Petrie's _Martinis and Whipped
> Cream_
> > >> >and Atkins' first book, _Diet Revolution_ which I believe was
> published
> > >> >in 1972.
> > >> >
> > >> >In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
> > >> >Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the
onset
> of
> > >> >illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible
with
> my
> > >> >system.
> > >> >
> > >> >If it works successfully for some, then I'm happy for them, but it
> > >> >appears to be a danger for some. Personally, I feel low-carbing
along
> > >> >with higher fat intake is patently unhealthy.
> > >> >
> > >> >Seriously, this is not a rant, but a string of thoughts I've
collected
> > >> >about this over the past 30 odd years.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> This article is on
> > >> http://www.environmental-wellness.co...-diet-plan.htm
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Atkins Diet Plan - The Truth Revealed
> > >> According to many legitimate postings on the World Wide Web, the
> > >> Atkins "low carb diet" is just another fad and laced with fraud to
the
> > >> core.
> > >>
> > >> Atkins' Death Reveals Fat Man with Heart Disease
> > >> By Randy Sink -February 16, 2004
> > >>
> > >
> > ><article snipped>
> > >
> > >The author of this article is ignorant to the core. It is astounding
how
> > >little he knows about the Atkins diet or its effects on people's
health.
> The
> > >title itself is a case study in ignorance. It has been published in a
> huge
> > >number of places that Atkins heart disease was the result of a viral
> > >infection, not his diet, and that he was not overweight when he had his
> > >accident but gained the weight in the hospital.
> >
> > That's exactly what they WANT you to believe, so they can keep getting
> > into your wallet.
> >
>
> It is clear you know less than nothing about this topic - does it ever
occur
> to you to learn something about a topic before sounding off about it?
Sure,
> low carb has become a fad and is way overdone by advertisers, but that
> doesn't mean that the approach is without value. It has helped a lot of
> people take off and keep off weight, and there's a lot of good medical
> evidence that it is safe.

Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!

Dog3 wrote:

> "Peter Aitken" >
> om:
>
>> "kilikini" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Wayne wrote:
>>> > ...
>>> > >
>>> > > Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others,
>>> > > but I
>>> fail
>>> > > to see why the whole country including most food producers have
>>> > > gone
>>> over
>>> > > the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old
>>> > > saw about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> > Food producers have "gone over the edge" about it because there's
>>> > money
>> to
>>> > be made. Bottled water companies could probably sell more bottles
>>> > by labeling them "low carb".
>>> >
>>> > ---jkb
>>> >
>>>
>>> I literally laughed out loud at your statement and then smiled
>>> realizing that you're absolutely correct! I'm so surprised no one's
>>> thought of it yet.
>>>
>>
>> Laugh if you will, but I'm gonna get rich selling "Negative carb
>> water"
>
> Just slap on a big red NO CARB label, on any bottle of water, and you'll
> be driving a Rolls to the next cook-in.
>
> Michael
>

Hmmph! And as the "inventor" of low-carb water, I probably won't see a
dime... :-)

---jkb

--
"My Sloppy Joe is all Sloppy and no Joe!"
-- Bobby Hill

"Tesoro" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!
>
>

You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with ketoacidosis, which
is not. Perhaps you should read up on a subject before posting (gee, what a
novel idea!). Period.

--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com...
> "Tesoro" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!
> >
> >
>
> You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with ketoacidosis,
which
> is not. Perhaps you should read up on a subject before posting (gee, what
a
> novel idea!). Period.
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you. You see, you make
statements like "you are confusing" and "perhaps you should read up on a
subject" and even venture so far as to make a jovial jab with the "gee, what
a novel idea" quip (you normally talk down to people to make yourself feel
more superior don't you Peter) without knowing one iota of what my
background or credentials on the subject of ketosis or ketoacidosis are. If
you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has been
running on ketones far to long. Actually, before I waste any of my time
explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the authority
everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.

PS. I sense that you are a "low carber" so PLEASE tell me that you have SOME
sort of nutritional or medical background and are not just repeating the
"low carb" rhetoric you've picked up on the Net.

The terms "Low Carb" and/or "Atkins Diet" will be identified with this decades'
lexicon as Rubik's Cube in the 80's and disco in the 70's and "Make love not
war" in the 60's.

Michael O'Connor - Modern Renaissance Man

"The likelihood of one individual being correct increases in a direct
proportion to the intensity with which others try to prove him wrong"
James Mason from the movie "Heaven Can Wait".

Dog3 <dognospam@adjfkdla;not> wrote in
4:

> "Peter Aitken" >
> om:
>
>> "kilikini" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Wayne wrote:
>>> > ...
>>> > >
>>> > > Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others,
>>> > > but I
>>> fail
>>> > > to see why the whole country including most food producers have
>>> > > gone
>>> over
>>> > > the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the
>>> > > old saw about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
>>> > ...
>>> >
>>> > Food producers have "gone over the edge" about it because there's
>>> > money
>> to
>>> > be made. Bottled water companies could probably sell more bottles
>>> > by labeling them "low carb".
>>> >
>>> > ---jkb
>>> >
>>>
>>> I literally laughed out loud at your statement and then smiled
>>> realizing that you're absolutely correct! I'm so surprised no one's
>>> thought of it yet.
>>>
>>
>> Laugh if you will, but I'm gonna get rich selling "Negative carb
>> water"
>
> Just slap on a big red NO CARB label, on any bottle of water, and
> you'll be driving a Rolls to the next cook-in.
>
> Michael
>

Actually, it was just a couple of days ago that I was buying my usual
brand of bottled water when I noticed another brand (can't recall the
name offhand) that now had a label that read "Carb Free". This wasn't a
new brand, but the label obviously was.

--
Wayne

Big on natural foods?? 82.38% of people die of "natural" causes.

Koodo's Pal I'm with you Too! I'm sick of the
whole business, Carbo Mania! Yours truly, Charlie De Paola

BEE-HAPPY
CHARLES

I AM ALSO SICK OF THE WORD("CARB) MYSELF IT WILL SOON NOT BE GOOD FOR
US JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER THING THAT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE GOOD FOR US WHAT
WILL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT .

"kilikini" > wrote in message
...
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 11 May 2004 18:01:00 GMT, "Master Chef Richard Campbell"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >"Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message
>
> (snip)
>
> > Maybe I should tell my boss to advertise our construction company as
> > "low carb". Maybe we'd get more work and be able to charge higher
> > prices..... Oh heck, I may as well put a sign that says "low carb" on
> > my sink faucets too.... Maybe even in the cat litter box too, just in
> > case someone brings over a dog that eats poop.
> >
> >
>
> My dog has been known to go into the tootsie roll factory (what we call
the
> litter box) on several occasions. I'll buy a sign from you and teach the
> dog how to read. Instant sales market!
>
> kili
> --
>

My mother used to say some people would eat cat turds rolled in cracker dust
if they were marketed correctly......she's probably up in the great beyond
right now going 'see, I told you'......

A new marketing ploy, recycled and no carbs!!!! A double saled pitch.

-Ginny

Tesoro wrote:
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> > > Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!

Unless you're interested in the facts. Period.

> > You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with
> > ketoacidosis, which is not. Perhaps you should read up on
> > a subject before posting (gee, what a novel idea!). Period.
>
> Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you.

As opposed to people like like. Oh and here it comes - Period.

> You see, you make
> statements like "you are confusing" and "perhaps you should read up on a
> subject" and even venture so far as to make a jovial jab with the "gee, what
> a novel idea" quip (you normally talk down to people to make yourself feel
> more superior don't you Peter) without knowing one iota of what my
> background or credentials on the subject of ketosis or ketoacidosis are.

You you call dietary ketosis dangerous then you aren't qualified
and don't have the facts. Dietary ketosis is quite safe when used
according the the directions of any plan that uses it.

> If
> you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
> difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has been
> running on ketones far to long.

There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. One is
curable via education.

> Actually, before I waste any of my time
> explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the authority
> everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.

Millions of folks have been in ketosis for months with zero ill
effects.

> PS. I sense that you are a "low carber" so PLEASE tell me that you have SOME
> sort of nutritional or medical background and are not just repeating the
> "low carb" rhetoric you've picked up on the Net.

I'm a low carber and my current library on nutritional topics is
now about a meter thick because I donate most of my books to public
libraries and thus I only have half left.

But lets think about the so-called rhetoric on the Net. It is actual
people reporting actual events in many cases. Are all of those
people on all of those groups and support boards lying? Seriously?

"Tesoro" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > "Tesoro" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with ketoacidosis,
> which
> > is not. Perhaps you should read up on a subject before posting (gee,
what
> a
> > novel idea!). Period.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Aitken
>
> Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you.

You mean people with facts and knowledge? I bet you get tired. We meanies
are always calling clueless people such as you to task.

> You see, you make
> statements like "you are confusing" and "perhaps you should read up on a
> subject" and even venture so far as to make a jovial jab with the "gee,
what
> a novel idea" quip (you normally talk down to people to make yourself feel
> more superior don't you Peter) without knowing one iota of what my
> background or credentials on the subject of ketosis or ketoacidosis are.
If
> you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
> difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has been
> running on ketones far to long. Actually, before I waste any of my time
> explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the authority
> everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.
>

I never claimed to be "the authority everyone else here should be listening
to on the subject." I do however have the education and background (30 years
in biomedical research, 20 years professor at Duke Medical Center) to
evaluate and understand all the claims and counterclaims regarding low carb
diet safety. I was very skeptical at first but my reading convinced me
otherwise.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

(T R) wrote in message >...
> I AM ALSO SICK OF THE WORD("CARB) MYSELF IT WILL SOON NOT BE GOOD FOR
> US JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER THING THAT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE GOOD FOR US WHAT
> WILL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT .

Nutritionists: If you don't like their advice, just wait ten years.
They'll recommend the opposite.

(T R) wrote in message >...
> I AM ALSO SICK OF THE WORD("CARB) MYSELF IT WILL SOON NOT BE GOOD FOR
> US JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER THING THAT WAS SUPPOSE TO BE GOOD FOR US WHAT
> WILL THEY COME UP WITH NEXT .

Nutritionists: If you don't like their advice, just wait ten years.
They'll recommend the opposite.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tesoro" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > "Tesoro" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > >
> > > > Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with ketoacidosis,
> > which
> > > is not. Perhaps you should read up on a subject before posting (gee,
> what
> > a
> > > novel idea!). Period.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Aitken
> >
> > Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you.
>
> You mean people with facts and knowledge? I bet you get tired. We meanies
> are always calling clueless people such as you to task.
>
> > You see, you make
> > statements like "you are confusing" and "perhaps you should read up on a
> > subject" and even venture so far as to make a jovial jab with the "gee,
> what
> > a novel idea" quip (you normally talk down to people to make yourself
feel
> > more superior don't you Peter) without knowing one iota of what my
> > background or credentials on the subject of ketosis or ketoacidosis are.
> If
> > you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
> > difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has been
> > running on ketones far to long. Actually, before I waste any of my time
> > explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the
authority
> > everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.
> >
>
> I never claimed to be "the authority everyone else here should be
listening
> to on the subject." I do however have the education and background (30
years
> in biomedical research, 20 years professor at Duke Medical Center) to
> evaluate and understand all the claims and counterclaims regarding low
carb
> diet safety. I was very skeptical at first but my reading convinced me
> otherwise.
>

Then with all that higher education please explain to me how you can say
ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone elses, needs glucose to
function properly. Without it, the brain doesn't function properly (maybe
thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're being fed). When
your body encounters this situation it starts breaking down muscle and organ
tissue to provide the necessary glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue
Peter! Still safe?

Now that we've entered ketosis our bodies start to react by trying to expell
the ketones being produced via urination. Most people in this state are very
seriously dehydrated since the body uses water from your tissues to help get
the ketones out. Most of the weight loss low carbers experience are from
this loss of water. You can't starve your body of its most essential form of
fuel and not expect adverse effects. Starvation effects us all the same. The
difference is how much stored glycogen and lean muscle tissue does the
person have to lose before dehydration or death occurs. Reputable doctors,
nutritionists, dieticians, endocrinologists, etc. (ie. reputable = nothing
to sell) do not and never will recommend putting your body through this type
of trauma.
Good nutrition and weight loss will come from a balanced diet including all
forms of food - carbs, protein, fat, and good amounts of exercise. Thats
it, burn more calories than you take in and you're losing weight. Ahhh, but
that takes work and some degree of commitment, I guess its better to keep
looking for that "magic" diet pill or fad.

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote in message
om...
> > Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you.
>
> As opposed to people like like. Oh and here it comes - Period.

Do you stutter Doug? They have help for that you know.


> You you call dietary ketosis dangerous then you aren't qualified
> and don't have the facts. Dietary ketosis is quite safe when used
> according the the directions of any plan that uses it.

Theres that stuttering thing again. Doug, would you alter the gasoline you
use to run your car if somebody told you it would be okay? I think I'll rely
on medical "science" to tell me what my body needs Doug, rather than some
"plan".

> > If
> > you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
> > difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has been
> > running on ketones far to long.
>
> There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity. One is
> curable via education.

So sorry to hear of your incurable situation Doug.

> > Actually, before I waste any of my time
> > explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the
authority
> > everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.
>
> Millions of folks have been in ketosis for months with zero ill
> effects.

Where do you get those stats from Doug? I guess you're tracking their long
term effects Doug?


> > PS. I sense that you are a "low carber" so PLEASE tell me that you have
SOME
> > sort of nutritional or medical background and are not just repeating the
> > "low carb" rhetoric you've picked up on the Net.
>
> I'm a low carber and my current library on nutritional topics is
> now about a meter thick because I donate most of my books to public
> libraries and thus I only have half left.

Re-read that Doug, it doesn't make complete sense. I guess thats your
incurable problem you told us about previously.


> But lets think about the so-called rhetoric on the Net. It is actual
> people reporting actual events in many cases. Are all of those
> people on all of those groups and support boards lying? Seriously?

What are we talking about here Doug? Reports of what? WMD's? UFO's? Santa
Clause? What do you believe in Doug? Seriously?

"Tesoro" > wrote in message
news
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Tesoro" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >
> > > "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> > > . com...
> > > > "Tesoro" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > >
> > > > > Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with
ketoacidosis,
> > > which
> > > > is not. Perhaps you should read up on a subject before posting (gee,
> > what
> > > a
> > > > novel idea!). Period.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter Aitken
> > >
> > > Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you.
> >
> > You mean people with facts and knowledge? I bet you get tired. We
meanies
> > are always calling clueless people such as you to task.
> >
> > > You see, you make
> > > statements like "you are confusing" and "perhaps you should read up on
a
> > > subject" and even venture so far as to make a jovial jab with the
"gee,
> > what
> > > a novel idea" quip (you normally talk down to people to make yourself
> feel
> > > more superior don't you Peter) without knowing one iota of what my
> > > background or credentials on the subject of ketosis or ketoacidosis
are.
> > If
> > > you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
> > > difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has
been
> > > running on ketones far to long. Actually, before I waste any of my
time
> > > explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the
> authority
> > > everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.
> > >
> >
> > I never claimed to be "the authority everyone else here should be
> listening
> > to on the subject." I do however have the education and background (30
> years
> > in biomedical research, 20 years professor at Duke Medical Center) to
> > evaluate and understand all the claims and counterclaims regarding low
> carb
> > diet safety. I was very skeptical at first but my reading convinced me
> > otherwise.
> >
>
> Then with all that higher education please explain to me how you can say
> ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone elses, needs glucose to
> function properly.

Right here you show your ignorance. Normally glucose is used, but when there
is not enough the brain and other tissues can use ketones for fuel,
replacing glucose through a parallel metabolic pathway.

> Without it, the brain doesn't function properly (maybe
> thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're being fed). When
> your body encounters this situation it starts breaking down muscle and
organ
> tissue to provide the necessary glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue
> Peter! Still safe?
>

Again your ignorance shows. When there's not enough carbs (glucose) the body
breaks down fat, not muscles and organs. It's from metablizing fat that the
ketones are produced. Only when the fat is gone does the body start breaking
down muscle tissue.

<snipped>

I cannot continue. You are so abysmally ignorant of how the human body works
that trying to explain it to you would be like trying to explain the
calculus to a fence post. Where on earth did you pick up this claptrap you
are spouting? And yes, I *am* talking down to you. By believing and
repeating such drivel you have placed yourself in a position where there is
no other option. You do have the choice of opening your mind and trying to
learn something ... but my guess is that you won't.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Tesoro wrote:

> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>"Tesoro" > wrote in message
m...
>>
>>>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. rr.com...
>>>
>>>>"Tesoro" > wrote in message
. com...
>>>>
>>>>>Sending your body into "ketosis" is NOT safe! Period!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You are confusing ketosis, which is perfectly safe, with ketoacidosis,
>>>
>>>which
>>>
>>>>is not. Perhaps you should read up on a subject before posting (gee,
>>
>>what
>>
>>>a
>>>
>>>>novel idea!). Period.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Peter Aitken
>>>
>>>Peter, I get very tired trying to talk to people like you.
>>
>>You mean people with facts and knowledge? I bet you get tired. We meanies
>>are always calling clueless people such as you to task.
>>
>>
>>>You see, you make
>>>statements like "you are confusing" and "perhaps you should read up on a
>>>subject" and even venture so far as to make a jovial jab with the "gee,
>>
>>what
>>
>>>a novel idea" quip (you normally talk down to people to make yourself
>
> feel
>
>>>more superior don't you Peter) without knowing one iota of what my
>>>background or credentials on the subject of ketosis or ketoacidosis are.
>>
>>If
>>
>>>you think for one second that ketosis (yes, Peter, I understand the
>>>difference between it and ketoacidosis) is safe then your brain has been
>>>running on ketones far to long. Actually, before I waste any of my time
>>>explaining anything to you, let me ask why you think you are the
>
> authority
>
>>>everyone else here should be listening to on the subject.
>>>
>>
>>I never claimed to be "the authority everyone else here should be
>
> listening
>
>>to on the subject." I do however have the education and background (30
>
> years
>
>>in biomedical research, 20 years professor at Duke Medical Center) to
>>evaluate and understand all the claims and counterclaims regarding low
>
> carb
>
>>diet safety. I was very skeptical at first but my reading convinced me
>>otherwise.
>>
>
>
> Then with all that higher education please explain to me how you can say
> ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone elses, needs glucose to
> function properly. Without it, the brain doesn't function properly (maybe
> thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're being fed). When
> your body encounters this situation it starts breaking down muscle and organ
> tissue to provide the necessary glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue
> Peter! Still safe?

You're simply wrong about this. It's fat that's "broken down" to
ketones which the brain can use just fine. It's not the same metabolic
mechanism and glucose use, but it works just as well.

> Now that we've entered ketosis our bodies start to react by trying to expell
> the ketones being produced via urination. Most people in this state are very
> seriously dehydrated since the body uses water from your tissues to help get
> the ketones out. Most of the weight loss low carbers experience are from
> this loss of water.

This is just plain silly. People who are dehydrated become thirsty.
They drink liquids.

At the very beginning of low carbing, people lose water weight, but
that stabilizes very quickly (a matter of days) and the rest of the
weight loss is primarily fat with some small loss of muscle tissue if
the person isn't doing enough exercise.

> You can't starve your body of its most essential form of
> fuel and not expect adverse effects.

It's obvious that you don't really understand the metabolic functions
you're trying to sound so keen about. It's abundantly clear that you
don't understand anything much about what propels the body and what
alternatives there are.

> Starvation effects us all the same. The
> difference is how much stored glycogen and lean muscle tissue does the
> person have to lose before dehydration or death occurs. Reputable doctors,
> nutritionists, dieticians, endocrinologists, etc. (ie. reputable = nothing
> to sell) do not and never will recommend putting your body through this type
> of trauma.

You're trying to use technical terms without understanding them.

> Good nutrition and weight loss will come from a balanced diet including all
> forms of food - carbs, protein, fat, and good amounts of exercise. Thats
> it, burn more calories than you take in and you're losing weight. Ahhh, but
> that takes work and some degree of commitment, I guess its better to keep
> looking for that "magic" diet pill or fad.

There's so much good science to utterly cancel what you think you know
that it's obvious that you've never really done any serious study of
the topic. It's not as simple as you'd like it to be...

Pastorio

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
> > Then with all that higher education please explain to me how you can say
> > ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone elses, needs glucose to
> > function properly.
>
> Right here you show your ignorance. Normally glucose is used, but when
there
> is not enough the brain and other tissues can use ketones for fuel,
> replacing glucose through a parallel metabolic pathway.

The brain runs on GLUCOSE not KETONES! When ketones are being used it is in
extreme emergency conditions such as STARVATION!!! It is also very common
medical fact that the brain running on ketones is not running at peak
performance (ie. sluggish, foggy, forgetful, posting idiotic posts in
Usenet...). It is NOT the brains primary or preferred fuel. Can you agree
with this? Pretty elementary stuff Peter, but hey, I'm ignorant.


> > Without it, the brain doesn't function properly (maybe
> > thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're being fed). When
> > your body encounters this situation it starts breaking down muscle and
> organ
> > tissue to provide the necessary glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue
> > Peter! Still safe?
> >
>
> Again your ignorance shows. When there's not enough carbs (glucose) the
body
> breaks down fat, not muscles and organs. It's from metablizing fat that
the
> ketones are produced. Only when the fat is gone does the body start
breaking
> down muscle tissue.

This is simply not true Peter. Muscle and organ tissue are not spared in the
bodies attempt to create glucose. The body does use stored fat
(triglycerides) to create ketones but it cannot completely break this fat
up. To completely breakdown body fat 2 things are needed - oxygen and guess
what else Peter.....GLUCOSE!!! But remember Peter, we don't have any because
we are starving our bodies of this essential fuel. Great diet huh? Lets see
now if I were a body where would I get glucose in this time of trauma? Ahhh,
guess what Peter, protein contains glucose and guess where it gets that
from? MUSCLES and ORGAN TISSUE! A diet high in protein and low in
carbohydrates will not spare muscle protein from being broken down....unless
you eat enough carbohydrate. You see Peter, you've bought into this low
carb crap and you will not listen to anything else, fact or otherwise. Its
sad.

> <snipped>
>
> I cannot continue. You are so abysmally ignorant of how the human body
works
> that trying to explain it to you would be like trying to explain the
> calculus to a fence post. Where on earth did you pick up this claptrap you
> are spouting? And yes, I *am* talking down to you. By believing and
> repeating such drivel you have placed yourself in a position where there
is
> no other option. You do have the choice of opening your mind and trying to
> learn something ... but my guess is that you won't.

Abysmally ignorant? You like to call people ignorant don't you Peter? Is
that what higher education does to people? I wouldn't be too proud to flaunt
my academic credentials if I acted as foolishly as you are here. I can only
assume that since you are admitting to "talking down" to me that that is the
equivalent of stamping your feet and crying like a baby. You are resorting
to childish behaviour without intelligently refuting any of my "claptrap".
Pointing at how ignorant I am and talking down to me isn't very clever
Peter, come on show us all that Mom and Pop didn't waste all that tuition
money, tell us how the human body works.

PS. I've found most people that use the word "ignorant" are typically that
themselves.

>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
> Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Master Chef Richard Campbell" > wrote in message > ...
> "Jeff Bienstadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Wayne wrote:
> > ...
> >>
> >> Well, I won't "rant" about low-carb dieting, Atkins or others, but I fail
> >> to see why the whole country including most food producers have gone over
> >> the edge about it. If anything, it's a sad commentary on the old saw
> >> about jumping into the fire because everyone else does.
> > ...
> >
> > Food producers have "gone over the edge" about it because there's money to
> > be made. Bottled water companies could probably sell more bottles by
> > labeling them "low carb".
> >
> > ---jkb
> >
> > --
> > "There's some milk in the fridge that's about to go bad....
> > And there it goes!"
> > -- Bobby Hill
>
> The worst that I have seen in the cashing in on "Low/No Carb" is a billboard
> for a cellular company. There billboard says that all of there wireless
> plans are "The No Carb Option". This is almost as bad as the Carb Free
> stickers on chickens and pork chops at Krogers.

They're no worse than the "Cholesterol Free" labels you often see on
peanut butter and other foods of plant origin.


>
> Chef

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> > Then with all that higher education please explain to me how you can say
> > ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone elses, needs glucose to
> > function properly. Without it, the brain doesn't function properly
(maybe
> > thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're being fed). When
> > your body encounters this situation it starts breaking down muscle and
organ
> > tissue to provide the necessary glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue
> > Peter! Still safe?
>
> You're simply wrong about this. It's fat that's "broken down" to
> ketones which the brain can use just fine. It's not the same metabolic
> mechanism and glucose use, but it works just as well.

Thats not true Bob, it does not work just as well. The brain does not
function properly when using ketones as fuel. The body also cannot fully
breakdown fat (triglycerides) into useable fuel, it needs glcuose and oxygen
to do that. At this point there is no glucose available to perform that
function, so this is where the body attacks the muscle and organ tissues to
obtain the glucose it needs from there.


> > Now that we've entered ketosis our bodies start to react by trying to
expell
> > the ketones being produced via urination. Most people in this state are
very
> > seriously dehydrated since the body uses water from your tissues to help
get
> > the ketones out. Most of the weight loss low carbers experience are from
> > this loss of water.
>
> This is just plain silly. People who are dehydrated become thirsty.
> They drink liquids.

Most people walking around everyday are in a state of dehydration Bob. If
you are thirsty then you are dehydrated already.

> At the very beginning of low carbing, people lose water weight, but
> that stabilizes very quickly (a matter of days) and the rest of the
> weight loss is primarily fat with some small loss of muscle tissue if
> the person isn't doing enough exercise.

Did you actually spend money to find all this out Bob?




> > You can't starve your body of its most essential form of
> > fuel and not expect adverse effects.
>
> It's obvious that you don't really understand the metabolic functions
> you're trying to sound so keen about. It's abundantly clear that you
> don't understand anything much about what propels the body and what
> alternatives there are.

What? Are serious? Show us all how "keen" you are then Bob. Please show me
where I don't understand "metabolic functions" and you do. Please show me
where I have failed to show an understanding of what fuels the human body
and also where I've failed to intelligently point out the adverse effects of
alternatives. Lets hear your intelligent take on it Bob.

> > Starvation effects us all the same. The
> > difference is how much stored glycogen and lean muscle tissue does the
> > person have to lose before dehydration or death occurs. Reputable
doctors,
> > nutritionists, dieticians, endocrinologists, etc. (ie. reputable =
nothing
> > to sell) do not and never will recommend putting your body through this
type
> > of trauma.
>
> You're trying to use technical terms without understanding them.

By all means Bob, expand upon that.


> > Good nutrition and weight loss will come from a balanced diet including
all
> > forms of food - carbs, protein, fat, and good amounts of exercise.
Thats
> > it, burn more calories than you take in and you're losing weight. Ahhh,
but
> > that takes work and some degree of commitment, I guess its better to
keep
> > looking for that "magic" diet pill or fad.
>
> There's so much good science to utterly cancel what you think you know
> that it's obvious that you've never really done any serious study of
> the topic. It's not as simple as you'd like it to be...

You have got to a TROLL Bob, there isn't any other explanation for your
existance here.

Tesoro wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Then with all that higher education please explain to me how
>>> you can say ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone
>>> elses, needs glucose to function properly. Without it, the
>>> brain doesn't function properly
>
>>> (maybe thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're
>>> being fed). When your body encounters this situation it starts
>>> breaking down muscle and organ tissue to provide the necessary
>>> glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue Peter! Still safe?
>>
>> You're simply wrong about this. It's fat that's "broken down" to
>> ketones which the brain can use just fine. It's not the same
>> metabolic mechanism and glucose use, but it works just as well.
>
> Thats not true Bob, it does not work just as well. The brain does
> not function properly when using ketones as fuel. The body also
> cannot fully breakdown fat (triglycerides) into useable fuel, it
> needs glcuose and oxygen to do that. At this point there is no
> glucose available to perform that function, so this is where the
> body attacks the muscle and organ tissues to obtain the glucose it
> needs from there.
>
>>> Now that we've entered ketosis our bodies start to react by
>>> trying to expell the ketones being produced via urination. Most
>>> people in this state are very seriously dehydrated since the
>>> body uses water from your tissues to help get the ketones out.
>>> Most of the weight loss low carbers experience are from this
>>> loss of water.
>>
>> This is just plain silly. People who are dehydrated become
>> thirsty. They drink liquids.
>
> Most people walking around everyday are in a state of dehydration
> Bob. If you are thirsty then you are dehydrated already.

Right, and I bet you think we should all drink 8 glasses of water a
day, too. Might be very interesting if you spent a few minutes finding
where that came from and what scientific support it has.

Goodbye, Tesoro. You read too many woowoo, new age pamphlets. Try some
science for a change.

>> At the very beginning of low carbing, people lose water weight,
>> but that stabilizes very quickly (a matter of days) and the rest
>> of the weight loss is primarily fat with some small loss of
>> muscle tissue if the person isn't doing enough exercise.
>
> Did you actually spend money to find all this out Bob?

No, ****wit, it's free for the taking from lots of people who know
what they're talking about. Unlike you.

>>> You can't starve your body of its most essential form of fuel
>>> and not expect adverse effects.
>>
>> It's obvious that you don't really understand the metabolic
>> functions you're trying to sound so keen about. It's abundantly
>> clear that you don't understand anything much about what propels
>> the body and what alternatives there are.
>
> What? Are serious? Show us all how "keen" you are then Bob. Please
> show me where I don't understand "metabolic functions" and you do.
> Please show me where I have failed to show an understanding of what
> fuels the human body and also where I've failed to intelligently
> point out the adverse effects of alternatives. Lets hear your
> intelligent take on it Bob.
>
>>> Starvation effects us all the same. The difference is how much
>>> stored glycogen and lean muscle tissue does the person have to
>>> lose before dehydration or death occurs. Reputable doctors,
>>> nutritionists, dieticians, endocrinologists, etc. (ie.
>>> reputable = nothing to sell) do not and never will recommend
>>> putting your body through this type of trauma.

All this absolute foolishness speaks rather badly for you. You seem to
think you have the complete and exclusive grasp on dietary and
nutritional truth. Nope.

>> You're trying to use technical terms without understanding them.
>
> By all means Bob, expand upon that.

Here. Let's keep it simple; just one because I don't want to tax your
attention span. Trauma.

>>> Good nutrition and weight loss will come from a balanced diet
>>> including all forms of food - carbs, protein, fat, and good amounts of
>>> exercise.
>
>>> Thats it, burn more calories than you take in and you're losing
>>> weight. Ahhh, but that takes work and some degree of commitment, I guess its
>>> better to keep looking for that "magic" diet pill or fad.
>>
>> There's so much good science to utterly cancel what you think you
>> know that it's obvious that you've never really done any serious
>> study of the topic. It's not as simple as you'd like it to be...
>>
> You have got to a TROLL Bob, there isn't any other explanation for
> your existance here.

And here you illustrate why we're utterly done talking.

Rather than really looking deeply into nutrition and metabolic
functions and pathways, you shriek ever more loudly how smart you are
and how stupid everyone else is, all the while demonstrating the
contradiction. Read Lyle McDonald's writings. See the science and the
destruction of most of the "truths" you think you know (along with
many others).

Pastorio

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Tesoro wrote:
>
> > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>> Then with all that higher education please explain to me how
> >>> you can say ketosis is safe. Your brain, as well as everyone
> >>> elses, needs glucose to function properly. Without it, the
> >>> brain doesn't function properly
> >
> >>> (maybe thats why all the low-carbers believe the crap they're
> >>> being fed). When your body encounters this situation it starts
> >>> breaking down muscle and organ tissue to provide the necessary
> >>> glucose. Thats MUSCLE and ORGAN tissue Peter! Still safe?
> >>
> >> You're simply wrong about this. It's fat that's "broken down" to
> >> ketones which the brain can use just fine. It's not the same
> >> metabolic mechanism and glucose use, but it works just as well.
> >
> > Thats not true Bob, it does not work just as well. The brain does
> > not function properly when using ketones as fuel. The body also
> > cannot fully breakdown fat (triglycerides) into useable fuel, it
> > needs glcuose and oxygen to do that. At this point there is no
> > glucose available to perform that function, so this is where the
> > body attacks the muscle and organ tissues to obtain the glucose it
> > needs from there.
> >
> >>> Now that we've entered ketosis our bodies start to react by
> >>> trying to expell the ketones being produced via urination. Most
> >>> people in this state are very seriously dehydrated since the
> >>> body uses water from your tissues to help get the ketones out.
> >>> Most of the weight loss low carbers experience are from this
> >>> loss of water.
> >>
> >> This is just plain silly. People who are dehydrated become
> >> thirsty. They drink liquids.
> >
> > Most people walking around everyday are in a state of dehydration
> > Bob. If you are thirsty then you are dehydrated already.
>
> Right, and I bet you think we should all drink 8 glasses of water a
> day, too. Might be very interesting if you spent a few minutes finding
> where that came from and what scientific support it has
> Goodbye, Tesoro. You read too many woowoo, new age pamphlets. Try some
> science for a change.

Again, you dazzle us all with the depth of your knowledge Bob. Enlighten us,
please.


> >> At the very beginning of low carbing, people lose water weight,
> >> but that stabilizes very quickly (a matter of days) and the rest
> >> of the weight loss is primarily fat with some small loss of
> >> muscle tissue if the person isn't doing enough exercise.
> >
> > Did you actually spend money to find all this out Bob?
>
> No, ****wit, it's free for the taking from lots of people who know
> what they're talking about. Unlike you.

Ahhh, name calling, nice touch. Now we can all really see your true
intelligence Bob. Again, nothing real to offer in rebuttal, but I'm
surprised. You're mental limitations are quite glaring Bob.

> >>> You can't starve your body of its most essential form of fuel
> >>> and not expect adverse effects.
> >>
> >> It's obvious that you don't really understand the metabolic
> >> functions you're trying to sound so keen about. It's abundantly
> >> clear that you don't understand anything much about what propels
> >> the body and what alternatives there are.
> >
> > What? Are serious? Show us all how "keen" you are then Bob. Please
> > show me where I don't understand "metabolic functions" and you do.
> > Please show me where I have failed to show an understanding of what
> > fuels the human body and also where I've failed to intelligently
> > point out the adverse effects of alternatives. Lets hear your
> > intelligent take on it Bob.
> >
> >>> Starvation effects us all the same. The difference is how much
> >>> stored glycogen and lean muscle tissue does the person have to
> >>> lose before dehydration or death occurs. Reputable doctors,
> >>> nutritionists, dieticians, endocrinologists, etc. (ie.
> >>> reputable = nothing to sell) do not and never will recommend
> >>> putting your body through this type of trauma.
>
> All this absolute foolishness speaks rather badly for you. You seem to
> think you have the complete and exclusive grasp on dietary and
> nutritional truth. Nope.
>
> >> You're trying to use technical terms without understanding them.
> >
> > By all means Bob, expand upon that.
>
> Here. Let's keep it simple; just one because I don't want to tax your
> attention span. Trauma.

Uhuh, is that expanding. Sorry Bob, I thought you might actually have
somethiing intelligent to say about it. I guess not...


> >>> Good nutrition and weight loss will come from a balanced diet
> >>> including all forms of food - carbs, protein, fat, and good amounts
of
> >>> exercise.
> >
> >>> Thats it, burn more calories than you take in and you're losing
> >>> weight. Ahhh, but that takes work and some degree of commitment, I
guess its
> >>> better to keep looking for that "magic" diet pill or fad.
> >>
> >> There's so much good science to utterly cancel what you think you
> >> know that it's obvious that you've never really done any serious
> >> study of the topic. It's not as simple as you'd like it to be...
> >>
> > You have got to a TROLL Bob, there isn't any other explanation for
> > your existance here.
>
> And here you illustrate why we're utterly done talking.

I agree Bob.

> Rather than really looking deeply into nutrition and metabolic
> functions and pathways, you shriek ever more loudly how smart you are
> and how stupid everyone else is, all the while demonstrating the
> contradiction. Read Lyle McDonald's writings. See the science and the
> destruction of most of the "truths" you think you know (along with
> many others).

Again Bob, show me where I have "shrieked" about my superiority on this
topic. I have called nobody here stupid, although you and others have, many
times. I have done no such thing but I beg you to show me proof of it. You
won't and can't. I have offered what medical science knows about nutrition
and not what the diet gurus say you should be doing. Where have you offered
anything Bob? You haven't. Please join in anytime you feel you have
something intelligent to say.

Oh yes, on the subject of Lyle McDonald, the author of "Ultimate Diet 2.0",
76 pages, $24.95US and various other blockbusters, do you think Mr. McDonald
is getting rich selling those books he writes to people like you. Nawwww, he
just wants to tell everyone that medical science is a crock! Hehehe,
good-luck Bob...

PS. Bob, in your particular case, its better to be thought a fool than to
speak and remove all doubt. Ciao...


> Pastorio
>

Craig Welch > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 11 May 2004 03:12:19 GMT, Wayne > wrote:
>
>>In any event, following these diets precisely made me seriously ill.
>>Stupidly, I tried again in another 10 years or so but caught the onset
>>of illness sooner. This method of dieting clearly is not compatible
>>with my system.
>
> What precisely was the illness?

Cholesterol jump from 118 to over 400 and severe hypoglycemia.

--
Wayne

Big on natural foods?? 82.38% of people die of "natural" causes.

Tesoro wrote:
>
> The brain runs on GLUCOSE not KETONES!

Oh that hysteria again. Covered a month ago. You can make the claim
all you like, but claiming it does not make it true. The brain runs
fine on ketones and does so in millions of people without any ill
effects. Right now millions are in dietary ketosis without ill
effects. But dream on all you like.