pearl wrote:
<...>
>>Even MORE interestingly (from the above link, dummy):
>>Dr Davey said: "Despite this, we still need to be extremely careful in
>>interpreting these results as we only sampled a small number of
>>patients.
>>
>>"Further studies on larger groups of patients will need to be carried
>>out before we will know if this treatment is fully effective.
>>
>>"Similarly we have no idea how long the treatment benefits will last
>>over a longer period."
>>
>>Lesley does not comprehend science at all.
>
> If tosspot quackpots like you and wendy had your way, dismissing
> such techniques as 'BS' and 'quackery', this research wouldn't even
> be carried out!

Neither of us stands in the way of others to prevent them from doing whatever
they want to do. If people are willing to pay you €20 to rub their smelly feet,
more power to you. I'm all for free enterprise. I'm also for free speech, and I
intend to use mine to argue against public funding in my nation for sham
alternative healing studies.

> Thank goodness scientific researchers know better.

There's nothing scientific about what happened, and the caution employed by Dr
Davey is noted: it was done on a very small group and the doctor has no way of
knowing how long the perceived benefits will last. The article said nothing
about distinctions between the perceived effects from sham or actual treatment.
It also was not a double blind study. Funny how double blind studies have a way
of debunking this kind of crap.

Hello Rubystars!

> I was born in 78, so memories of the 70s are pretty much non-existent for
> me. *L* I do remember all the dexatrim commercials I saw growing up though.
> I also remember this thing that was being advertized and came in a packet
> that people were supposed to sprinkle over their food before they ate it. It
> was probably the same kind of thing.

Its very interesting you say this. Dexatrim was considered one of the
original ephedrine pill products. Originally, they used the quite
popular phenylpropanolamine (ie. Think early nasal sprays), but was
later replaced when the FDA pulled it from the market. It seemed that
some people where would get hemorrhagic stroke (ie. Bleeding into
brain or tissue around brain). After this, they just went with
ephedrine. I think they pulled the plug in late '02 as I remember.
Dont know much more than this on it...

> Sounds like it would be dangerous for ephedra users who gave into the
> occasional craving for a piece of chocolate cake or a candy bar (Almost
> Everyone!) or drank coffee in the morning. So could that explain some of the
> health problems.

No. Ephedra was not that powerful. Even at very large dosages, its
symptoms where still very similar to a caffeine "overdose".
Considerable research was done, including on the FDA side. Here is
the RAND study on ephedra that was done that everyone talked about.
Interestingly enough, if you read it and then look at what was said in
the press, you wouldnt think they were talking about the same study!!
:-)

Ephedra and Ephedrine for Weight Loss and Athletic Performance
Enhancement: Clinical Efficacy and Side Effects. Evidence
Report/Technology Assessment
Shekelle P, Morton, S., Maglione M, et al.
AHRQ Publication No. 03-E022
<http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/95n-0304-bkg0003-ref-07-01-index.htm>

> Isn't epinephrine the same as adrenalin, or is that something different?

Yep. Epinephrine = adrenaline

In the case of ephedra, though, it contains ephedrine. Ephedrine
increases the release of adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline
(norepinephrine). Basically, what they are looking to do is start a
process called "lipolysis".

Please do not think this term is complex.... If fact, it is quite
simple....Let me explain..Before a fat can be burned up, it first my
be broken down into glycerol and free fatty acids. That is all this
means. I wish that was the whole story, though... If it was, loosing
fat would be so much easier... They body is such a complex little
"beast"... :-)

In fact, as the body increases adrenaline, something else called
"alpha-2-adrenoceptors", which are termed as "anti-lipolytic" also
come into play that attempts to stop the process... A similar effect
happens on the noradrenaline side. Let me know if you are interested
in more... To describe it more, I would have to get some of my old
text books out just to make sure I get everything right in
description. Otherwise, I will run risk of getting spammed!!! :-)

> I'd rather trust objective results than subjective observations, personally.

On the ECA side, this was unlikely to happen. This of it this way...
No gov. study was going to touch it in an objective way. In addition,
who wants to put money into researching something that is readily used
in virtually all products already... (ie. No $$$ to be made..)

> The herbal market is also overrun with pseudoscientists making all kinds of
> claims for herbs that can't be substantiated. I believe there really are
> benefits to be gained from some herbal remedies, but there's so much bad
> information that it's very hard to filter the truth from the "traditions."
> and even things that pill pushers made up.

Most definitely! Worse yet, even if you look at the ingredients, is
no way to determine the "purity" of these products as well. What do I
mean??? Well, go buy Creatine at Walmart and you will see what I am
talking about. Also, go buy some of those "off name" protein bars and
shakes. I have had more than one person complain about this...

When dealing with the herbal markets in general, it is typically
encouraged for people to find a company that they feel they can trust
and try to stick with that company. For some people it is EAS. For
others, it is AST. Some even love the $$$$ GNC $$$$ side. Now,
please do not think that I am implying that these companies are the
only ones out there that can be trusted. If you have tried a product
from a company and really like it, well there you go! :-)

> Yeah, I think a lot of people who use Ephedra like substances think it's a
> *substitute* for self control and regular exercise.

Yes. Even worse than this, these people will will traditionally find
also have serious health issues that just make it even more dangerous.
I think this also played into the FDA's fears. The last thing that
the FDA wanted, including myself, was to have someone with health
issue go out and do something really dangerous...

> Sounds pretty dangerous in a place like Texas or Florida.

It really was not as bad as you think. I am not saying that someone
should not be careful. Heat Stoke is easy to prevent if you know the
symptoms that you are looking for, as most coaches do. In fact, the
only really famous cases was the Minn. Vikings Korey Stringer, and the
Baltimore Orioles' Steve Bechler. In Stringers case, he was never
even tested to see if in that Ephedra was to bring, but after looking
into his locker, Ephedra was assumed to be the cause.

> The problem is people want a pill to do their work for them rather than with
> them. They thought Ephedra was that pill.

My hope is that there will never be such a pill created. Think about
it this way.... What is better??? 1) Regular Exercise and a good diet
OR 2) No Exercise and a terrible diet... Oh, and a "Magical Pill".....
Pretty scary if you think about it!! :-(

> Bones can regenerate, but I guess they're not considered organs. I've heard
> of hearts growing blood vessels to compensate for blockages, etc.

I can not go too much farther here, as you are quickly reaching the
end of my knowledge.... :-(

I do know that the liver can regenerate as other organs, such as
kidneys, Heart, ect. do not have such ability. In the case of the
liver, though, regeneration still leaves some scar tissue behind. I
will state, though, that this is "basic knowledge" and know nothing
more than this.....

As far as nervous system regeneration and blood vessel generation, I
could state what I think is the case, but I think I would much rather
"bow out" to someone that knows more on this subject than I and can be
trusted to be factually correct... :-)

> Thanks for the warning. I'm not planning to get any chemical aids right now,
> but it's good to know about the risks at any rate.

Great!!! I was really hoping you were going to say this.... ;-)

> Have there been legit peer reviewed studies on it?

Yes. Eventhough Ginseng is a herb, it is unique because several
governments are tryint to promote them..... Ginseng is also unique in
that the AMA pretty much supports it. Here are a few studies that I
found for you.

Also, here is a link to get a free trial to a fairly decent text miner
(MedScan).
<http://www.ariadnegenomics.com/products/medscanfeat.html>

===============================
Acetylenes from the callus of Panax ginseng
Fujimoto, Y. and M. Satoh. 1987.
Phytochemistry 26: 2850-2852.

Effects of ginsenoside Rb1 on central cholinergic metabolism
Benishin, C.G., R. Lee, L.C.H. Wang, and A.J. Liu. 1991.
Pharmacology 42: 223-229.

Effects of saponins of Panax quinquefolium leaf and stem on isolated
rabbit aortic strips
Wu, J., X.J. Yu, and C.H. Liu. 1995.
Zhongguo Yaolixue Yu Dulixue Zazh 9(2):155-156.

Studies on the panarytriol of Panax ginseng - Isolation, determination
and anti-tumor activity
Matsunaga, H., M. Katano, H. Yamamoto, M. Mori and K. Takata. 1989
Chemical Pharmaceutical Bulletin 37(5): 1279-1281

Cardiovascular effect of red ginseng and white ginseng
Matsuda, H., M. Kubo and M. Mizuno. 1987
Shoyakugaku Zasshi 41: 125-134

Psychotropic effects of ginseng saponins on agonistic behavior between
resident and intruder mice
Yoshimura, H., K. Wantanabe and N. Ogawa. 1988
European Journal of Pharmacology 146: 291-298
===============================

Thanks,
Jim Carver

"Rubystars" > wrote in message . com>...
> "Jim Carver" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hello again Rubystars!
> >
> > > So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes
> is
> > > helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
> > > every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I
> switched
> > > over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know
> it's
> > > helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
> > > caffeine part was helping.
> >
> > I thought this question would be coming. This was reason I put in the
> > NOTE statement in the last posting about noting that all stimulants
> > are not the same.... :-)
> >
> > To answer your question. Unfortunately, no... Caffeine, by itself,
> > does not provide much of an elevated metabolic rate increase, but is
> > OK as an appetite suppression substance. To be effective, though,
> > about 100mg (ie A large cup of coffee) is required. With your Diet
> > Coke approach, you are only getting 31mg per 8oz serving.
>
> Ok. Thanks for the info.
>
> > Now, one thing that I got allot of, even from some doctors, is that
> > metabolic raising substances simply do not work. I find this very
> > comical in that metabolic enhancers was whole reason the amphetamine
> > class of stimulants were created. (ie. Remember the 70's when doctors
> > would just prescribe a "wonder pill" to solve any overweight
> > problems?)
>
> I was born in 78, so memories of the 70s are pretty much non-existent for
> me. *L* I do remember all the dexatrim commercials I saw growing up though.
> I also remember this thing that was being advertized and came in a packet
> that people were supposed to sprinkle over their food before they ate it. It
> was probably the same kind of thing.
>
> >Amphetamines were so powerful, in fact, and addictive for
> > that matter, that the FDA decided that they were a little too risky
> > for most people to mess with... I certainly see and respect their
> > position on this matter... Just to note, I support the FDA on most of
> > their stances...
> >
> > Just so that you can build some respect for some in the industry in
> > reference to metabolic enhancing products, the lets talk about the
> > most famous of them all, being the ECA stack.
> >
> > (NOTE: Unfortunately, though, the Ephedra part of this stack was
> > banned by the FDA earlier this year, but you will see that knowing its
> > history will be helpful to you in looking at how the next generation
> > products work...)
> >
> > What is an ECA stack, and how/why did it work?
> > ======================================
> > The ECA stack as most people know it, actually stands for
> > Ephedra/Caffeine/Asprin. This blend was effectively brought to us by
> > the body building community in trying to develop ways for them to "cut
> > down" when preparing for competitions. No, not all body builders are
> > meat heads. Some are actually very intelligent! Did it work?? You
> > betcha it did... Very effective, and here is why..
> >
> > I don't want to bring the whole "body enzyme" thing into the picture,
> > because I think it probably would just zone out most people, so I will
> > describe the process in a easiest manner possible. If you are looking
> > for a more textbook explanation of exact chemical releases and enzyme
> > blocking involved, let me know, and I can explain further. For now,
> > though, I will just keep it simple to understand...
> >
> > Basically, Ephedrine (which is the active ingredient in Ephedra)
> > stimulates the autonomic nervous system in many ways. In fact,
> > ephedrine is one of main drugs asthma sufferers use everyday. When
> > you blend ephedrine with caffeine, though, the two mimic the effects
> > of true amphetamines, which as you know now are very powerful
> > stimulants.
>
> Sounds like it would be dangerous for ephedra users who gave into the
> occasional craving for a piece of chocolate cake or a candy bar (Almost
> Everyone!) or drank coffee in the morning. So could that explain some of the
> health problems.
>
> >The thing to understand the most, though, is that when
> > adding these two stimulants together, there is an increased release of
> > a body chemical called "nor-ephinephrine".
>
> Isn't epinephrine the same as adrenalin, or is that something different?
>
> >In addition, something
> > called the "beta-2-androgenic receptors" in the body is stimulated.
> > OK other than those two techno jargon words, that isn't too bad is
> > it??... Now lets look at what the Aspirin is for??
> >
> > Well, the aspirin side of the "ECA stack" has been and continues to be
> > a little controversial. Basically, aspirin was added to the stack
> > about 11 years ago and they were using it to block an additional body
> > enzyme to aid its "effectiveness", so to speak, of the overall
> > process. Once again, if you want a more technical description of why,
> > let me know. Primarily the reason most companies left Aspirin in was
> > due to the fact that it was noticed that it was very effective in
> > going at abdominal fat sections. Why, this is, no one really knew for
> > sure, but the speculation was that it was due to the fact that
> > thinning the blood helps get additional blood supply to abdominal fat
> > section area.
> >I personally think this is a little "magic fluff" for
> > my tastes, but most body builders swear by it, and who am I to
> > disagree with the people that know it best?? :-)
>
> I'd rather trust objective results than subjective observations, personally.
>
> > ======================================
> >
> > OK. If Ephedra was effect, why was it banned by the FDA?
> > ======================================
> > Several reasons. Some of which were political in nature. It seems
> > there is allot of bad blood between the FDA and the largest supplier
> > of ephedra for normal consumers being Metabolife. Historically over
> > the last decade, it seems that the FDA has a track record of not
> > liking the herbal market simply due to the fact that congress never
> > gave them much authority over it.
>
> The herbal market is also overrun with pseudoscientists making all kinds of
> claims for herbs that can't be substantiated. I believe there really are
> benefits to be gained from some herbal remedies, but there's so much bad
> information that it's very hard to filter the truth from the "traditions."
> and even things that pill pushers made up.
>
> >If you don't like this, then I
> > would encourage you to contact your senator and congressmen and state
> > your opinion. This track record is clearly established, and certainly
> > goes against the intent of what congress was trying to do when then
> > pass a bill that essentially created the herbal market... Overall,
> > though, this is still a small reason to the overall pictu
> >
> > Banning Reasons:
> > 1) Ephedra was primarily banned because of abuse by people that would
> > simply use it only and not improve anything else on the nutritional
> > and diet side. Not smart, because an ECA stack is certainly too
> > strong a stimulant blend to use for people who are not used to working
> > out regularly in intense manners.
>
> Yeah, I think a lot of people who use Ephedra like substances think it's a
> *substitute* for self control and regular exercise.
>
> > 2) Because of the increased "metabolic rate", its use would hamper
> > your body's ability to regulate body temps. This is normally not an
> > issue, but if you are on high doses and then go out into > 96F
> > weather, you can get into a heat stroke situation very rapidly.
>
> Sounds pretty dangerous in a place like Texas or Florida.
>
> >Even
> > more frustrating to medical professionals, was the fact that when a
> > person did develop a heat stroke condition and were admitted into the
> > emergency room, they were almost powerless to do much about it other
> > than put the person in a tub of ice and hope for the best. I
> > certainly can understand how frustrating this must have been...
>
> Yeah
>
> > 3) Like most good solutions, as soon as one good product comes out, a
> > large number of imitation products also came on the market. They also
> > were making all sorts of bogus claims about their product trying to
> > get an "edge" on the competition. Funny thing was, though, they all
> > were working off the same principles and typically the same dosages...
>
> Well that's how things like that go. Heck, there's even a large
> "homeopathic" market in which the pills might not even contain one molecule
> of the so-called therapeutic substance because of heavy dilution beyond what
> Avogadro's number allows.
>
> > Was Ephedra that dangerous??
> > ======================================
> > No.. If used properly it was not.. Most knowledgeable fitness
> > professionals agree to this fact. Interestingly enough, the Chinese
> > has used it for over 4000 years with little to no problems. I must
> > admit that more than one of Chinese immigrant has chuckled at me in
> > discussing Ephedra... "Stupid Americans" as they say it.. :-)
> > ======================================
>
> The problem is people want a pill to do their work for them rather than with
> them. They thought Ephedra was that pill.
>
> > What is industries "new product" now that Ephedra is gone?
> > ======================================
> > As of now, the jury is still out on where we go from here. Some
> > companies just increased the caffeine amounts. No smart, as this just
> > give people the shakes and creates a mild case of paranoia at large
> > dosages of caffeine...
>
> Yeah too much caffeine at once is no fun.
>
> > Some, have replaced Ephedra which its "sister" herb being Green Leaf
> > Extract. Even though so far Green Leaf Extract looks promising,
> > because of the higher dosage required, it has been noticed to show
> > some issues on liver function tests. (ie. Slight liver damage)
>
> Yuck.
>
> > Not too nice to think about, but remember that the liver is the only
> > organ in the body that can regenerate itself..... That certainly is
> > no excuse to abuse it, though. That's just not nice!! :-)
>
> Bones can regenerate, but I guess they're not considered organs. I've heard
> of hearts growing blood vessels to compensate for blockages, etc.
>
> > Also, another herb called Bitter Orange Extract is now being tried to
> > replaced ephedra, but it also seems to have allot of the same issues
> > as Green Leaf...
>
> Thanks for the warning. I'm not planning to get any chemical aids right now,
> but it's good to know about the risks at any rate.
>
> > Finally, I should bring up Ginseng as another option. When people
> > talk about ginseng, though, they are talking about energy enhancing.
> > Also there are several different forms of ginseng, but the Korean
> > Panax Ginseng is clearly the best from an energy standpoint.
>
> Have there been legit peer reviewed studies on it?
>
> <snip>
>
> -Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>Even MORE interestingly (from the above link, dummy):
> >>Dr Davey said: "Despite this, we still need to be extremely careful in
> >>interpreting these results as we only sampled a small number of
> >>patients.
> >>
> >>"Further studies on larger groups of patients will need to be carried
> >>out before we will know if this treatment is fully effective.

Not just 'effective',- "fully effective".

> >>"Similarly we have no idea how long the treatment benefits will last
> >>over a longer period."

"a longer period"- than "at least three weeks".

> >>Lesley does not comprehend science at all.
> >
> > If tosspot quackpots like you and wendy had your way, dismissing
> > such techniques as 'BS' and 'quackery', this research wouldn't even
> > be carried out!
>
> Neither of us stands in the way of others to prevent them from doing whatever
> they want to do. If people are willing to pay you €20

And more.

> to rub their smelly feet,

That isn't what I do.

> more power to you.

Thanks.

> I'm all for free enterprise.

First and foremost, eh, nudge nudge wink.

> I'm also for free speech,

Without fear of harassment for stating personal opinions?

> and I
> intend to use mine to argue against public funding in my nation for sham
> alternative healing studies.

How very ignorant.

> > Thank goodness scientific researchers know better.
>
> There's nothing scientific about what happened, and the caution employed by Dr
> Davey is noted: it was done on a very small group and the doctor has no way of
> knowing how long the perceived benefits will last.

'The therapy led to improved muscle and limb movement, and increased
ability to feel sensations.
...
The researchers focused on a phenomenon called intracortical inhibition
which makes it easier for mesage from the brain to pass down the spinal
cord to the rest of the body.

They found rTMS treatment resulted in a 37.5% drop in intracortical
inhibition, compared with normal physiotherapy.

This reduction in intracortical inhibition was accompanied by improvement
in both motor and sensory function, which lasted for at least three weeks
after the treatment.
...'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3701365.stm

> The article said nothing
> about distinctions between the perceived effects from sham or actual treatment.

'The patients had all sustained their injuries at least 18 months previously
and had already received conventional rehabilitation including physiotherapy.

They were all considered stable in that they were no longer undergoing
natural improvement.'

> It also was not a double blind study. Funny how double blind studies have a way
> of debunking this kind of crap.

Funny how you never fail to come up with a load of absolute crap.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
<snip interesting stuff>

Thanks

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>Even MORE interestingly (from the above link, dummy):
> >>Dr Davey said: "Despite this, we still need to be extremely careful in
> >>interpreting these results as we only sampled a small number of
> >>patients.
> >>
> >>"Further studies on larger groups of patients will need to be carried
> >>out before we will know if this treatment is fully effective.
> >>
> >>"Similarly we have no idea how long the treatment benefits will last
> >>over a longer period."
> >>
> >>Lesley does not comprehend science at all.
> >
> > If tosspot quackpots like you and wendy had your way, dismissing
> > such techniques as 'BS' and 'quackery', this research wouldn't even
> > be carried out!
>
> Neither of us stands in the way of others to prevent them from doing
whatever
> they want to do. If people are willing to pay you €20 to rub their smelly
feet,
> more power to you. I'm all for free enterprise. I'm also for free speech,
and I
> intend to use mine to argue against public funding in my nation for sham
> alternative healing studies.

I think that people have a right to spend their money as they will, if they
earned it, so no, I won't stand in their way of getting "alternative
medicine." I do have a problem with the quacks/snake oil peddlers/bee pollen
pushers who are conning people though.

Shining colored light on people, having them eat pure white gold, rubbing
their feet, sticking needles into them, or doing any of that stupid crap
isn't going to help anyone. I'm really angry with all the people who are
taking advantage of gullible people and taking away hard earned money.

-Rubystars

"Jim Carver" > wrote in message
<snip>

Thanks for all the info, Jim.

-Rubystars

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>>Even MORE interestingly (from the above link, dummy):
>>>>Dr Davey said: "Despite this, we still need to be extremely careful in
>>>>interpreting these results as we only sampled a small number of
>>>>patients.
>>>>
>>>>"Further studies on larger groups of patients will need to be carried
>>>>out before we will know if this treatment is fully effective.
>
> Not just 'effective',- "fully effective".

Your point being?

>>>>"Similarly we have no idea how long the treatment benefits will last
>>>>over a longer period."
>
> "a longer period"- than "at least three weeks".

Ipse dixit. They can't even be sure that it's effective for three bloody minutes
until they do a broader study, nitwit.

>>>>Lesley does not comprehend science at all.
>>>
>>>If tosspot quackpots like you and wendy had your way, dismissing
>>>such techniques as 'BS' and 'quackery', this research wouldn't even
>>>be carried out!
>>
>>Neither of us stands in the way of others to prevent them from doing whatever
>>they want to do. If people are willing to pay you €20
>
> And more.

If they're gullible enough to fork it over, more power to ya.

>>to rub their smelly feet,
>
> That isn't what I do.

Yes it is.

>>more power to you.
>
> Thanks.

NP

>>I'm all for free enterprise.
>
> First and foremost, eh, nudge nudge wink.

Profit makes stuff happen.

>>I'm also for free speech,
>
> Without fear of harassment for stating personal opinions?

Free speech for those (like you) with loony ideas, free speech for sensible and
rational people (like me) who explain why others' ideas are loony. It's a two
way street. Do you not believe everyone has the same rights?

>>and I
>>intend to use mine to argue against public funding in my nation for sham
>>alternative healing studies.
>
> How very ignorant.

Of you? Yes, it is. Your ignorance can be dispelled, just as it was in the polar
fountain threads.

>>>Thank goodness scientific researchers know better.
>>
>>There's nothing scientific about what happened, and the caution employed by Dr
>>Davey is noted: it was done on a very small group and the doctor has no way of
>>knowing how long the perceived benefits will last.
>
> 'The therapy led to improved muscle and limb movement, and increased
> ability to feel sensations.

Neither of which addresses the points I made.

<...>
>>It also was not a double blind study. Funny how double blind studies have a way
>>of debunking this kind of crap.
>
> Funny how you never fail to come up with a load of absolute crap.

I think the same about you when you grossly misrepresent the findings of studies
and CONTINUE spewing your interpretation even when the very researchers issue
statements saying that media types have distorted their findings (e.g., when you
claimed fat was addictive though the researchers later said that was NOT their
findings).

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
> I think that people have a right to spend their money as they will, if they
> earned it, so no, I won't stand in their way of getting "alternative
> medicine." I do have a problem with the quacks/snake oil peddlers/bee pollen
> pushers who are conning people though.
>
> Shining colored light on people, having them eat pure white gold, rubbing
> their feet, sticking needles into them, or doing any of that stupid crap
> isn't going to help anyone. I'm really angry with all the people who are
> taking advantage of gullible people and taking away hard earned money.

I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund some of
these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of real
health care.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
> <...>
> > I think that people have a right to spend their money as they will, if
they
> > earned it, so no, I won't stand in their way of getting "alternative
> > medicine." I do have a problem with the quacks/snake oil peddlers/bee
pollen
> > pushers who are conning people though.
> >
> > Shining colored light on people, having them eat pure white gold,
rubbing
> > their feet, sticking needles into them, or doing any of that stupid crap
> > isn't going to help anyone. I'm really angry with all the people who are
> > taking advantage of gullible people and taking away hard earned money.
>
> I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund some
of
> these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of
real
> health care.

Yes, I don't understand that at all! You'd think insurance companies would
be the first ones that would want to keep their costs down. It doesn't make
any sense at all!

And federal agencies should really have higher standards.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
>>I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund some
> of
>>these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of
> real
>>health care.
>
> Yes, I don't understand that at all! You'd think insurance companies would
> be the first ones that would want to keep their costs down. It doesn't make
> any sense at all!

I can understand why they do it (two reasons). First, market demand. A lot of
people don't know the history of chiropractic or reflexology, so they demand it;
what's a company to do if that's a criterion that their market desires? Second,
and a point I've never dismissed, a lot of patients are happier with the
touchy-feely stuff and a couple massages or foot rubs can be cheaper than
sending someone to specialists. Still, if I were running an insurance company,
it'd focus on education and prevention, including teaching people about quackery
and why they should avoid it.

> And federal agencies should really have higher standards.

Government is more often a problem than a solution. That especially includes its
efforts in the health care sector.

(Jim Carver) wrote in message . com>...
> Hello Again Ralph!!
>
> > "Jim Carver" is clueless as to the fact that amphetamines were
> > developed in Germany in the 1920 -30s several decades before anyone
> > had heard of "metabolic rate", much less the idea of enhancing it.
> > Their use in weight control began when it was noticed that they
> > suppress appetite, sort of.
>
> Ralph, just like a bunch of other doctors friends that I have,
> including sometimes one of my brothers, you are lending advise on a
> subject that you know very little about in a practical way....

The US and much of the modern world is facing an epidemic of
obesity. Lots of people are struggling, some people are desperate.
Others see the opportunity to get rich without working.
Human metabolic systems are both more simple and more complicated
than you let on. They are simple in that they do what they are
designed to do without the need of a lot of conscious input from us if
we create the right conditions. If one can grasp the basic principles
and the needed conditions, there is no reason to delve into details.
And the systems themselves are obviously far more nuanced and
complicated than science, conventional or otherwise, has any idea
about. I doubt if even 1/3 of the relevant hormones/neurotransmitters
have been identified.
The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
fairly easily.
1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
therefore a useful tool.
2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
some if you can.
3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
muscle groups as possible.
4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.
5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

Consider the Amish. They all move about constantly. They deny
themselves "labor saving" devices. They all burn 4-5000 calories a
day. They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins. They
cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.
Our bodies are way smarter than any of us. We do not need experts.
There are only a few things people need to know and do.
Beyond this, there a vast amount of irrelevant crap floating around
being pimped by hustlers of various sorts.
Choosing to lead a more physically active lifestyle forces a much
larger increase in calorie burn than the marginal increases in
basal/resting/thermogenic metabolic rates that can be achieved by any
means at all.
This is the core of the matter regardless of which one of us is in
better shape or if I am a nice person or not.
And everyone heard it all for free.



Yes,
> you are correct, amphetamines were "discovered" in the 1920's..... In
> addition, at that time ketogenic diets were also "developed" in the
> 1920's as a way to control seizures in children only later to be
> replaced by more effective medications. Does this make the Atkins
> concept incorrect?? No... Millions would completely disagree with
> you.. It is just as effective...
>
> In discussion of stimulants, you are also lending advise on a subject
> that it is clear you have very little experience in the real world
> on.... Yes, ECA stacks and other metabolic enhancers do work... Just
> accept it.... You can dispute it until the cows come home, but it is
> fact.... Not only this, but if used properly, they are highly
> effectively...
>
> > When you are this ignorant about a subject, it means little when
> > something seems "comical" to you.
>
> Ignorant on this subject??? Easy there my little pop belly doctor
> friend... ;-)
>
> Ralph, if I and thousands of other fitness professionals are so
> "ignorant" on this subject, then why don't we discuss your physical
> fitness level shall we?? The only thing that I know about you so far
> from you is that you "ran some marathons" in the past...
>
> Also, why dont we do this ?? Pick any 30K in the US. .. (Including
> the classic Boston)... I will personally go to any marathon of your
> choosing, and we can run it together and see who is in better physical
> shape??? As a matter of fact, after the run we will post the time
> results on this group? Come on, it will be fun... Also, just to level
> the playing field even further, I wont even carb load before hand...
> :-)
>
> Also, care to provide your Height / Weight / BF% numbers??? If you
> are as knowledgeable as you say, lets see what kind of results are you
> getting my little friend???... Yep... Thought so... :-)
>
> Jim Carver
>
>
> (Ralph DuBose) wrote in message . com>...
> > (Jim Carver) wrote in message . com>...
> > > Hello again Rubystars!
> > >
> > > > So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is
> > > > helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
> > > > every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched
> > > > over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's
> > > > helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
> > > > caffeine part was helping.
> > >
> > > I thought this question would be coming. This was reason I put in the
> > > NOTE statement in the last posting about noting that all stimulants
> > > are not the same.... :-)
>
>
> > >
> > > To answer your question. Unfortunately, no... Caffeine, by itself,
> > > does not provide much of an elevated metabolic rate increase, but is
> > > OK as an appetite suppression substance. To be effective, though,
> > > about 100mg (ie A large cup of coffee) is required. With your Diet
> > > Coke approach, you are only getting 31mg per 8oz serving.
> > >
> > > Now, one thing that I got allot of, even from some doctors, is that
> > > metabolic raising substances simply do not work. I find this very
> > > comical in that metabolic enhancers was whole reason the amphetamine
> > > class of stimulants were created. (ie. Remember the 70's when doctors
> > > would just prescribe a "wonder pill" to solve any overweight
> > > problems?)
> >
> > "Jim Carver" is clueless as to the fact that amphetamines were
> > developed in Germany in the 1920 -30s several decades before anyone
> > had heard of "metabolic rate", much less the idea of enhancing it.
> > Their use in weight control began when it was noticed that they
> > suppress appetite, sort of.
> > When you are this ignorant about a subject, it means little when
> > something seems "comical" to you.
> >
> > Amphetamines were so powerful, in fact, and addictive for
> > > that matter, that the FDA decided that they were a little too risky
> > > for most people to mess with... I certainly see and respect their
> > > position on this matter... Just to note, I support the FDA on most of
> > > their stances...
> > >
> > > Just so that you can build some respect for some in the industry in
> > > reference to metabolic enhancing products, the lets talk about the
> > > most famous of them all, being the ECA stack.
> > >
> > > (NOTE: Unfortunately, though, the Ephedra part of this stack was
> > > banned by the FDA earlier this year, but you will see that knowing its
> > > history will be helpful to you in looking at how the next generation
> > > products work...)
> > >
> > > What is an ECA stack, and how/why did it work?
> > > ======================================
> > > The ECA stack as most people know it, actually stands for
> > > Ephedra/Caffeine/Asprin. This blend was effectively brought to us by
> > > the body building community in trying to develop ways for them to "cut
> > > down" when preparing for competitions. No, not all body builders are
> > > meat heads. Some are actually very intelligent! Did it work?? You
> > > betcha it did... Very effective, and here is why..
> > >
> > > I don't want to bring the whole "body enzyme" thing into the picture,
> > > because I think it probably would just zone out most people, so I will
> > > describe the process in a easiest manner possible. If you are looking
> > > for a more textbook explanation of exact chemical releases and enzyme
> > > blocking involved, let me know, and I can explain further. For now,
> > > though, I will just keep it simple to understand...
> > >
> > > Basically, Ephedrine (which is the active ingredient in Ephedra)
> > > stimulates the autonomic nervous system in many ways. In fact,
> > > ephedrine is one of main drugs asthma sufferers use everyday. When
> > > you blend ephedrine with caffeine, though, the two mimic the effects
> > > of true amphetamines, which as you know now are very powerful
> > > stimulants. The thing to understand the most, though, is that when
> > > adding these two stimulants together, there is an increased release of
> > > a body chemical called "nor-ephinephrine". In addition, something
> > > called the "beta-2-androgenic receptors" in the body is stimulated.
> > > OK other than those two techno jargon words, that isn't too bad is
> > > it??... Now lets look at what the Aspirin is for??
> > >
> > > Well, the aspirin side of the "ECA stack" has been and continues to be
> > > a little controversial. Basically, aspirin was added to the stack
> > > about 11 years ago and they were using it to block an additional body
> > > enzyme to aid its "effectiveness", so to speak, of the overall
> > > process. Once again, if you want a more technical description of why,
> > > let me know. Primarily the reason most companies left Aspirin in was
> > > due to the fact that it was noticed that it was very effective in
> > > going at abdominal fat sections. Why, this is, no one really knew for
> > > sure, but the speculation was that it was due to the fact that
> > > thinning the blood helps get additional blood supply to abdominal fat
> > > section area. I personally think this is a little "magic fluff" for
> > > my tastes, but most body builders swear by it, and who am I to
> > > disagree with the people that know it best?? :-)
> > > ======================================
> > >
> > > OK. If Ephedra was effect, why was it banned by the FDA?
> > > ======================================
> > > Several reasons. Some of which were political in nature. It seems
> > > there is allot of bad blood between the FDA and the largest supplier
> > > of ephedra for normal consumers being Metabolife. Historically over
> > > the last decade, it seems that the FDA has a track record of not
> > > liking the herbal market simply due to the fact that congress never
> > > gave them much authority over it. If you don't like this, then I
> > > would encourage you to contact your senator and congressmen and state
> > > your opinion. This track record is clearly established, and certainly
> > > goes against the intent of what congress was trying to do when then
> > > pass a bill that essentially created the herbal market... Overall,
> > > though, this is still a small reason to the overall pictu
> > >
> > > Banning Reasons:
> > > 1) Ephedra was primarily banned because of abuse by people that would
> > > simply use it only and not improve anything else on the nutritional
> > > and diet side. Not smart, because an ECA stack is certainly too
> > > strong a stimulant blend to use for people who are not used to working
> > > out regularly in intense manners.
> > >
> > > 2) Because of the increased "metabolic rate", its use would hamper
> > > your body's ability to regulate body temps. This is normally not an
> > > issue, but if you are on high doses and then go out into > 96F
> > > weather, you can get into a heat stroke situation very rapidly. Even
> > > more frustrating to medical professionals, was the fact that when a
> > > person did develop a heat stroke condition and were admitted into the
> > > emergency room, they were almost powerless to do much about it other
> > > than put the person in a tub of ice and hope for the best. I
> > > certainly can understand how frustrating this must have been...
> > >
> > > 3) Like most good solutions, as soon as one good product comes out, a
> > > large number of imitation products also came on the market. They also
> > > were making all sorts of bogus claims about their product trying to
> > > get an "edge" on the competition. Funny thing was, though, they all
> > > were working off the same principles and typically the same dosages...
> > >
> > > Was Ephedra that dangerous??
> > > ======================================
> > > No.. If used properly it was not.. Most knowledgeable fitness
> > > professionals agree to this fact? Interestingly enough, the Chinese
> > > has used it for over 4000 years with little to no problems. I must
> > > admit that more than one of Chinese immigrant has chuckled at me in
> > > discussing Ephedra... "Stupid Americans" as they say it.. :-)
> > > ======================================
> > >
> > > What is industries "new product" now that Ephedra is gone?
> > > ======================================
> > > As of now, the jury is still out on where we go from here. Some
> > > companies just increased the caffeine amounts. No smart, as this just
> > > give people the shakes and creates a mild case of paranoia at large
> > > dosages of caffeine...
> > >
> > > Some, have replaced Ephedra which its "sister" herb being Green Leaf
> > > Extract. Even though so far Green Leaf Extract looks promising,
> > > because of the higher dosage required, it has been noticed to show
> > > some issues on liver function tests. (ie. Slight liver damage)
> > > Not too nice to think about, but remember that the liver is the only
> > > organ in the body that can regenerate itself..... That certainly is
> > > no excuse to abuse it, though? That's just not nice!! :-)
> > >
> > > Also, another herb called Bitter Orange Extract is now being tried to
> > > replaced ephedra, but it also seems to have allot of the same issues
> > > as Green Leaf...
> > >
> > > Finally, I should bring up Ginseng as another option. When people
> > > talk about ginseng, though, they are talking about energy enhancing?
> > > Also there are several different forms of ginseng, but the Korean
> > > Panax Ginseng is clearly the best from an energy standpoint.
> > > ======================================
> > >
> > > OK. Should I try a metabolic enhancer right now?
> > > ======================================
> > > Personally, I wouldn't. Not until we know a little more about how
> > > everything will shake out in the industry. Let some of those "amateur
> > > scientists", who I admit are a critical part of science in general,
> > > play for a while until some sort of standard principle is agreed upon.
> > >
> > > If you want to try being one of these "amateur scientists", though, I
> > > say go for it!! This risk profile is not too bad? Below is a good
> > > link if you are interested. Also, just to let you know, most body
> > > builders swear by products from a company called Ergopharm, (ie. Go
> > > Patrick A. Go!!? Sorry, inside joke?) so if you do decide to go this
> > > route, you might want to try their metabolic enhancer product. I
> > > think it is called ErgoLean MC, but I am not sure and I know nothing
> > > more about it.
> > >
> > > Additional Quality herbal link:
> > > <http://www.bodybuilding.com/store/goalherbal.htm>
> > > ======================================
> > >
> > > Jim Carver
> > >
> > >
> > > ======================================
> > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message . com>...
> > > > "Jim Carver" > wrote in message
> > > > <snip explanation>
> > > > >Helpful?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > >Got any addition questions on this subject or something
> > > > > else?
> > > >
> > > > So since caffeine is a stimulant, I'm wondering if drinking diet cokes is
> > > > helping me to lose weight (at least a little). I drink a couple of them
> > > > every day (used to be regular cokes, and more than a couple, so I switched
> > > > over to diet to keep from consuming all those extra calories). I know it's
> > > > helping as far as reducing the calorie intake but I was wondering if the
> > > > caffeine part was helping.
> > > >
> > > > -Rubystars

Ralph DuBose wrote:
<...>
> The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
> fairly easily.
> 1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
> therefore a useful tool.

Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).

> 2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
> some if you can.

This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
becoming problematic than diet alone will.

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

> 3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
> muscle groups as possible.

This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.

> 4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.

I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
carbs, and avoid the latter.

> 5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
> side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
> if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.

If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.

IOW, two simple rules:
1. Exercise regularly.
2. Eat a well-balanced diet.

That's all.

> Consider the Amish.

No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still
stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
Those all play a role in their health data.

> They all move about constantly.

No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.

> They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.

Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
rather than walking.

> They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.

According to whom?

> They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.

Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.

> They
> cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.

Bull****ingshit! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
them instead:

Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.

I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!

Source for Amish healthy study data:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
<...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
> <...>
> >>I'm more outraged that insurance companies and federal agencies fund
some
> > of
> >>these alternative healing rackets. All it does is drive up the cost of
> > real
> >>health care.
> >
> > Yes, I don't understand that at all! You'd think insurance companies
would
> > be the first ones that would want to keep their costs down. It doesn't
make
> > any sense at all!
>
> I can understand why they do it (two reasons). First, market demand. A lot
of
> people don't know the history of chiropractic or reflexology, so they
demand it;
> what's a company to do if that's a criterion that their market desires?
Second,
> and a point I've never dismissed, a lot of patients are happier with the
> touchy-feely stuff and a couple massages or foot rubs can be cheaper than
> sending someone to specialists. Still, if I were running an insurance
company,
> it'd focus on education and prevention, including teaching people about
quackery
> and why they should avoid it.

So basically sugar pills are cheaper than real medicine, and often effective
because of the placebo effect right?

Still, if I was working at an insurance company, I'd be worried that some
chiropractor would twist someone's spine and cause permanent injury, or that
someone might take an herbal remedy that's dangerous.

> > And federal agencies should really have higher standards.
>
> Government is more often a problem than a solution. That especially
includes its
> efforts in the health care sector.

Still, I think that people have a right not to have their tax dollars used
for such stupidity.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:
<...>
> So basically sugar pills are cheaper than real medicine,

Yes. Hard to sue the HMO for bad sugar, too.

> and often effective
> because of the placebo effect right?

It doesn't even have to be effective if the person taking it is happy with it
and thinks it's working. That's the beauty of the placebo effect.
*any* effect that seems to be a consequence of administering a placebo;
the change is usually beneficial and is assumed result from the person's
faith in the treatment or preconceptions about what the experimental
drug was supposed to do; pharmacologists were the first to talk about
placebo effects but now the idea has been generalized to many situations
having nothing to do with drugs

> Still, if I was working at an insurance company, I'd be worried that some
> chiropractor would twist someone's spine and cause permanent injury, or that
> someone might take an herbal remedy that's dangerous.

That opens those practitioners to liability, NOT the insurance company or HMO.
Since HMOs/PPOs usually don't have alternative therapy quacks on staff, they pay
outside their care network for that.

<...>
> Still, I think that people have a right not to have their tax dollars used
> for such stupidity.

I agree, but it's not the only stupidity the government funds.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...ts_pigbook2004

usual suspect > wrote in message >...
> Ralph DuBose wrote:
> <...>
> > The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
> > fairly easily.
> > 1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
> > therefore a useful tool.
>
> Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
> (which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
> resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
> getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
> the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
> help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
> GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
> list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
> but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
> (maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).
>
> > 2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
> > some if you can.
>
> This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
> of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
> Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
> becoming problematic than diet alone will.
>

Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.
Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
always happen every bit helps.


> More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
> inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
> resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
> imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
> level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
> cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
> the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
> insulin resistance and its impact on health.
> http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm
>
> Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
> resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
> further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
> gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
> necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
> obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
> Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
> http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm
>
> > 3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
> > muscle groups as possible.
>
> This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
> wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.
>
> > 4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.
>
> I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
> carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
> carbs, and avoid the latter.
>
> > 5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
> > side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
> > if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.
>
> If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
> eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.
>
> IOW, two simple rules:
> 1. Exercise regularly.
> 2. Eat a well-balanced diet.
>
> That's all.
>
> > Consider the Amish.
>
> No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still

My information about them might be out of date or even some what
flawed. However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.
It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.

..
> stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
> statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
> higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
> drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
> Those all play a role in their health data.
>
> > They all move about constantly.
>
> No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
> themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.
>
> > They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.
>
> Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
> rather than walking.
>
> > They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.
>
> According to whom?
>
> > They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.
>
> Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.
>
> > They
> > cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.
>
> Bull****ingshit! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
> aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
> them instead:
>
> Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
> obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
> were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
> significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
> 64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.
>
> I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
> seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
> the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
> the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
> but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!
>
> Source for Amish healthy study data:
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
> <...>

Ralph DuBose wrote:
>>> The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
>>>fairly easily.
>>>1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
>>>therefore a useful tool.
>>
>>Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
>>(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
>>resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
>>getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
>>the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
>>help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
>>GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
>>list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
>>but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
>>(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).
>>
>>>2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
>>>some if you can.
>>
>>This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
>>of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
>>Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
>>becoming problematic than diet alone will.
>
> Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
> more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
> diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.

It's a bullshit measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable for
healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates -- especially
complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them. I am
NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance should go
hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to restrict
carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).

Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for normal
people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road, when the
body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities can
occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that applies
to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for normal
people. Everything in moderation.

> Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
> always happen every bit helps.

Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise causes
sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can either
be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine or
poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort and joy.

>> More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
>> inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
>> resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
>> imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
>> level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
>> cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
>> the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
>> insulin resistance and its impact on health.
>> http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm
>>
>> Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
>> resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
>> further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
>> gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
>> necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
>> obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
>> Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
>>http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm
>>
>>>3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
>>>muscle groups as possible.
>>
>>This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
>>wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.
>>
>>>4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.
>>
>>I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
>>carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
>>carbs, and avoid the latter.
>>
>>>5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
>>>side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
>>>if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.
>>
>>If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
>>eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.
>>
>>IOW, two simple rules:
>>1. Exercise regularly.
>>2. Eat a well-balanced diet.
>>
>>That's all.
>>
>>> Consider the Amish.
>>
>>No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still
>
> My information about them might be out of date or even some what
> flawed.

Very flawed.

> However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
> example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.

I don't know where you got that example (I seem to recall it either from Barry
Sears or Atkins), but it's a flawed one from the start. The Amish haven't fallen
behind; they were never in front of the pack.

> It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
> 75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.

Issues worthy of consideration for that: most people food they cooked at home
from scratch, instead of fast food and over-processed junk foods; portion sizes
were much smaller than they are now; restaurants did not supersize for a
marginal sum, nor was there a proliferation of all you can eat buffets; that
time period includes the Depression, and many people knew what it felt like to
go to bed hungry (waistlines began increasing following the Depression, as
incomes rose and employment rebounded, and exploded as our society prospered
into the '60s and '70s). One more note about that era: people didn't stay thin
on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and flour and
other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.

>>stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
>>statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
>>higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
>>drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
>>Those all play a role in their health data.
>>
>>>They all move about constantly.
>>
>>No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
>>themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.
>>
>>>They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.
>>
>>Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
>>rather than walking.
>>
>>>They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.
>>
>>According to whom?
>>
>>>They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.
>>
>>Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.
>>
>>>They
>>>cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.
>>
>>Bull****ingshit! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
>>aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
>>them instead:
>>
>> Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
>> obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
>> were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
>> significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
>> 64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.
>>
>>I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
>>seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
>>the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
>>the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
>>but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!
>>
>>Source for Amish healthy study data:
>>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
>><...>

usual suspect > wrote in message >...
> Ralph DuBose wrote:
> >>> The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
> >>>fairly easily.
> >>>1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
> >>>therefore a useful tool.
> >>
> >>Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin release"
> >>(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and insulin
> >>resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people aren't
> >>getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring examples of
> >>the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever devised to
> >>help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one* list of
> >>GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in each
> >>list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a better tool,
> >>but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight control
> >>(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).
> >>
> >>>2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
> >>>some if you can.
> >>
> >>This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the bogeyman
> >>of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary lifestyle.
> >>Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and cholesterol from
> >>becoming problematic than diet alone will.
> >
> > Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
> > more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
> > diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.
>
> It's a bullshit measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable for
> healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates

I never actually meant to say bad things about complex carbs. For
one thing, they are the only alternative to fat and protein as a food
source.
However, I do have a hunch that one important thing about reducing
the amount of simple carbs is that it helps ones appetite to be better
scaled to real energy needs. In other words, some foods do a better
job of suppressing hunger per calorie consumed than others. This might
be related to the apparent "sweet tooth" that so many people have --
simple carbs-sugars are so desired that the feed back loop to satiety
is impaired and slower.
When the Adkins diet seems to work for people, that is my hunch as
to why.

-- especially
> complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them. I am
> NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance should go
> hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to restrict
> carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).
>
> Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for normal
> people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road, when the
> body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities can
> occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that applies
> to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for normal
> people. Everything in moderation.
>
> > Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
> > always happen every bit helps.
>
> Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
> resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise causes
> sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can either
> be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine or
> poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
> patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort and joy.
>
> >> More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
> >> inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
> >> resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
> >> imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
> >> level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
> >> cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
> >> the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
> >> insulin resistance and its impact on health.
> >> http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm
> >>
> >> Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
> >> resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
> >> further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
> >> gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
> >> necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
> >> obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
> >> Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
> >>http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm
> >>
> >>>3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
> >>>muscle groups as possible.
> >>
> >>This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise has many
> >>wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.
> >>
> >>>4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.
> >>
> >>I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun all
> >>carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and simple
> >>carbs, and avoid the latter.
> >>
> >>>5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
> >>>side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
> >>>if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.
> >>
> >>If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training -- one can
> >>eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.
> >>
> >>IOW, two simple rules:
> >>1. Exercise regularly.
> >>2. Eat a well-balanced diet.
> >>
> >>That's all.
> >>
> >>> Consider the Amish.
> >>
> >>No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and those still
> >
> > My information about them might be out of date or even some what
> > flawed.
>
> Very flawed.
>
> > However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
> > example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.
>
> I don't know where you got that example (I seem to recall it either from Barry
> Sears or Atkins), but it's a flawed one from the start. The Amish haven't fallen
> behind; they were never in front of the pack.
>
> > It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
> > 75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.
>
> Issues worthy of consideration for that: most people food they cooked at home
> from scratch, instead of fast food and over-processed junk foods; portion sizes
> were much smaller than they are now; restaurants did not supersize for a
> marginal sum, nor was there a proliferation of all you can eat buffets; that
> time period includes the Depression, and many people knew what it felt like to
> go to bed hungry (waistlines began increasing following the Depression, as
> incomes rose and employment rebounded, and exploded as our society prospered
> into the '60s and '70s). One more note about that era: people didn't stay thin
> on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and flour and
> other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.
>
> >>stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from which
> >>statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to have
> >>higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke, they don't
> >>drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general population.
> >>Those all play a role in their health data.
> >>
> >>>They all move about constantly.
> >>
> >>No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to describe
> >>themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.
> >>
> >>>They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.
> >>
> >>Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely on horses
> >>rather than walking.
> >>
> >>>They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.
> >>
> >>According to whom?
> >>
> >>>They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.
> >>
> >>Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.
> >>
> >>>They
> >>>cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.
> >>
> >>Bull****ingshit! I could base this on my own observations (see below), but I'm
> >>aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can point to
> >>them instead:
> >>
> >> Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
> >> obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
> >> were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
> >> significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
> >> 64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.
> >>
> >>I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times (each) and
> >>seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging where
> >>the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or apple-shaped as
> >>the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of the labor,
> >>but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!
> >>
> >>Source for Amish healthy study data:
> >>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
> >><...>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph DuBose wrote:
> >>> The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
> >>>fairly easily.
> >>>1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
> >>>therefore a useful tool.
> >>
> >>Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin
release"
> >>(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and
insulin
> >>resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people
aren't
> >>getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring
examples of
> >>the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever
devised to
> >>help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one*
list of
> >>GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in
each
> >>list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a
better tool,
> >>but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight
control
> >>(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).
> >>
> >>>2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
> >>>some if you can.
> >>
> >>This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the
bogeyman
> >>of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary
lifestyle.
> >>Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and
cholesterol from
> >>becoming problematic than diet alone will.
> >
> > Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
> > more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
> > diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.
>
> It's a bullshit measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable
for
> healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates -- especially
> complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them.
I am
> NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance
should go
> hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to
restrict
> carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).
>
> Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for
normal
> people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road,
when the
> body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities
can
> occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that
applies
> to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for
normal
> people. Everything in moderation.
I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists, but please be aware that
your subjective emotional biases simply do not hold up to objective reality.

1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE
of the insulin resistence epidemic. It is not as uncommon as you assume.
Insulin resistence also causes diabetes and CHD, which, unsurprisingly, have
also elevated through the roof. The "war against obesity" is pathetic
blunder of symptom-based medicine... obesity does not cause these diseases,
IRS does. There is a much stronger association between IRS and diabetes/chd
than between obesity and diabetes/chd. One who has diabetes and CHD will
almost certainly be IRS, but they may or may not be obese. This is because
obesity is merely another symptom of IRS, and therefore commonly occurs in
those with diabetes and/or CHD.

2) Total glycemic load of your diet is *absolutely related* to propensity to
develop IRS. High glycemic load suppresses the body's manufacture of insulin
receptor substrate 1, and simple sugar intake (glucose, fructose, galactose
i.e. HFCS, sucrose) suppresses the body's manufacuring of insulin receptor
substrate 2. These proteins are *vital* to sensitize the insulin receptor to
the actions of insulin. When the body cannot perceive insulin various
abnormalities are observed: unstable energy balance (hyper and/or
hypoglycemia), ravenous appetite in spite of frequent gorging on food, and
in females reproductive abnormality (usually hyperandrogenization and
infertility syndrome called PCOS).

Since we have already established that the diabesity/CHD epidemic is a
direct response to the IRS epidemic, and since the IRS epidemic is a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE of our countries foolish decision to lower fat, animal products,
and increase total carbohydrate intake (especially in the form of simple
sugars), it would be wise for many people to elect a lower glycemic load
diet. If you are someone with severe IRS - the morbidly obese, the diabetic,
hypoglycemic, or those women with reproductive disturbances caused by PCOS -
Atkins-levels may be required (and, by the way, are completely HEALTH
PROMOTING if one structures their diet properly).

3) Your body has ZERO requirement for dietary carbohydrate. Your body has a
requirement for glucose, and a requirement for certain vitamins, but this
does not PRECLUDE a high doughy, starchy, sugary diet. Any glucose your body
needs it can synthesize via gluconeogenesis. The lowest sugar veggies are
always the highest in nutrients, therefore there is no reason to eat
"enriched" flours or "enriched" rices to obtain them as they invariably
contain relatively little nutrients (other than from the man-made
foritification... which, by the way, is the same thing as downing a bowl of
sugar and chasing it with a multivitamin!)

4) food intake and insulin release.
Yes, all foods stimulate insulin release. The difference is that fats and
proteins do not over-stimulate insulin release because they are digested via
pathways that the body was designed to use primarily. Fat and protein
releases energy into the body only as *required* as these foods are digested
slowly.
Carbohydrates, on the other hand, are broken down so quickly that they flood
the body with an excessive amount of energy. Your body was not meant to eat
a high mono/disaccharide diet. The excessive flood of insulin is
*reactionary* to the excessive glycemic (glycemia literally means "blood
sugar") flood. Your body has no choice but to raise the insulin to get rid
of all that energy - first it goes to the muscles, then to the liver to be
turned into glycogen, and whatever is left goes off to the fat cells.
Insulin's job is to STORE energy. An unnatural hyperinsulinemic (elevated
blood insulin) environment promotes weight gain. Plus, the same environment
which causes the overproduction of insulin also eventually causes IRS which
has its own set of problems. How readily one develops IRS is a matter of
genetics, however, which is why not all cultures and individuals readily
become IRS on the same diet which would be very unhealthy, for example,
someone like me.

> > Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
> > always happen every bit helps.
>
> Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
> resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise
causes
> sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can
either
> be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine
or
> poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
> patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort
and joy.

Exercise certainly helps, since exercise improves sugar metabolism. However,
to really see improvement one *must* lower total glycemic load in their
diet. Unless they limit the sugar they are assualting their body with, all
the exercise in the world won't matter. The energy intake is the action,
energy use is a reaction. Exercise without controlling for diet is not an
optimal way to improve metabolic disorder.


> One more note about that era: people didn't stay thin
> on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and
flour and
> other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.
Oh BS man.

You and I both know that simple sugar consumption is through the roof
compared to the past, and likewise percentage of calories from fat very much
lower. Back then people ate with vigor fats like cheeses, milk and other
dairy, eggs, bacon & lard, etc. These foods were believed to be healthy,
hearty, and they were right.

Likewise, dissachride (starch) consumption was way less. You didn't have
animal rights nutjobs (i.e. ornish, neal barnard) promoting the health
virtue of bowls of sugar (rice, pasta, bread), while laying guilt trips on
people for eating fat & animal products. Though people did include breads,
corn, potatoes and other starches in the diet, it wasn't as much as today.
Look at the food pyramid... 5 servings of starch a day! Good lord! The
government must think we are marathon runners.

Also, simple sugar consumption was much, much lower. The way we eat
monosacchrides today was unheard of back then. A serving of cola (raw
fructose & glucose) was much smaller (6 oz) than the 64 ounce supersized
monstrocity peddled by MCDs, and it was an infrequent part of ones diet.

Your emotional bias against an omnivorous lifestyle prevents you from seeing
that it's not about MEAT. It's about protein, fat, and carbs and keeping
them in a good health promoting balance. If you are physically inactive you
should not be eating foods that flood your body with energy (like
mono/disacchrides). Nor should you be eating these foods as a staple if you
show any hint of IRS. Bottom line. If one so wishes it is entirely possible
to do LC on a vegetarian diet.. it's actually very easy. Just eat a lot of
nuts and dairy .

Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex carbs".
It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the term
and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
reputation.

A simple sugar is a monosacchride - the base form of sugar energy which can
readily be assimilated by the body (glucose, fructose, or galactose).
A dissacchride is a structure comprised of 2 monosacchrides. Slightly more
complex than a monosacchride, but not by much (sucrose, HFCS which are both
roughly 50/50 glucose/fructose mixes). Your body converts dissachrides into
monosacchrides and uses them as appropriate.
A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat. Poly sacchride basically
means "many sugars". Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
eventually converted to them. The fact that the body has to work a little
harder to turn polysacchrides into useable energy (monosacchrides) makes
them, gram for gram, slightly better than eating monosacchrides or
disacchrides directly. 1 gram of glucose spikes blood sugar more readily
than 1 gram of starch. 1 gram of fructose also assualts the liver andis
converted to fat more readily than that same gram of starch. So, the little
extra processing required of your body does tend to "time release" the sugar
some what.

However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor... total
assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
simple sugars. All speed does is mitigate the energy crashes and highs
associated with simple sugars. This may or may not even be of benefit,
because people tend to eat HUGE servings of starch. If you eat 40 grams of
pasta and think you are doing yourself a favor because youre avoiding 10
grams of HFCS you really aren't. The 30 extra carbs will contribute to
unstable energy more than the complexity of their molecular nature doesn't.

Generally speaking, if you do elect to consume a high glycemic load diet, it
is wise to make most of your calories come from complex carbs instead of
simple sugars as mono or disacchrides. This I agree with. HOWEVER, electing
to consume a high glycemic load diet is not something most people should be
doing in the first place. If you are a marathon runner and need the energy -
knock yourself out, by all means eat sugar. You need quick energy if you are
using energy quickly, of course.

However, if you are grabbing a bagel, coffee, and sitting on your bum at
your desk - do yourself a favor and replace the bagel with some eggs,
berries, and nuts. Your body will thank you.



"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Ralph DuBose wrote:
> >>> The instructions for successful weight control could be summarized
> >>>fairly easily.
> >>>1. Minimize food that cause insulin release. The glycemic index is
> >>>therefore a useful tool.
> >>
> >>Not really, and the only people who *need* to pay attention to "insulin
release"
> >>(which *all* foods cause) are those with issues like diabetes and
insulin
> >>resistance -- and most people DON'T have such issues. Also, people
aren't
> >>getting fat from eating too many carrots -- one of the most glaring
examples of
> >>the limitations of GI. GI is one of the most overrated "tools" ever
devised to
> >>help with diet. It's also an arbitrary measu there's not just *one*
list of
> >>GI values for foods, but a plethora of lists. GI varies significantly in
each
> >>list. Finally, GI also fails to account for serving sizes. GL is a
better tool,
> >>but it's not what I would list as an instruction for successful weight
control
> >>(maybe successful diabetes control, but that's not the issue at hand).
> >>
> >>>2. Walk, climb stairs, as much as one can in ordinary daily life. Run
> >>>some if you can.
> >>
> >>This would be my number one instruction. It's not carrots that are the b
ogeyman
> >>of obese people or those with insulin resistance, it's a sedentary
lifestyle.
> >>Exercise and physical exertion will do more to keep insulin and
cholesterol from
> >>becoming problematic than diet alone will.
> >
> > Sure. But some types of meals do stress the insulin producing cells
> > more than others and a basic component of the development of T 2
> > diabetes seems to be the exhaustion of those cells. Every bit helps.
>
> It's a bullshit measure for MOST people. It's irrational and undesirable
for
> healthy people to restrict macronutrients like carbohydrates -- especially
> complex carbohydrates -- for fear of something which does not affect them.
I am
> NOT saying that people with diabetes or diagnosed insulin resistance
should go
> hog wild on them; those people may of medical necessity be advised to
restrict
> carbs (not to avoid them altogether, though).
>
> Low-carb is NOT "one size fits all" and shouldn't be recommended for
normal
> people. Restricting nutrients can cause further problems down the road,
when the
> body is unable to adjust for any carb consumption (nutrient sensitivities
can
> occur if one desensitizes one's body through restrictive dieting; that
applies
> to carbs, too). Too much OR too little of some things is bad even for
normal
> people. Everything in moderation.
>
> > Enough exercise would obviate the question but that does not
> > always happen every bit helps.
>
> Exercise is the best recommendation for those with diabetes or insulin
> resistance, as noted in one of the pages I linked previously. Exercise
causes
> sufficient change (improved) in metabolism that dietary restrictions can
either
> be avoided or modified. Dietary restrictions alone turn food into medicine
or
> poison -- an extreme position for a patient to find himself. That causes
> patients to lose focus of food as nutrition, and as a source of comfort
and joy.
>
> >> More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
> >> inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
> >> resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
> >> imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
> >> level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
> >> cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
> >> the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness
of
> >> insulin resistance and its impact on health.
> >> http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm
> >>
> >> Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue
insulin
> >> resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
> >> further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
> >> gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
> >> necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
> >> obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
> >> Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
>
>>http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm
> >>
> >>>3. Put as much effort as possible into muscle strengthening of as many
> >>>muscle groups as possible.
> >>
> >>This would go along with the previous instruction. Resistance exercise
has many
> >>wonderful benefits and should be part of a holistic exercise program.
> >>
> >>>4. Eat enough of balanced proteins and leafies, etc.
> >>
> >>I would suggest eating a balanced diet, not just proteins. I don't shun
all
> >>carbs the same. Distinguish between the more healthful complex carbs and
simple
> >>carbs, and avoid the latter.
> >>
> >>>5. Eat your fill of such a diet while increasing the movement-work-out
> >>>side of things until you get the results you need. Results will come
> >>>if you keep increasing the activity side. Your body has little choice.
> >>
> >>If one gets enough exercise -- both aerobic and resistance training --
one can
> >>eat as much as one likes and one will still lose weight.
> >>
> >>IOW, two simple rules:
> >>1. Exercise regularly.
> >>2. Eat a well-balanced diet.
> >>
> >>That's all.
> >>
> >>> Consider the Amish.
> >>
> >>No. The fifteenth-century was not a paradigm of healthy living, and
those still
> >
> > My information about them might be out of date or even some what
> > flawed.
>
> Very flawed.
>
> > However, high levels of daily activity was the point of the
> > example. Too bad for the Amish if they have fallen behind.
>
> I don't know where you got that example (I seem to recall it either from
Barry
> Sears or Atkins), but it's a flawed one from the start. The Amish haven't
fallen
> behind; they were never in front of the pack.
>
> > It is fascinating to look at pictures of crowds of Americans from
> > 75 or even 50 years ago. Looked like a different species.
>
> Issues worthy of consideration for that: most people food they cooked at
home
> from scratch, instead of fast food and over-processed junk foods; portion
sizes
> were much smaller than they are now; restaurants did not supersize for a
> marginal sum, nor was there a proliferation of all you can eat buffets;
that
> time period includes the Depression, and many people knew what it felt
like to
> go to bed hungry (waistlines began increasing following the Depression, as
> incomes rose and employment rebounded, and exploded as our society
prospered
> into the '60s and '70s). One more note about that era: people didn't stay
thin
> on low-carb diets. Meat was rationed during the war (so was sugar and
flour and
> other foodstuffs). I can think of other reasons if you need more.
>
> >>stuck in that century are hardly a significantly sized population from
which
> >>statistical analogies are meaningful. For instance, the Amish tend to
have
> >>higher blood pressure than the general population, they don't smoke,
they don't
> >>drink, and their lifestyle is a bit less frantic than the general
population.
> >>Those all play a role in their health data.
> >>
> >>>They all move about constantly.
> >>
> >>No, they do not. In reporting surveys, Amish women are more likely to
describe
> >>themselves as sedentary than women in the general population are.
> >>
> >>>They deny themselves "labor saving" devices.
> >>
> >>Not completely. They use plows instead of their hands. They still rely
on horses
> >>rather than walking.
> >>
> >>>They all burn 4-5000 calories a day.
> >>
> >>According to whom?
> >>
> >>>They have never heard of dieting or stimulants or Adkins.
> >>
> >>Good thing, too, given their blood pressure and other related issues.
> >>
> >>>They
> >>>cook their own food. They eat their fill. NONE OF THEM ARE FAT.
> >>
> >>Bull****ingshit! I could base this on my own observations (see below),
but I'm
> >>aware of enough health and longevity studies about the Amish that I can
point to
> >>them instead:
> >>
> >> Fewer Amish females (6.1%) compared with non-Amish females (31%) were
> >> obese in the 18- to 24-year old category (P 05). Overall, Amish women
> >> were more likely to be obese in every other age category, with
> >> significant findings in the 45- to 54-year-old (P 01) and 55- to
> >> 64-year-old (P 05) age ranges.
> >>
> >>I've been through Lancaster County, PA, and Yoder, KS, several times
(each) and
> >>seen plenty corpulent Amish people (even with carriages severely sagging
where
> >>the adults sit). Older men are as likely to be pear-shaped or
apple-shaped as
> >>the women are. The young are more fit because they do a *lot* more of
the labor,
> >>but don't lie to others that they're all fit. They aren't!
> >>
> >>Source for Amish healthy study data:
> >>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1534-5874/2/208
> >><...>
>

aurora wrote:
<...>
> I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,

Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER* embraced
animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong exception
to me. Asshole!

> but please be aware that
> your subjective emotional biases simply do not hold up to objective reality.

What I stated was not based on subjectivity or emotion. Your asinine remark
calling me a vegan/AR propagandists [sic] shows your own emotive reaction to the
truth I espoused.

> 1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE
> of the insulin resistence epidemic.

Bullshit. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting will
work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave as
much, etc.).

> It is not as uncommon as you assume.

Commonality depends on actual statistics. Most people are NOT morbidly obese,
nor are most people insulin resistant. Perhaps you need to take a deep breath
and get the right perspective on the issue.

> Insulin resistence also causes diabetes and CHD, which, unsurprisingly, have
> also elevated through the roof.

CHD is also related to the sedentary lifestyle.

> The "war against obesity" is pathetic
> blunder of symptom-based medicine... obesity does not cause these diseases,
> IRS does.

Ipse dixit. They're all related to a sedentary lifestyle. See elsewhere for
citations.

> There is a much stronger association between IRS and diabetes/chd
> than between obesity and diabetes/chd.

They're all related, you ninny. And should it surprise anyone that

<...>
> 2) Total glycemic load of your diet is *absolutely related* to propensity to
> develop IRS.

You're blowing it out your ass, fatso. See the following link.

http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9566.html


> Since we have already established that the diabesity/CHD epidemic is a
> direct response to the IRS epidemic,

You have not established that.

> and since the IRS epidemic is a DIRECT
> CONSEQUENCE of our countries foolish decision to lower fat, animal products,
> and increase total carbohydrate intake (especially in the form of simple
> sugars),

That is a culprit, but it's bogus to impugn complex carbs right along with
simple ones. They're NOT the same, the body doesn't absorb them the same, etc.
When low-fat dieting was recommended, the guidelines DID recommend eating whole
grains and other complex carbs like potatoes and pasta. The guidelines did NOT
say to eat a load of Snackwell and other sugary foods. People who did that were
not following the recommendations at all.

> it would be wise for many people to elect a lower glycemic load
> diet. If you are someone with severe IRS - the morbidly obese, the diabetic,
> hypoglycemic, or those women with reproductive disturbances caused by PCOS -

I know plenty of women with PCOS. Some of them are morbidly obese, some just
obese. They're all sedentary and they've all eaten more than their fair shares
of sugary foods. It's no wonder they have problems. They were not interested in
low-fat dieting, they're really not interested in giving up their chocolates,
ice cream, french fries, pizza, or cookies. The first thing they could do to
help themselves is to exercise. The second thing they could do is to eat a
well-balanced diet.

> Atkins-levels may be required (and, by the way, are completely HEALTH
> PROMOTING if one structures their diet properly).

I disagree with you. Restricting calories is one thing; restricting a
macronutrient is another. That goes for fat or carbs. I've no problem with
advising people to restrict SIMPLE carbs, but advising anyone to restrict
complex carbs is foolish. The way the body responds to deprivation of nutrients
(micro or macro) and to subsequent consumption of those deprived nutrients can
be more detrimental than the original health issue (especially if it's simply
weight-loss -- AND TO BE FAIR TO ME, YOU IDIOT, MY CLAIMS WERE MADE ABOUT
*NORMAL* PEOPLE, NOT BIG FAT WOMEN WITH POLYCYSTIC OVARIAN SYNDROME!).

> 3) Your body has ZERO requirement for dietary carbohydrate.

Bullshit. Prove this claim.

> Your body has a requirement for glucose,

Which is primarily derived from carbohydrates, not ketosis (which is a catabolic
state, after all, not a healthy state).

> and a requirement for certain vitamins, but this
> does not PRECLUDE a high doughy, starchy, sugary diet.

Who has advised a sugary diet in this discussion? I said everything in
moderation, causing you to stupidly take offense and call me an animal rights
activist.

<...>
> therefore there is no reason to eat
> "enriched" flours or "enriched" rices

What a completely ridiculous strawman! Find a post when I, usual suspect, have
EVER recommended anyone eat a diet of refined foods. You fat ****, I *never*
have advised the use of white flour or sugar -- quite the opposite.

<...>
> Your emotional bias against an omnivorous lifestyle prevents you from seeing
> that it's not about MEAT.

You irrational, uneducated, emotive, fat ****ing **IDIOT**!!! Why don't you ask
the other posters at AAEV/AFV if I oppose the eating of meat. I hunt. I advocate
hunting. I have no bias against meat. I have no bias against people who eat
meat. I called for "moderation in everything." What part of that do you not
comprehend?

<...>

aurora stupidly wrote a follow-up:
> Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex carbs".

Why?

> It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the term

I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.

> and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
> reputation.

Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and everyone
else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a thing or
two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry"). FWIW,
macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
objective and unconcerned with fads.

<...>
> A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
> carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat.

Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. It's not a glorified term, it's an
accepted nutritional and scientific nomenclature predating the late Dr Atkins
and the whole fad dieting craze he spawned.

"Plant fat"? What the **** does that mean?

Polysaccharides are complex bonds of sugar groups. They don't contain a lipid
group, so I don't know what the **** you mean. I suspect you don't, either.

> Poly sacchride basically means "many sugars".

Too bad Pulitzer doesn't give awards for usenet posts, because I am sure you
would win one for clearing up this matter.

/sarcasm

> Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
> eventually converted to them.

Not fully. That's the problem with your pseudoscience. The body doesn't break
them down completely, nor does the body absorb them fully.

<snip of misinformation>
> However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor...

Actually, it's a pretty important factor. The longer food remains in your body,
the more nutrients are digested. A diet with sufficient fiber (gee, like that
found in foods rich in complex carbs) passes through faster than one without
sufficient fiber (the late Dr Atkins found only one point of agreement in a
discussion with Dr McDougall on Dr Mc's show: that Dr Atkins' diet causes
constipation).

> total
> assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
> roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
> simple sugars.

Bullshit. Prove this claim.

<snip rest of bullshit>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> aurora wrote:
> <...>
> > I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,
>
> Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER*
embraced
> animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong
exception
> to me. Asshole!

My mistake... I had assumed you were supporting a pro-AR stance since I
thought I saw some of your postings in an AR NG. I appologize.

> > 1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT
CONSEQUENCE
> > of the insulin resistence epidemic.
>
> Bullshit. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
> lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting
will
> work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave
as
> much, etc.).

I think this is hysterical, because I speak from the persepctive of someone
who isn't making excuses, but someone who has first hand experience. So your
hypothetical argument about the validity of a high glycemic load diet
amounts to crap in my eyes.

I went from 275 lbs to 135 lbs (size 8/9)
I went from never experience eating satisfaction to being satisfied with
small quantities of food.
I went from expressing numerous symptoms of IRS to expressing virtually
none.
As for my PCOS (very mature by the way to insult me for that), before I was
plagued with acne, compltely absent menses, facial hair, and erratic moods.
Within a week of removing the majority of dietary carbohydrate all of my
acne cleared up. My moods were balanced. My menses are much more regular.
The facial and body hair has thinned to the point where it is almost peach
fuzz.

All of these changes I brought about by changing nothing other than total
glycemic load. I went from eating a very high carb diet (maybe 70%) to
eating about 15% of calories from carbs. I went from needing to snack all
day just to avoid the "shakiness" and irritability of hypoglycemia, to being
able to (and enjoying) eating very infrequently and very small amounts of
food should I desire to, or be in a situation which requires such.

So, like I said, I kind of don't buy your BS. The only thing I changed about
my lifestyle was diet - carbohydrate content, and it brought a complete
recovery. It's sad you are so stubborn that you refuse to accept the
*scientifically valid fact* that genes largely determine a persons ability
in handling a high glycemic load diet. Native americans tend to have poor
sugar metabolisms, whereas asians tend to have better ones, etc. Individuals
likewise vary widely.

The rest of your post amounts to no more than gross misinformation, refusing
to read what I've written (i.e. insisting the body needs to derive glucose
from carbohydrate when I had already explained the body can make its own
glucose via the synthesis of amino acids using the gluconeogenesis pathway)
and pathetically blunted personal attacks calling me a "stupid fat ****"
(despite the fact I am not overweight) or attacking me for having PCOS
(which I control through diet alone).
Sorry, but just admit you are an ignoramous. You are probably a young male
who has never lost weight, never had to think about weight, and thinks he
knows it all. You bash fat people to make yourself feel better. You are the
sort of person who would be calling for the "lynching of n*ggers" if it were
still socially in favor. You are a lemming. You are the sort of person who
has a hard time thinking for himself (hense your email address) and
therefore is highly suspicious of new information that has not yet been
accepted as self-evident by mainstream society, despite the growing body of
evidence in favor (which, by the way, you ignore like a stubborn mule as you
did my argument against the dietary necessity of carbohydrate dense food).
What a waste of time it was trying to converse with you. Originally I
mistook you for a vegan - who, by the way, are usually quite intelligent and
open to debate - which is why I initiated conversation. If I knew you were
some radical right-wing joiner yesman non-thinking trog I would have avoided
you right from the start.

Have fun drooling on yourself and attacking sick people, you pathetic loser.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> aurora stupidly wrote a follow-up:
> > Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex
carbs".
>
> Why?
>
> > It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the
term
>
> I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.
>
> > and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
> > reputation.
>
> Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and
everyone
> else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a
thing or
> two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry").
FWIW,
> macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
> objective and unconcerned with fads.

Yes, I totally believe you are the sort of person who is swayed by logic and
not emotion. That is why you insist on calling me a "fat ****", carry your
arguments by trying to deface the other poster, and have repeatedly
demonstrated a resistence to information if it does not suit your emotional
preconception. You didn't learn what you know about nutrition from the back
of a cereal box (OMG SEE, I'M GETTING ALL MY SERVINGS!), or from what you
heard from your best friend who's mom is a nurse and knows about these
things. No, not at all. LOL.


> <...>
> > A complex carbohydrate is a polysacchride. A polysacchride or complex
> > carbohydrate is a glorified term for plant fat.
>
> Now you're demonstrating your ignorance. It's not a glorified term, it's
an
> accepted nutritional and scientific nomenclature predating the late Dr
Atkins
> and the whole fad dieting craze he spawned.
Oh please shut up. People hear the word "complex carbohydrate" and
subconsciously they think "oh, see, it's COMPLEX! It isn't SIMPLE, therefore
it's GOOD FOR ME". This simplistic thinking fueled the anti-fat movement.
"OH how can eating FAT be good for me, FAT is made of FAT!"

You've repeatedly demonstrated to be the sort of fool who would draw such
emotional group-think conconclusions.

> "Plant fat"? What the **** does that mean?
>
> Polysaccharides are complex bonds of sugar groups. They don't contain a
lipid
> group, so I don't know what the **** you mean. I suspect you don't,
either.

Way to demonstrate your ignorance. A polysacchride is an energy storage
vessel for plants (i.e. it serves the same physiological purpose that FAT
does in humans, which is why complex carbohydrates tend to be - but not
always - very dense in carbohydrate/energy)

> > Polysacchrides contain many monosacchrides, and are
> > eventually converted to them.
>
> Not fully. That's the problem with your pseudoscience. The body doesn't
break
> them down completely, nor does the body absorb them fully.

This is complete garbage. *Some* are very hard for your body to use into
energy, namely cellulose. Cellulose produces small amounts of energy as SCFA
via bacterial fermentation. It is almost calorie free. A high fiber diet
with lots of green leafies is very healthy. Your body can not only not use
these complex carbs, but grean leafies contain lots of nutrition.

However, these exceptions are not the rule. By far the majority of complex
carbohydrates consumed by people - rices, cereals, grains, tubers - are
converted to energy readily, easily, and entirely. They also contain very
little nutrition compared to the total calories and carbs.

You'll never hear me argue against the GOOD complex carbs - the kinds high
in fiber and low in starch.

> <snip of misinformation>
How convenient

> > However, SPEED of digestion is not the most important factor...
>
> Actually, it's a pretty important factor. The longer food remains in your
body,
> the more nutrients are digested. A diet with sufficient fiber (gee, like
that
> found in foods rich in complex carbs) passes through faster than one
without
> sufficient fiber (the late Dr Atkins found only one point of agreement in
a
> discussion with Dr McDougall on Dr Mc's show: that Dr Atkins' diet causes
> constipation).
>
Hahahaha what a fool!
The atkins diet is extremely high in fiber. I easily eat 4 cups of leafy
greens a day, as well as other fiberous complex carbs like peppers,
eggplant, broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, etc.

> > total
> > assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
> > roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
> > simple sugars.

> Bullshit. Prove this claim.

I guess all those people who fall into a hyperglycemic slumber after a big
baked potato are lying. I guess their glucose meters are lying too.

I am convinced starch is worse than simple sugars, since when one eats
starch they usually eat a large quantity of it. They also are more inclined
to think it is good for them.

I know I promised not to respond to you anymore, but your twisting of my
words (pretending to believe I was attacking low-starch/sugar fiberous
complex carbs rather than the grains) had to be clarified for the NG.

aurora wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>I know you are a vegan/animal rights propagandists,
>>
>>Wait *one* ****ing minute. I am *NOT* a *vegan*, nor have I *EVER*
> embraced
>>animal rights. I take strong exception to both, and they take strong
> exception
>>to me. Asshole!
>
> My mistake... I had assumed you were supporting a pro-AR stance since I
> thought I saw some of your postings in an AR NG. I appologize.

Your apology would be more meaningful if you'd just left it at that.

>>>1) Morbid obesity has increased in the past 20 years as a DIRECT
> CONSEQUENCE
>>>of the insulin resistence epidemic.
>>
>>Bullshit. Both issues -- obesity and IR -- are related to the sedentary
>>lifestyle which prevails in our culture. Get off your ass and your dieting
> will
>>work, and your PCOS will become less of an issue (you won't have to shave
> as
>>much, etc.).
>
> I think this is hysterical,

There was no hysteria involved in my post. My claim is based upon sound research
and medical opinion, not propaganda from proponents of a specific diet. I posted
some links previously in this thread. Ah, here we go...

More and more people in the U.S. are becoming obese, physically
inactive, or both. Obesity and physical inactivity aggravate insulin
resistance. Also, people who are insulin resistant typically have an
imbalance in their blood lipids (blood fat). They have an increased
level of triglycerides (blood fat) and a decreased level of HDL (good)
cholesterol. Imbalances in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol increase
the risk for heart disease. These findings have heightened awareness of
insulin resistance and its impact on health.
http://syndromex.stanford.edu/InsulinResistance.htm

Obesity, particularly central obesity, induces peripheral tissue insulin
resistance, and overeating produces hyperinsulinism which promotes
further weight gain. Thus a vicious cycle ensues of increasing weight
gain and increasing hyperinsulinism. However, obesity itself does not
necessarily create insulin resistance. There is an interaction between
obesity and lack of exercise. A sedentary lifestyle, as is usual in
Western society, predisposes to insulin resistance.
http://www.acnem.org/journal/18-1_ap...nce-part_1.htm

> because I speak from the persepctive of someone
> who isn't making excuses, but someone who has first hand experience.

Anecdote, not science.

> So your
> hypothetical argument about the validity of a high glycemic load diet
> amounts to crap in my eyes.

Where the **** did I *ever* recommend a *HIGH GL DIET*? I said GL was more
useful as a tool than just GI. I also said that restrictive diets should be used
only for those with genuine metabolic disorders rather than healthy people who
just need to shed a few pounds. Stop taking me out of context.

<snip testimonials>
> As for my PCOS (very mature by the way to insult me for that),

Consider yourself lucky. I usually tear a new one in people who blatantly
misstate what I actually wrote.

> before I was
> plagued with acne, compltely absent menses, facial hair, and erratic moods.
> Within a week of removing the majority of dietary carbohydrate all of my
> acne cleared up. My moods were balanced. My menses are much more regular.
> The facial and body hair has thinned to the point where it is almost peach
> fuzz.

You still shave?

<snip more testilying prattle>
> The rest of your post amounts to no more than gross misinformation,

Prove it.

> refusing to read what I've written

WTF do you think you did to my post, idiot? I read your post. I addressed its
flawed points. Not everyone has PCOS (I sure as hell don't; my body came with
testicles instead of ovaries -- go figure). Not everyone is IR; some of us work
out and eat right. Not everyone has diabetes. Normal people are *not* advised to
eat a diet for people with such conditions as some kind of prophylactic; normal
people who do that for those reasons have an eating disorder. Stop making
distorted generalizations for the rest of society based on your peculiar
circumstances and misunderstandings of nutritional science.

> and pathetically blunted personal attacks calling me a "stupid fat ****"
> (despite the fact I am not overweight)

One can be a fat **** and be skinny as a rail.

> or attacking me for having PCOS

I didn't attack you.

<...>
> Sorry, but just admit you are an ignoramous. You are probably a young male
> who has never lost weight,

I lost a few pounds after my last triathlon. Not to worry, it usually happens.

> never had to think about weight, and thinks he
> knows it all. You bash fat people to make yourself feel better.

I haven't bashed you, dummy.

> You are the
> sort of person who would be calling for the "lynching of n*ggers" if it were
> still socially in favor.

I *seriously* doubt that, especially given the number of times people like you
have called me one.

> You are a lemming. You are the sort of person who
> has a hard time thinking for himself (hense your email address)

One thing in my favor: I can spell "hence."

> and
> therefore is highly suspicious of new information that has not yet been
> accepted as self-evident by mainstream society, despite the growing body of
> evidence in favor (which, by the way, you ignore like a stubborn mule as you
> did my argument against the dietary necessity of carbohydrate dense food).

"Self-evident" is not science, you quack. Science is founded on proofs. The
"growing body" is insufficient for me to recommend that HEALTHY people adopt a
restrictive diet. Why is it insufficient? Because the studies on safety are all
over very short terms. We already know enough about long-term consumption of
saturated fats and CHD (just as we know enough about long-term consumption of
excess simple carbohydrates and diabetes).

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that

> What a waste of time it was trying to converse with you. Originally I
> mistook you for a vegan - who, by the way, are usually quite intelligent and
> open to debate -

Really? I've found them to be just the opposite -- more like you. The focus is
on the agenda, and anything deviating from the agenda is rank heresy. Too bad
you couldn't just call me a heretic, you engaged in calling me names. Wow, I am
underwhelmed.

> which is why I initiated conversation. If I knew you were
> some radical right-wing joiner yesman non-thinking trog I would have avoided
> you right from the start.

Are you even capable of addressing people as unique individuals or does negative
stereotyping help you cope with others who disagree with you?

> Have fun drooling on yourself and attacking sick people, you pathetic loser.

Another difference between us: I *always* have fun. :-)

aurora wrote:
<...>
>>>Another thing, I'm sick of people extoling the virtues of "complex
> carbs".
>
>>Why?

Answer the question.

>>>It's clear they have no more than a rudimentary understanding of the
> term
>>I actually have a pretty solid understanding of the term.
>>>and are swayed by the healthful sounding name and undeserved positive
>>>reputation.
>>
>>Here you go putting yourself on your pedestal again: you know it, and
> everyone
>>else is emotional. I'm not "swayed" by the sound of its name. I know a
> thing or
>>two about biology and chemistry (we call the two together "biochemistry").
> FWIW,
>>macronutrients don't exactly have a "reputation" in science. Science is
>>objective and unconcerned with fads.
>
> Yes, I totally believe you are the sort of person who is swayed by logic and
> not emotion.

Logic isn't necessarily science, though science uses it. It's a branch of
philosophy. Science is empirical. Your posts are not.

> That is why you insist on calling me a "fat ****",

It's very fitting.

> carry your
> arguments by trying to deface the other poster,

Not entirely. You wouldn't know that with your poor reading comprehension, would
you.

> and have repeatedly
> demonstrated a resistence to information if it does not suit your emotional
> preconception.

I don't harbor "preconceptions," and my resistance to your disinformation is
based on science rather than propaganda. I honestly don't understand your
dietary zealotry. Too bad you sat on your fat ass and ate a lot of sweets and
got PCOS and grew hair all over your body. That's not my problem, it's yours.
Most women won't ever get diabetes, insulin resistance, or PCOS. For those who
do, I've no objection to promoting a restrictive diet for them. But what's good
for your self-inflicted malady isn't good for all of society. The one thing you
have in common with vegans is your irrational zeal in demanding all people eat
just like you. You're as authoritarian about diet as vegans are. Your diet has
become your religion, and your Satan is any simple carbohydrate; his demons are
complex carbs.

> You didn't learn what you know about nutrition from the back
> of a cereal box (OMG SEE, I'M GETTING ALL MY SERVINGS!), or from what you
> heard from your best friend who's

whose... if you're going to mock me and do exactly what you accused me of doing,
then PLEASE, for crying out loud, learn to spell.

> mom is a nurse and knows about these
> things. No, not at all. LOL.

My education and work experience go far beyond cereal boxes and getting things
third-hand.

<...>
> Oh please shut up. People hear the word "complex carbohydrate" and
> subconsciously

Can you *prove* that there's any such subconscious connection? Or are you just
blowing a bunch of smoke out of your ass based on your superiority complex which
leads you to argue that everyone -- healthy or not -- should eat YOUR diet
instead of a well-balanced one?

<...>
>>>total
>>>assimilation of sugar is! Eating 100 grams of complex carbohydrates has
>>>roughly the same effect over a long enough continuum of eating 100 grams
>>>simple sugars.
>
>>Bullshit. Prove this claim.
>
> I guess all those people who fall into a hyperglycemic slumber after a big
> baked potato are lying. I guess their glucose meters are lying too.

Anecdotal evidence isn't proof. I don't fall into a slumber after eating baked
potatoes (or pasta, or anything else). There's another anecdote for your
collection, stupid.

> I am convinced starch is worse than simple sugars, since when one eats
> starch they usually eat a large quantity of it.

If they lack discipline like you do.

> They also are more inclined to think it is good for them.

It is.

> I know I promised not to respond to you anymore,

You will again. You can't resist it, and you wholly lack discipline. That's why
you got so fat that your ovaries went haywire. You've replaced one eating
disorder for another, and you're on a mission to defend your "faith" in it. I'll
still be here advocating sensible diets and exercise for HEALTHY people when you
jump on the next bandwagon.

> but your twisting of my
> words (pretending to believe I was attacking low-starch/sugar fiberous
> complex carbs rather than the grains) had to be clarified for the NG.

I'm sure everyone else really appreciates your defense of your low-carb religion.

I would be careful taking any supplements that are over 50%of the USDA
recommended amounts. I don't know why companies that make supplements
do not make smaller doses (my wife cannot stand anything that is over
250 mg).

I will never go on the Atkinks diet because your body just doesn't use
all that protein, and your guts will have a hard time getting rid of
it all if you do not eat A LOT of fiber. Guess where fiber comes
from? Carbs (wheat)? So if you want to plug up your system with a
bunch of undigested meat....

By the way, you are squeezing all the fat out of that meat right? Go
ahead, warm up that meat to about 150 deg, put it between some paper
towels and press down. I guarantee that if you do that to one of
those fast food burgers (you can order them just meat and bread, and
reheat it in the microwave) and actually see how much grease is in the
meat, you will never order anything but a small burger (not the
quarter pounders and above) again.

I say this also because some farm growers are worried about their
juice market because of this diet. With so many people on the go, it
pays to drink several juices (v8, grape, apple, orange, etc.) becuase
it may not be economical to buy fresh fruit that costs three times as
much as juice (come on now, what is the difference between a fruit in
a blender?)?

One of the best ways of loosing weight is to go swimming, because you
sweat your buns off (literally), yet do not realize it because you are
in the water. Now the problem for a lot of people is access to a
pool, you need money (hint, hint).

I quit drinking soda and lost about 10 pounds, and feel a lot stabler
(no ups and downs).


(Jim Carver) wrote in message . com>...
> Hello Bob!
>
> > Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
> > being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the
>
> You are correct 100%. Moral weakness, which I am sure he was trying
> to use as a slang term has nothing to do with loosing. I have worked
> as a nutritionist with dozens of people, and have found that we
> basically has the same amount of will power no matter what I walk of
> life. The trick is trying to understand why are are craving what you
> are...
>
> Education, on the other hand, like every other subject in in life, is
> exceptionally powerful in dealing with cravings and weight control.
> The only problem is that there is so much miss-information out there
> that it is just sickening...
>
> > common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
> > fat = terrible.
>
> And you would be right again in this regard. Fat consumption in a
> diet is used by the body in its ability to metabolize testosterone,
> among other things of course. If you reduce to a low level of fat in
> you diet, the biggest thing you will notice the most is a lethargic
> feeling and a lack sex drive. This is due to your test.numbers
> falling to the floor... Now that sucks, doesn't it??
>
> Also, Please do not think that fat intake = fat absorbed. This is a
> classic fallacy that many people fall for. Carbohydrates have a
> considerably more amount of energy in the respect of body glucose
> uptake, and is always preferred by the body. Once again, people do
> not get fat from Low GI carb sources, but rather from high insulin
> responses from eating high GI carb sources.
>
> Think about it this way, on a ketonic diet (ie. Atkins, inc), the
> approach is to force the body to convert fat to energy as its primary
> source. Weight will just shoot off people when doing this?. No, I did
> no say it was healthy, though? :-)
>
> Take a look if you are interested in several postings that I have up
> on the big.folks and fat.acceptance groups. I think you might be
> interested in some of the factual information about how the body
> metabolizes foods.
>
> Jim Carver
>
> Bob in CT > wrote in message >...
> > On 12 May 2004 18:52:58 GMT, Ignoramus20355
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, usual suspect wrote:
> > >> Ignoramus20355 wrote:
> > >>>> Face it, you're not fat 'cause you ate too many carrots or drank too
> > >>>> much orange
> > >>>> juice. You're fat because you don't get enough exercise and because
> > >>>> you consume
> > >>>> way too many calories.
> > >>>
> > >>> That fat people are fat because they eat too many calories is obvious,
> > >>> trivial, and uninteresting.
> > >>>
> > >>> The more interesting question is, what makes them eat more calories.
> > >>
> > >> Lack of discipline, lack of knowledge, moral weakness.
> >
> > Moral weakness? This is ridiculous! Morality has nothing to do with
> > being overweight. And lack of knowledge typically doesn't either, as the
> > common conception is that low fat = good. I've come to believe that low
> > fat = terrible.

In article > ,
(oops_there_it_is) wrote:

>
> I will never go on the Atkinks diet because your body just doesn't use
> all that protein, and your guts will have a hard time getting rid of
> it all if you do not eat A LOT of fiber. Guess where fiber comes
> from? Carbs (wheat)? So if you want to plug up your system with a
> bunch of undigested meat....

Fiber also comes from brocolli, spinach, berries, and nuts, all of which
you can eat on the Atkins diet, plus many more vegetables. I don't buy the
propaganda of meat plugging up you digestive system anyway. And I also
don't buy that Atkinsers or other low-carbers eat more meat than the
general population. Meat is a higher percentage of my diet now, but the
amount is lower because the amount of everything I eat is lower. I used to
eat veggie and meat stir-fry with pasta or rice, now I leave out the pasta
and rice and add more veggies, and the amount I used to eat at one sitting
is now 3 meals worth.

>
> By the way, you are squeezing all the fat out of that meat right? Go
> ahead, warm up that meat to about 150 deg, put it between some paper
> towels and press down. I guarantee that if you do that to one of
> those fast food burgers (you can order them just meat and bread, and
> reheat it in the microwave) and actually see how much grease is in the
> meat, you will never order anything but a small burger (not the
> quarter pounders and above) again.

This I can empathize with. I don't eat fast food anyway, but anything too
greasy gives me a stomach ache. When I do burgers at home I start with
lean ground beef, and I still squeeze most of the grease out.


>
> I say this also because some farm growers are worried about their
> juice market because of this diet. With so many people on the go, it
> pays to drink several juices (v8, grape, apple, orange, etc.) becuase
> it may not be economical to buy fresh fruit that costs three times as
> much as juice (come on now, what is the difference between a fruit in
> a blender?)?

It takes several fruits to make one glass of juice, which means the juice
has a lot more sugar than a piece of fruit, even when no sugar is added.
Plus, the juice is missing the fiber from the fruit.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

"Eva Whitley" > wrote in message
...

> And again with the fake "obesity epidemic."
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
"In the United States, obesity has risen at an epidemic rate during the past
20 years."
Is the CDC "faking" it also?

Laurie

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:42:18 -0400, "Laurie" > wrote:

>
>"Eva Whitley" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>> And again with the fake "obesity epidemic."
> http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
>"In the United States, obesity has risen at an epidemic rate during
>the past 20 years."
> Is the CDC "faking" it also?
>
> Laurie
>
yes. just like the "Commie" scare of the 1950's they are playing off
the public fears...and fat people are being vilified. There is no
excuse for that.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQK+PmukoPZAZfLgsEQLFtwCg7rKhv5NVYLIv9aZz0oufIe IPg38AoM7a
Up3yYPCn9XuBB3QD1Mw1hmD5
=KILn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Lady Veteran > wrote in message >. ..
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 12:42:18 -0400, "Laurie" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eva Whitley" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> >> And again with the fake "obesity epidemic."
> > http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
> >"In the United States, obesity has risen at an epidemic rate during
> >the past 20 years."
> > Is the CDC "faking" it also?
> >
> > Laurie
> >
> yes. just like the "Commie" scare of the 1950's they are playing off
> the public fears...and fat people are being vilified.

The thing that the public is afraid of is poor health and the loss
of vigor. Fat people are not being vilified, it is just that no one
wants to be like them.

There is no
> excuse for that.
>

There are no excuses for the crime of fat acceptance.


> LV
>
>
> Lady Veteran
> - -----------------------------------
> "I rode a tank and held a general's rank
> when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
> - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
> - ------------------------------------------------
> People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
> ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
> motive but malice.
> - ---------------------------------------------
> "To Do Is To Be" Socrates
> "To Be Is To Do" Plato
> "Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
> - -------------------------------
>
>
> Lady Veteran
> - -----------------------------------
> "I rode a tank and held a general's rank
> when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
> - -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
> - ------------------------------------------------
> People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
> ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
> motive but malice.
> - ---------------------------------------------
> "To Do Is To Be" Socrates
> "To Be Is To Do" Plato
> "Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
> - -------------------------------
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com
>
> iQA/AwUBQK+PmukoPZAZfLgsEQLFtwCg7rKhv5NVYLIv9aZz0oufIe IPg38AoM7a
> Up3yYPCn9XuBB3QD1Mw1hmD5
> =KILn
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

> wrote in message
<snip>
> The thing that the public is afraid of is poor health and the loss
> of vigor. Fat people are not being vilified, it is just that no one
> wants to be like them.

Fat people generally don't either.

-Rubystars

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 23 May 2004 03:36:31 GMT, "Rubystars" >
wrote:

>
> wrote in message
><snip>
>> The thing that the public is afraid of is poor health and the
>> loss of vigor. Fat people are not being vilified, it is just that
>> no one wants to be like them.
>
>Fat people generally don't either.
>
>-Rubystars
>
I am sure that is true in come cases, the problem is that most resent
being told what is good for them. Fat people seem to be exempt from
that basis part of human nature. It seems to be ok to ridiculed and
told what to do.

It is usually done under the guise of the pretense of care, which
couldn't be further from the truth.

That is why we have idiot posting diet drek in SSFA. It is off
charter but they don't give a damn. The troll who started this
cross-post is a case in point also. SSFA wants no part of it.

I think I am going to have to turn into a net cop to do an
idiotectomy.

They think they are mad at me for telling them they are posting off
topic now , I am by no means finished.

LV


Lady Veteran
- -----------------------------------
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
when the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank..."
- -Rolling Stones, Sympathy for the Devil
- ------------------------------------------------
People who hide behind anonymous remailers and
ridicule fat people are cowardly idiots with no
motive but malice.
- ---------------------------------------------
"To Do Is To Be" Socrates
"To Be Is To Do" Plato
"Do Be Do Be Do" Sinatra
- -------------------------------



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0 - not licensed for commercial use: www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBQLDHJekoPZAZfLgsEQKLCACgo6xsw2mCRgx9DXPsPhHiL5 s3pYsAnjId
rfoQyHICGE1yJw/y9jiHszxq
=eCfd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----