Dana Carpender wrote:
> mdginzo wrote:
>
> >>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
> >>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
> >
> >
> > Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
> > the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
> >
>
> Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
> hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
> levels, too.
>
> Dana

Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?

mdginzo wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
>>>
>>>
>>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
>>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
>>>
>>
>>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
>>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
>>levels, too.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
> Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
> limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
> you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
> losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
> you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
>

You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
book sales by arguing on usenet?

No. Diabetics sustain dramatically more glycation damage because of
sustained high blood sugar levels.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> mdginzo wrote:
> > Dana Carpender wrote:
> >
> >>mdginzo wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
> >>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
> >>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
> >>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
> >>levels, too.
> >>
> >>Dana
> >
> >
> > Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
> > limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
> > you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
> > losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
> > you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
> >
>
> You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
> book sales by arguing on usenet?

Despite what many think, USENET is no longer some isolated part of the
INternet detached from all the rest. Yes, if you were to tell the
truth and admit that Atkins is a fad diet, you would lose many sales.
Lo-carb fads are your bread and butter. It is something you are going
to promote everywhere - if only tyo convince yourself of something that
is not true.

mdginzo wrote:

> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>>mdginzo wrote:
>>
>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>mdginzo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>>>>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
>>>>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
>>>>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
>>>>levels, too.
>>>>
>>>>Dana
>>>
>>>
>>>Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
>>>limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
>>>you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
>>>losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
>>>you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
>>>
>>
>>You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
>>book sales by arguing on usenet?
>
>
> Despite what many think, USENET is no longer some isolated part of the
> INternet detached from all the rest. Yes, if you were to tell the
> truth and admit that Atkins is a fad diet,

First of all, I don't write specifically about the Atkins diet. I write
about carbohydrate restriction in general. I have never advocated any
particular version of carbohydrate restriction. My answer to readers
who ask "how many grams of carbohydrate should I eat per day?" has
always been "How should I know? You'll have to find out what works for
your body."

Secondly, suggesting I "admit" the "truth" about low carb diets assumes
that I "know" that they're bad and evil and unhealthy. I know nothing
of the kind.

And third, the vast majority of people I mention usenet to have never
even heard of it.

Dana

On 31 May 2006 08:57:30 -0700, "mdginzo" > wrote:

>
>Dana Carpender wrote:
>> mdginzo wrote:
>> > Dana Carpender wrote:
>> >
>> >>mdginzo wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>> >>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
>> >>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
>> >>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
>> >>levels, too.
>> >>
>> >>Dana
>> >
>> >
>> > Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
>> > limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
>> > you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
>> > losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
>> > you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
>> >
>>
>> You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
>> book sales by arguing on usenet?
>
>Despite what many think, USENET is no longer some isolated part of the
>INternet detached from all the rest. Yes, if you were to tell the
>truth and admit that Atkins is a fad diet, you would lose many sales.
>Lo-carb fads are your bread and butter. It is something you are going
>to promote everywhere - if only tyo convince yourself of something that
>is not true.
>

As a person who has "done" Atkins (and YES Dana, I DID read the book)
I would not consider it a FAD diet.

Atkins diet is a lifestyle change. Show me ONE DIET out there (except
for drug induced weight loss) that does not entail a lifestyle change.
Low fat is a lifestyle change. Restricted intake of calories
necessitates a lifestyle change. Low carb is just the opposite of a
low fat diet. Many people here have stated that one "diet" is not
proper for everybody. Atkins works for a certain segment of society
like low fat works for another.

When I started Atkins, amazingly after 48 hours, I was never hungry
again. It didn't matter how much, or how little I ate, I never had
hunger pains. The problem is keeping the lifestyle change forever (as
with any diet) and that is the hard part. Lots of people lose weight
on a diet, then go back to the old ways (myself included). But I know,
carbs are bad for me.

Neal

Neal Eckhardt wrote:

> On 31 May 2006 08:57:30 -0700, "mdginzo" > wrote:
>
>
>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>
>>>mdginzo wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>mdginzo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
>>>>>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
>>>>>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
>>>>>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
>>>>>levels, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Dana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
>>>>limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
>>>>you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
>>>>losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
>>>>you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
>>>book sales by arguing on usenet?
>>
>>Despite what many think, USENET is no longer some isolated part of the
>>INternet detached from all the rest. Yes, if you were to tell the
>>truth and admit that Atkins is a fad diet, you would lose many sales.
>>Lo-carb fads are your bread and butter. It is something you are going
>>to promote everywhere - if only tyo convince yourself of something that
>>is not true.
>>
>
>
> As a person who has "done" Atkins (and YES Dana, I DID read the book)
> I would not consider it a FAD diet.
>
> Atkins diet is a lifestyle change. Show me ONE DIET out there (except
> for drug induced weight loss) that does not entail a lifestyle change.
> Low fat is a lifestyle change. Restricted intake of calories
> necessitates a lifestyle change. Low carb is just the opposite of a
> low fat diet.

You raise an interesting point. I have heard repeatedly that low carb
is a "fad" diet because "you eliminate whole food groups." Yet oddly
enough, I never hear that criticism of low fat diets. And I only rarely
hear it about vegetarian diets.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:
> Neal Eckhardt wrote:
>
> > On 31 May 2006 08:57:30 -0700, "mdginzo" > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Dana Carpender wrote:
> >>
> >>>mdginzo wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>mdginzo wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>Heh. Diabetics who get all anal about their >blood glucose levels are
> >>>>>>>stupid. Who needs *both* feet?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Then non-diabetics ought to worry about their feet also since they get
> >>>>>>the same Bg levels carmen is freaking out about.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Are you aware that glycolysis of proteins is the subject of some of the
> >>>>>hottest anti-aging research going? Non-diabetics pay for high BG
> >>>>>levels, too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Dana
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
> >>>>limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
> >>>>you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
> >>>>losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important to
> >>>>you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>You still really think that I'm going to get some sort of significant
> >>>book sales by arguing on usenet?
> >>
> >>Despite what many think, USENET is no longer some isolated part of the
> >>INternet detached from all the rest. Yes, if you were to tell the
> >>truth and admit that Atkins is a fad diet, you would lose many sales.
> >>Lo-carb fads are your bread and butter. It is something you are going
> >>to promote everywhere - if only tyo convince yourself of something that
> >>is not true.
> >>
> >
> >
> > As a person who has "done" Atkins (and YES Dana, I DID read the book)
> > I would not consider it a FAD diet.
> >
> > Atkins diet is a lifestyle change. Show me ONE DIET out there (except
> > for drug induced weight loss) that does not entail a lifestyle change.
> > Low fat is a lifestyle change. Restricted intake of calories
> > necessitates a lifestyle change. Low carb is just the opposite of a
> > low fat diet.
>
> You raise an interesting point. I have heard repeatedly that low carb
> is a "fad" diet because "you eliminate whole food groups." Yet oddly
> enough, I never hear that criticism of low fat diets. And I only rarely
> hear it about vegetarian diets.

There are essentially four calorie souces. Three of them you cannot
live without:

Protein (essential amino acids)
Fat (essential fatty acids)
Alcohols (at least one, glycerol)

Someone tell me even one digestible carbohydrate that is essential for
survival, post weaning. We live in a culture of raging addicts, and
teetotalers, and even those who use in careful moderation, are
considered weirdos.
>
> Dana

--Bryan, 15 pound overweight because of being sloppy with carbs

"Food Snob" > writes:



>There are essentially four calorie souces. Three of them you cannot
>live without:

>Protein (essential amino acids)
>Fat (essential fatty acids)
>Alcohols (at least one, glycerol)

Hey, I can live without glycerol any time I want. I just don't
want to, is all.

--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

I think she is saying that non-diabetics with BGs of 170 are actually
diabetics or at least pre-diabetic. Diabetes isn't something that you get
all of a sudden like a cold. It is a slow process and the medical community
seems to disagree as to exactly what point in that process one should be
called a diabetic though the threshhold does appear to be getting lower.

In ps.com,
mdginzo > stated

| Then non-diabetics with normal Bg's need to worry about losing their
| limbs? Is there a lot of that going around with non diabetics? Can
| you produce statistics showing that non-diabetics with Bg's of 170 are
| losing their limbs? Jesus woman, are your book sales that important
| to you that you are willing to spread any lie to promote them?

FOB wrote:

> I think she is saying that non-diabetics with BGs of 170 are actually
> diabetics or at least pre-diabetic. Diabetes isn't something that you get
> all of a sudden like a cold. It is a slow process and the medical community
> seems to disagree as to exactly what point in that process one should be
> called a diabetic though the threshhold does appear to be getting lower.
>
>

True enough, but that's not quite what I was saying. I was pointing out
that at least some of what have generally been considered "age related"
health problems are, instead, the results of the effects of sugar on the
tissues. Even non-diabetics who regularly jack their blood sugar up
(and let's face it, many Americans are eating or drinking some sort of
concentrated carbohydrate every couple of hours) are accelerating the
onset of those "age related" health issues.

Dana