On Thu, 13 May 2004 10:05:29 -0400, Jackie Patti > wrote:

[cut]

>>> Juice can be a reasonable food choice for those whom are not
>>> insulin-resistant,
>>
>> And golly gee whiz, did I not qualify my remarks by basing them upon
>> what's acceptable and/or "good" for NORMAL people? Read above, nitwit.
>> Not everyone has your malady, not everyone should follow your diet.
>
> Which *I* made clear in pointing out that my family eats foods I do not,
> foods I grow and prepare for them. I mean, I grow *corn* for crying out
> loud. I bake bread!
>
> I have never stated that carbs are *evil* - just that for *some* people,
> they're poison. I am one of those people. 25% of the population is in
> this category as well.
>
> For some unknown reason, you've decided to argue with a newsgroup
> composed of these people that carbs are *good*. I presume you *know*
> you're cross-posting to alt.support.diet.low-carb? A group of people
> who *know* that low-carb is the appropriate diet for them?
>
> So what's your point?
>

The person has no point and simply wants to argue. He/She/It can't see
your or my point of view, which is as valid as his/hers/its. Low carb is
appropriate for me, as I'm insulin resistant (a function of genetics
coupled with a low fat diet for many years). There are those people who
do not and never will believe that low carb is a valid diet, regardless of
the studies done or information to support the diet. This idiot is one of
them.

The problem is that more and more people are becoming insulin resistant.
Why? One reason is certainly the reliance on low fat propaganda. Low fat
= good, regardless of the veracity of that statement. I was one of those
people for many years. I kept my fat at less than 10% by calories. I ate
pasta, whole wheat breads, non-fat everything, brown rice, beans, etc.
All it did for me was make me depressed and give me insulin resistance.
Perhaps there are some people who can eat a low fat diet, but I'm not one
of them. I switched to low carb (on and off) several years ago, and have
been constantly low carbing now for almost two years. I've raised my HDL
and have improved ALL of my blood lipids. I feel absolutely great and
have biked more than I ever did on low fat.

For me, low fat is the kiss of death. I will never go back to eating the
way I used to eat. For the sake of my health, I cannot.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>Now, unlike pearl, which I suspect has a professional background in
>>>health of some sort, or just is a pretty smart cookie,
>>
>>Oh boy, are you way off base! She's a self-deluded pseudoscientist at best,
>>at worst, a deliberate fraud.
>
> Extremely ignorant remarks, based on foolish, wilfully ignorant opinion.

No, she made a reasonable assessment based on researching your "field." It's
quackery, plain and simple.

>>She practices "reflexology" for a variety of
>>ailments.
>
> http://www.reflexology-research.com/updatedresearch.htm

Where are the double blind studies showing its efficacy?

pearl wrote:

Another thing about Lesley, aka pearl: she likes to use a vegan motorcyclist
(veganmc below) site as a source.

<....>
> But mostly those carbs are enclosed within a tough cellulose wall.
> And plant protein is thus also unavailable to putrefactive bacteria..
<...>
> http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm

She's not a scientist, she's a crackpot.

<...>

Bob in CT wrote:

> For me, low fat is the kiss of death. I will never go back to eating
> the way I used to eat. For the sake of my health, I cannot.

Absolutely agreed.


--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Illogical Lard Ass wrote:
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>My only replacement is aniseed balls. I use them
>>>>>as a substitute for the fags, but I must admit I do
>>>>>eat more during mealtimes
>>>>
>>>>That's because you lack discipline, fatso.
>>>
>>>I've incredible discipline,
>>
>>No, you've none.
>
> More than average, I'd say.

That's not saying much, but it would still be an exaggeration in your case.

>>>and my smoking quit goes
>>>some way in demonstrating that.
>>
>>Some way?
>
> Partly, yes.

I think discipline is an absolute: you either have it or you don't. You don't.

>>How many times have you tried before but failed because you lack
>>*discipline*?
>
> That question contains the presupposition that
> I lack discipline, so I cannot answer it directly
> without

....engaging in your usual sophistry.

> implying a falsehood or a statement that
> I deny, namely that I lack discipline.

You're in denial, which reflects your immaturity as well as your already
established lack of discipline.

> The proper
> response to such a question is not to answer it
> directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject
> it on the basis that it is specious.

Or with this kind of sophistry we've come to expect from you.

>>>>>>I've also heard that smoking can help people to be
>>>>>>thin (maybe it just keeps the mouth busy)
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm hoping the quit will make me more active
>>>>
>>>>BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! More active than what -- what
>>>>you were before you crippled yourself trying to lift engine blocks in front of
>>>>the lads?
>>>
>>>Yes. I live in a wheelchair during the day.
>>
>>*playing my violin for you*
>
> Rosin up that bow and play me a slow gypsy air.
>
>
>>>>>and
>>>>>feel inclined to burn it off rather than diet. I've never
>>>>>really tried a *meaningful* or determined diet before.
>>>>
>>>>No kidding, slacker. Your existence is meaningless.
>>>>
>>>><...>
>>>>
>>>>>My mum's a pink puffer :-(
>>>>
>>>>You're a blue-foot and a blue bloater.
<...>
>>>to you this afternoon before making a fool of yourself
>>>here. Why do attack disabled people like myself?
>>
>>I've never attacked your self-inflicted disabilities, just how you got them.
>
> Oh, that's all right then.

Yep.

Ignoramus27444 wrote:
<...>
<...>
>>>That's right. I was just hoping that somehow, I could find some way
>>>to not be hungry after I ate enough to maintain weight.
>>
>>Sounds like you also have some issues which have led you down the
>>path of serial eating disorders. You should try behavioral therapy
>>or counseling.
>
> I think that it is a somatic issue and not psychic.

It seems that way to you, but (as I noted elsewhere in this thread) it's common
to blame nature for our shortcomings.

> I never eat for emotional reasons anymore. Ijust want to eat more than
> I should.

Same coin, different side. It's mental.

> Since my weight has been stable for the last 8 months, it would be
> extremely unlikely that "counseling" would be of much help.

It would help you get to the bottom of your issues and resolve your desire to
engage in gluttony. Congratulations for stabilizing your weight.

Ignoramus27444 wrote:

> Can you keep your blood sugars under control on low carb?

This is a tricky question to answer.

I used to be able to keep my blood glucose under control with just
low-carb. Meaning, I kept them under 100 mg/dL round the clock - which
is what "control" means to me.

I can no longer do that. Diet and exercise keeps my blood glucose in
the 140-160 range now. I started on 1000 mg metformin last week, and my
range has decreased to 120-140, but that is still not what I consider
good control. I'm back to the doctor Friday to discuss increasing the
dosage.

However, on a non low-carb diet, even a "healthy" one with whole grains
and fruit, my blood glucose spiked over 400 and rarely got below 200 at
all. In comparison to that, yes low-carb controls my blood sugar. I
feel a heck of a lot better.

But it's not good enough for me. I want bg readings below 100
consistently to reduce the damage caused by high bg in the long run.

I got really, really sick in December and went back on low-carb in
response, and have been somewhat dissapointed in the deterioration in my
ability to control my bg. I'm kind of focused on that as my primary
issue... as it's long-term health for me in a way that weight loss
itself is not. One can always lose fat, but if you kill off your
pancreatic beta cells, they're gone forever.

I may regain an ability to maintain bg with just diet and exercise as
fat loss continues and exercise increases, these are known to reduce
insulin resistance. so it's not like losing weight and exercising are
irrelevant.

But for me, I think my meter readings are a much more important measure
of my progress than my weight. I also think there's much more
correlation with stuff like mood and feeling physically well with bg
than with weight, but that's a fairly subjective measure.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

Bob the **** wrote:
<...>
>>> And golly gee whiz, did I not qualify my remarks by basing them upon
>>> what's acceptable and/or "good" for NORMAL people? Read above,
>>> nitwit. Not everyone has your malady, not everyone should follow your
>>> diet.
>>
>>
>> Which *I* made clear in pointing out that my family eats foods I do
>> not, foods I grow and prepare for them. I mean, I grow *corn* for
>> crying out loud. I bake bread!
>>
>> I have never stated that carbs are *evil* - just that for *some*
>> people, they're poison. I am one of those people. 25% of the
>> population is in this category as well.
>>
>> For some unknown reason, you've decided to argue with a newsgroup
>> composed of these people that carbs are *good*. I presume you *know*
>> you're cross-posting to alt.support.diet.low-carb? A group of people
>> who *know* that low-carb is the appropriate diet for them?
>>
>> So what's your point?
>
> The person has no point and simply wants to argue.

I have a point, and I have cogently stated it.

> He/She/It can't see your or my point of view,

I see Jackie's POV. I took issue with her generalizations.

> which is as valid as his/hers/its.

No. My claims were predicated on what's healthful for normal people. I reject
that low-carb dieting is ever appropriate for normal people. What part of that
do you not comprehend?

> Low carb
> is appropriate for me, as I'm insulin resistant (a function of genetics

Ipse dixit. How do you know?

> coupled with a low fat diet for many years).

Low-fat diets don't inherently cause insulin resistance. Your version may have
been deleterious for reasons having to do with the kinds of carbs (simple,
refined, processed) you were consuming and the amount you were eating. Face it,
though, obesity itself is a risk factor for diabetes and insulin resistance. You
should blame yourself and your obsession with food.

> There are those people who
> do not and never will believe that low carb is a valid diet, regardless
> of the studies done or information to support the diet.

Low carb is "valid" for a small group of people, and if you actually had decent
reading comprehension you would've seen that I pointed out that what I said
pertained to NORMAL people.

> This idiot is one of them.

Listen, you ****ing asshole, try reading for comprehension. If you want flames,
I can dish it out with the best of'em. If you'd prefer a reasoned and rational
discussion, try dealing with what I actually wrote rather than making a
strawman, bending over it, and ****ing it in its ass repeatedly.

> The problem is that more and more people are becoming insulin
> resistant. Why?

Because obesity is prevalent, fatso.

> One reason is certainly the reliance on low fat
> propaganda.

Not necessarily. You ate the wrong carbs when you were on a lowfat diet. You
don't think THAT, combined with your obesity, played a role?

<...>

Lesley believes in and/or promotes all of the following:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction (caused by American
demand for beef)
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as medical practice)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
"Chemtrails"
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

usual suspect wrote:

> pearl wrote:
>
> Another thing about Lesley, aka pearl: she likes to use a vegan
> motorcyclist (veganmc below) site as a source.

That's from this same nutcase John Coleman who's been
posting here recently.

>
> <....>
>
>> But mostly those carbs are enclosed within a tough cellulose wall.
>> And plant protein is thus also unavailable to putrefactive bacteria..
>
> <...>
>
>> http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm
>
>
> She's not a scientist, she's a crackpot.

As is Coleman.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> Another thing about Lesley, aka pearl: she likes to use a vegan
>> motorcyclist (veganmc below) site as a source.
>
> That's from this same nutcase John Coleman who's been posting here
> recently.

That explains a lot then, lol.

>> <....>
>>
>>> But mostly those carbs are enclosed within a tough cellulose wall.
>>> And plant protein is thus also unavailable to putrefactive bacteria..
>>
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>> http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> She's not a scientist, she's a crackpot.
>
> As is Coleman.

Something I omitted to address earlier;

> "Jim Carver" > wrote in message
> om...
<..>
> > It should be noted, though, that I really wish this author would have
> > been a little more specific on the food ratios involved, but lets just
> > make some quick assessments to the approx. diet ratios he provided and
> > assume an approx. 30/55/15 ratio. This means that 30% of the
> > individuals diet is coming from protein sources, 55% is coming from
> > carbohydrate sources, and about 15% from fat. No to bad balancing...

'Diets in rural China were low in fat (14.5% of energy), relatively
low in protein (65.8 g/day), and high in fiber (33 g/day), representing
a diet unusually rich in plant based foods (e.g., including about 90%
of the total protein).'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...sis_paper.html

65.8 grams of protein a day can't be 30% of a plant-based diet.

'While Doctor Gislasons 12% of calories figure is reflective of some
current mainstream opinion, it is not supported by this analysis
(6% is closer to requirements), and it is not supported by orthodox
nutritional standards either, for example the National Research
Council says an adult male requires 2700 calories and 56 grams
of protein per day. The 56 grams of protein represent 224 calories,
or about 8.3% of calories as protein. '

> http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm (not found)
see; http://web.archive.org/web/200304180...mc/protein.htm
( http://tinyurl.com/38uum )

<..>

(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

"Jackie Patti" > wrote in message
<snip>
> You're ignoring the fact that the majority of our evolution occured
> pre-agriculture, when the defacto diet for the human race was a low-carb
> diet.

Wild foods include tubers and fruits that have a lot of carbs, as well as
many vegetables that have a lot of carbs. Hunter-gatherer societies should
more accurately be called gatherer-hunter societies, because the gatherers
actually bring home most of the food.

>Agriculture has not existed long in evolutionary terms - we did
> not evolve to eat hundreds and hundreds of grams of carb daily all year
> round.

You're underestimating the carbs in wild foods.

-Rubystars

"Jackie Patti" > wrote in message
...
> Crafting Mom wrote:
>
> > Then you simply re-directed your discipline and exercised it where you
did
> > not before. You discovered where it would be more difficult to exercise
> > the discipline (e.g. no more candy) and said no, whereas before you had
> > said yes. What is so wrong with the idea that one lost weight by
> > exercising their (already existing) potential to use self-control?
> >
> > Every day, you are aware that the ball is in your court and use it is a
day
> > you've exercised control.
>
> Yes, but...
>
> The amount of discipline required to control food intake with
> uncontrolled blood sugar is such that I'd have to focus *tons* of energy
> to do it. I'd not be able to be a productive worker, a good wife and
> mother, nor get my butt to the gym regularly if I had to use up all that
> psychic energy just to control food. Food would have to become my
> life's obsession to control myself while suffering with uncontrolled
> blood sugar.

Maybe you should talk to a doctor about it and see if they can't help you.
Maybe you need insulin shots?

> If I *had* to choose between being slim and being completly
> dysfunctional in every other area of my life, the only responsible and
> mature decision would be obesity.
>
> There is discipline required on low-carb, but a much lesser amount. I
> can focus a reasonable amount of discipline to the subject of food and
> still have plenty leftover for my other responsibilities and chores and
> such.

Discipline is like love, there's not a limited amount. If you had 3 kids,
you wouldn't dote on two of them and tell the third one you just didn't have
any left over for him, and you were really sorry, and regretted it, but
that's just how it is, now would you? Think of your responsibilities like
children. They all need attention and discipline. Your own health should be
one of your most important priorities, if you do have to prioritize here. If
you're not healthy, how are you going to be a productive worker, a good
wife, and go to the gym? You're more important than you think you are.
Putting your health first before other concerns is not selfish. It helps you
to accomplish your other responsibilities better.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> Maybe you should talk to a doctor about it and see if they can't help you.
> Maybe you need insulin shots?

Thank you for your concern. I am under a doctor's care.

The low-carb diet lowered my blood glucose tremendously. I'm currently
on metformin, which has lowered it a bit more. We will likely try
higher doses and/or other meds that specifically address insulin
resistance before trying insulin, though insulin is obviously a possibility.


> Discipline is like love, there's not a limited amount. If you had 3 kids,
> you wouldn't dote on two of them and tell the third one you just didn't have
> any left over for him, and you were really sorry, and regretted it, but
> that's just how it is, now would you?

I wouldn't have so many children that I could not care for them all. I
found it difficult to raise *one* by myself while balancing work and
school.

There *is* a limited amount... I have 24 hours in a day and a need for
sleep, meals, exercise, etc. You used the example of 3 children, which
may have been do-able with a partner. What about 30? 100? 500?

Of course it's limited... one person can only do so much.

If I must invest energy in willpower while in pain, I am not going to
have lots of energy leftover for much of anything.


> Think of your responsibilities like
> children. They all need attention and discipline. Your own health should be
> one of your most important priorities, if you do have to prioritize here. If
> you're not healthy, how are you going to be a productive worker, a good
> wife, and go to the gym? You're more important than you think you are.
> Putting your health first before other concerns is not selfish. It helps you
> to accomplish your other responsibilities better.

I don't have to choose between my health and my other responsibilities
when low-carbing because I am not in pain from hunger.

I have the energy to handle all of my responsibilities fine when not
suffering from high blood glucose. That was my very point - that I
*can* do so with low carb.


--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

(Jim Carver) wrote in message . com>...
> Hello Doug!
>
> Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide
> information for you just in case you might find it helpful...
>
> > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I
> > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially
> > a lacto-vegetarian diet.
>
> This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal
> vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult
> to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really
> know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation
> as to why you gained weight. Let me explain...
>
> What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric
> intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight?

I would tell you that calories are interchangeable within ones
metabolic system with virtually 100% efficiency. Nothing is wasted.
I would remind you that doing any sort of work or process in the
body requires fuel.
So, if someone chooses to do activities requiring (say) 4000
calories a day and eats only 3500 of these totally interchangeable
calories a day, 500 calories of some form of stored energy is going to
be consumed.
In your mind, that might co-exist with having "zero" impact on
weight gain/loss. For others, no.
There is no doubt that you have read a lot of popular nutrition.
Your problem is that you have no grounding in basic physiology.
Your readers need to know that.



Would you
> believe me?? Probably not, but virtually every nutritionist would be
> on my side. (OK, lets leave the doctors out of this one only because
> I have found that about 60% of them don't have a clue about basic
> nutrition)
>
> For most people, including vegetarians, the real culprit to gaining
> weight is not due to how many calories they eat, but rather the types
> of foods that they eat, and how they eat them.

The real culprit is that certain eating patterns do a poor job of
suppressing hunger in porportion to the calories consumed. The
hunger-eating-not hungry anymore feed-back loop is deranged by too
much refined carbs.
That way of saying it would be more accurate and save even more
time.
But you are simply wrong to say that total calories do not matter.
Calories in excess of demand must be stored. There is no other place
for them to go.

To save time in this
> forum, lets just get to the core of the matter. What makes most
> people gain weight is due to what nutritionists call the "see saw
> effect". Let me explain the process:
>
> Why most people gain weight?
> =======================================
> A) You get hungry and eat something of high GI food. Mmmm... Candy
> bar and Coke is yummy!!... :-)
> <http://www.gisymbol.com.au/PDF/BackgroundInfoGI.PDF>
>
> B) Next, in under 5 mins, this food that was ingested is immediately
> absorbed into your blood stream which causes a massive spike in your
> bodies blood glucose levels.
>
> C) After about another 15 mins, your pancreas notices the rising blood
> glucose levels, and releases a massive amount of insulin which is
> required to allow the body to "use" this new found energy source.
>
> D) Because your insulin levels rise so fast in the bloodstream, (ie.
> More energy than the body needs), your fat cells start gobbling up all
> the extra, and you would be amazed at how fast these little critters
> can do this!!(ie. Normally in less than 45 mins)
>
> E) Next, because of these seemingly "greedy little fat cells", blood
> sugar levels drop rapidly leaving the rest of the body without much
> energy left, making you feeling tired and sleepy... Nap time anyone??
>
> F) Finally, because blood sugar levels dropped so low in such a short
> period of time, your body does not know what is going on and goes into
> "panic mode" thereby sending signals to the brain to make you hungry
> again. (ie. This starts this vicious cycle all over again)
> =======================================
>
> Next Question: Why do we love high GI foods so much?
> =======================================
> To answer this question, one must appreciate how incredibly smart our
> bodies are. In some instances, people will eat allot of high GI foods
> just because they are the quickest/easiest foods to find or they do
> not know any better. For many people, though, we seem to "crave" high
> GI foods?
>
> Have you ever wondered why when that "special someone" broke your
> heart, or maybe that person driving in the car next to you made you
> feel really stupid, why your instinctly go home and start eating that
> big bowl of ice cream? Well, I promise you that you would be very
> surprised by the answer!
>
> In your brain there exists two master chemicals. The first is called
> "dopamine". The other is called "serotonin". These two brain
> chemicals influence most everything that we do. For the first being
> dopamine, it is used for excitement and concentration. In fact, a
> dopamine release is the whole reason why people drink their coffee in
> the morning! Serotonin, on the other hand, is used for that overall
> "feel good awareness", which most people call the "after glow"
> chemical. Reduced levels in serotonin will cause depression, fatigue,
> insomnia, etc.
>
> Now, where am I going with this?? Well, when your body is influenced
> by a period of onset depression, which for many people is
> unfortunately an almost daily occurrence, your body attempts to
> "treat" itself. Somehow, throughout time, our bodies have learned
> that by ingesting large amounts of high GI foods, that it will raise
> serotonin levels in the brain an make you feel better. (ie. Reduces
> depression symptoms) As with most people that are "their own
> doctors", even though your body has good intent overall, its reckless
> behavior does more harm than good...
> =======================================
>
> OK. They what diet is GUARANTEED to Work?
> =======================================
> Because of the greedy nature of fat cells, any diet that limits
> insulin releases to a minimum in the body will basically stop fat
> storage all together. Think about it this way, if there is very
> little amounts of insulin flowing through the body at any one given
> time, your muscles will take up all of the glucose and leave your fat
> cells empty handed!! Now, if only we could do this with governments
> and politicians!! :-)
>
> The way to do this is to always eat low GI foods and stay away from
> high GI foods. Low GI foods are any food that requires the body to
> work very hard (ie. Extract Glucose Slowly) to get its energy from.
> Foods such as: Oatmeal, Kashi cereal, Skim milk, Brown Rice, 100%
> Whole Wheat Breads, Broccoli, or any non-processed Beans are perfect
> for keeping insulin levels low. Another side benefit is that by
> keeping your insulin levels constant, your energy levels will go thru
> the roof!!! Dont believe me?? Well, it is 12:43am and I got up this
> morning at 4:30am and Im still going strong!! :-)
>
> Another trick that you will find incredibly effective is what is
> called "diet balancing". Basically this consists of balancing the
> types of foods that you eat. For instance, my diet is just a typical
> 45/35/20. This means that I am ingesting about 45% of my foods from
> protein, about 35% from low GI carbohydrates, and about 20% from fat.
> By balancing your diet, you will be able to eat a considerable larger
> amount of food with negligible fat gains. Does this mean that you
> have to count every calorie you eat?? Certainly not, but it just
> means that when you are eating a meal, to make sure you always have an
> appropriate amount of protein/carbohydrates/fats on the plate before
> you start eating!
> =======================================
>
> And Finally, Why do people always talk about exercise??
> =======================================
> As stated above, the human body is an amazing organism. In fact, have
> you ever wondered why when you go on a diet you loose weight for about
> 3 to 5 weeks and then no matter how hard you try you cannot loose
> anymore weight?? The answer is actually pretty intriguing.....
>
> Whenever a person goes on a restricted caloric diet, the body at first
> sarcomas to the pressure. (ie. It gives up fat). After a given time,
> though, the body gets "wise" to what is going on and decides to take
> action!! After about 3 to 5 weeks, (ie. It is different from person
> to person), the body realizes that it must change a few things or it
> will have to give up all of its fat, and I can promise you that it
> does not want to do that without a fight!! To stability the situation
> because of the reduced calorie diet, the body just chooses to reduce
> it metabolic rate. (ie. You have less energy and cannot think as well
> as before). By doing this, it allows the body to now function on this
> reduced diet and keep the fat is so dearly loves!!
>
> So where does fitness fall into this?? Well, by introducing exercise
> into the picture, you effectively stop the body from going into a
> reduced metabolic state. By doing this, you will continue to loose
> weight throughout the duration of your weight loss diet cycle.
>
> Another side benefit to exercise has to do with weight training. By
> lifting heavy amounts of weights in the gym (ie. Think HEAVY weight
> and not light weight as it will have very little effect), you
> stimulate the body to build more muscle to lift this heavy load. In
> turn, having this new muscle requires additional glucose to feed it.
> The beauty of this is that by adding muscle, you can eat considerably
> more and still loose weight. Dont believe me?? Well, most body
> builders (Yes, I am talking about the ones that do NOT use steriods)
> that have large amounts of muscle will eat > 5000 calories a day....
> For these guys, eating actually is a full time job!! :-)
> =======================================
>
> Now that you are equipped with all of the knowledge you need, go forth
> Doug and ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS!!! (And also have some fun along the
> way.... :-)
>
> I hope this helps!
>
> Jim Carver
>
>
> Doug Lerner > wrote in message >...
> > On 5/10/04 2:53 PM, in article er,
> > "Eva Whitley" > wrote:
> >
> > > The morons at PETA have rolled out Veg Eye for the Fat Guy (he
> > > http://goveg.com/feat/vegeye2/ ) targeting Ruben Studdard, Luciano
> > > Pavarotti, Michael Moore, John Goodman, and John Madden.
> > >
> > > Earth to PETA: it is possible to be fat and vegetarian. Don't they know
> > > any fat guy vegetarians? I could introduce them to some...
> >
> > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting low-cal. I
> > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet - especially
> > a lacto-vegetarian diet.
> >
> > Maybe it's harder to gain weight if you eliminate absolutely all animal
> > products including products that are derived from animals, like butter and
> > milk and cheese...
> >
> > But if you include those it is easy to get and remain obese and be a
> > vegetarian.
> >
> > doug

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...

<Extremely ignorant remarks, based on foolish, wilfully ignorant opinion.>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message news
> pearl wrote:
>
> Another thing about Lesley, aka pearl: she likes to use a vegan motorcyclist
> (veganmc below) site as a source.

Ad hominem.

Lesley believes in and/or promotes all of the following:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction (caused by American
demand for beef)
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as medical practice)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
"Chemtrails"
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Lesley believes in and/or promotes all of the following:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction (caused by American
demand for beef)
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as medical practice)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
"Chemtrails"
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

Jonathan Ball: Big Hit on the Playground Circuit.
Are not!
Are too!
Are not!
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Lesley believes in and/or promotes all of the following:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction (caused by American
demand for beef)
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as medical practice)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
"Chemtrails"
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net...

Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

Lesley believes in and/or promotes all of the following:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
your helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction (caused by American
demand for beef)
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as medical practice)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
Holocaust denial
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
"Chemtrails"
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"

"Rubystars" > wrote in message m...
>
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> >I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer
> > "reflexology" for weight loss.
>
> Sure enough, I found a site:
> http://www.holistic-online.com/Remed...eflexology.htm
>
> More BS:
> http://www.bodyandhealthessentials.c...m_slippers.htm
>
> "Using reflexology science, magnets, and laws of gravity to get slim!"

Interestingly;

Magnetic Therapy May Help People With Spinal Cord Injuries
BBC News
5-13-4

Doctors at Imperial College London administered magnetic stimulation
to the brains of people with partial damage to their spinal cord.

The therapy led to improved muscle and limb movement, and increased
ability to feel sensations.

Details of the technique - known as repetitive transcranial magnetic
stimulation (rTMS) - are published in the journal Spinal Cord.

It works by using an electromagnet placed on the scalp to generate
brief magnetic pulses, about the strength of an MRI scan.

These pulses stimulate the part of the brain called the cerebral cortex.

The technique was tested on four patients with what are known as
incomplete spinal cord injuries.

This is where the spinal cord has not been entirely severed, but the
patient has still lost the ability to move or feel properly below the
injury point.

Brain signals

Researcher Dr Nick Davey said: "Through rTMS we may be able to
help people who have suffered partial injuries to the spinal cord recover
some of their movement and feeling.

"We think it works by strengthening the information leaving the brain
through the undamaged neurons in the spinal cord. It may work like
physiotherapy but instead of repeating a physical task, the machine
activates the surviving nerves to strengthen their connections."
....... '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3701365.stm

<..>

"Jackie Patti" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> > Maybe you should talk to a doctor about it and see if they can't help
you.
> > Maybe you need insulin shots?
>
> Thank you for your concern. I am under a doctor's care.

You're welcome, and I'm glad.

> The low-carb diet lowered my blood glucose tremendously. I'm currently
> on metformin, which has lowered it a bit more. We will likely try
> higher doses and/or other meds that specifically address insulin
> resistance before trying insulin, though insulin is obviously a
possibility.
>
>
> > Discipline is like love, there's not a limited amount. If you had 3
kids,
> > you wouldn't dote on two of them and tell the third one you just didn't
have
> > any left over for him, and you were really sorry, and regretted it, but
> > that's just how it is, now would you?
>
> I wouldn't have so many children that I could not care for them all. I
> found it difficult to raise *one* by myself while balancing work and
> school.

That does sound tough!

> There *is* a limited amount... I have 24 hours in a day and a need for
> sleep, meals, exercise, etc. You used the example of 3 children, which
> may have been do-able with a partner. What about 30? 100? 500?
>
> Of course it's limited... one person can only do so much.
> If I must invest energy in willpower while in pain, I am not going to
> have lots of energy leftover for much of anything.

I know that being overweight causes pains on its own (Small ailments that
thin people never even think about, like the pain of legs rubbing together
and chafing, and larger ones, like sore knees). I know that hunger is
painful. I had a lot of hunger when I started on a lower calorie diet. I
mean, I'm eating half as much at meals as I really want now, but I eat
enough that I'm not hungry for a few hours. It evened out after a few days
and I'm not hungry all the time now. I still *want* to eat twice as much,
but I know that's psychological in my case.

> > Think of your responsibilities like
> > children. They all need attention and discipline. Your own health should
be
> > one of your most important priorities, if you do have to prioritize
here. If
> > you're not healthy, how are you going to be a productive worker, a good
> > wife, and go to the gym? You're more important than you think you are.
> > Putting your health first before other concerns is not selfish. It helps
you
> > to accomplish your other responsibilities better.
>
> I don't have to choose between my health and my other responsibilities
> when low-carbing because I am not in pain from hunger.

Yet what is low carb eating doing to your long term health? Are you taking
in large amounts of saturated fat?

> I have the energy to handle all of my responsibilities fine when not
> suffering from high blood glucose. That was my very point - that I
> *can* do so with low carb.

That's good at least.

-Rubystars

Rubystars wrote:

> Yet what is low carb eating doing to your long term health? Are you taking
> in large amounts of saturated fat?

My long term health is improved, since I've reduced my blood glucose and
cholesterol levels and therefore have less damage to my pancreas, heart
and kidneys.

Low-carb is the best way to protect the health of anyone with impaired
carbohydrate metabolism. It doesn't particularly harm anyone without it
either.

I don't track fat. I track carbs (minus fiber), protein and calories,
as these are most relevant to my health.

I eat the same amount of meat as before, but more dairy, so my saturated
fat intake has likely increased.

Given the tremendous improvement in my health and my blood work, I can't
find myself worried over that. Insulin has a much more dramatic effect
on cholesterol levels than dietary cholesterol does.

--
As you accelerate your food, it takes exponentially more and more energy
to increase its velocity, until you hit a limit at C. This energy has
to come from somewhere; in this case, from the food's nutritional value.
Thus, the faster the food is, the worse it gets.
-- Mark Hughes, comprehending the taste of fast food

On Thu, 13 May 2004 15:13:29 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>
>No. My claims were predicated on what's healthful for normal people. I reject
>that low-carb dieting is ever appropriate for normal people. What part of that
>do you not comprehend?


What are your medical credentials for making that diagnosis? What
research can you point to that supports your assertion or opinion?

"Jim Carver" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Cool the way the body works isn't it?? This is why looking just at
> calories alone is almost useless. One should use caloric intake for
> reference, but looking at the food ratios are much more important. By
> the way, how do you think body builders are about to obtain < 10% BF
> numbers while on a diet of > 3500 calories? If they simply reduced
> calories, then their body would just because leaner overall by
> breaking down their muscles first and leaving the BF as is!

That's why bodybuilders use steroids, Cytomel, Clenbuterol, cocaine, and any
number of drugs. However, in order to get really ripped before competitions,
they also resort to caloric restriction. :-)



Having a
> clear understanding of anabolic/catabolic blood states is critical for
> a person to understand if you are ever looking to develop any kind of
> muscle tone and definition...
>
> Jim Carver
>
>
> "Gooserider" > wrote in message
om>...
> > "Jim Carver" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Hello Doug!
> > >
> > > Sorry for the long email in advance. I just wanted to provide
> > > information for you just in case you might find it helpful...
> > >
> > > > I tried a vegetarian diet for a couple of months before starting
> > low-cal. I
> > > > *gained* weight. It's easy to gain weight on a vegetarian diet -
> > especially
> > > > a lacto-vegetarian diet.
> > >
> > > This is great that you are trying a new diet! Especially a low-cal
> > > vegetarian diet, which I would think would be exceptionally difficult
> > > to stomach. It shows that you really trying!! Now, I don't really
> > > know if you want the information, but there is a very easy explanation
> > > as to why you gained weight. Let me explain...
> > >
> > > What if I was to tell you that for most people, reducing their caloric
> > > intake would have ZERO impact on them loosing weight?
> >
>
>
> > I would say that millions of concentration camp victims and starving
> > Ethiopians say you're full of beans. I guarantee you that if ANYONE goes
> > into caloric deficit they will lose weight. Basic thermodynamics. What
> > you're claiming defies the laws of physics, and of common sense. Yes,
people
> > lose weight with a diet which eliminates high GI foods. But people also
lose
> > weight by eating lots of pasta and exercising intensely. People also
lose
> > weight by achieving a state of caloric deficit.
>

pearl wrote:
<entirely ignorant snipping based on her abject gullibility and incorrigible
quackery>

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>Another thing about Lesley, aka pearl: she likes to use a vegan motorcyclist
>>(veganmc below) site as a source.
>
> Ad hominem.

That is not ad hominem. I didn't call your source, or you, daft or
scientifically dubious. I think that part of it speaks for itself.

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer
>>>"reflexology" for weight loss.
>>
>>Sure enough, I found a site:
>>http://www.holistic-online.com/Remed...eflexology.htm
>>
>>More BS:
>>http://www.bodyandhealthessentials.c...m_slippers.htm
>>
>>"Using reflexology science, magnets, and laws of gravity to get slim!"
>
> Interestingly;
>
> Magnetic Therapy May Help People With Spinal Cord Injuries
> BBC News
> 5-13-4
>
> Doctors at Imperial College London administered magnetic stimulation
> to the brains of people with partial damage to their spinal cord.
>
> The therapy led to improved muscle and limb movement, and increased
> ability to feel sensations.
>
> Details of the technique - known as repetitive transcranial magnetic
> stimulation (rTMS) - are published in the journal Spinal Cord.
>
> It works by using an electromagnet placed on the scalp to generate
> brief magnetic pulses, about the strength of an MRI scan.
>
> These pulses stimulate the part of the brain called the cerebral cortex.
>
> The technique was tested on four patients with what are known as
> incomplete spinal cord injuries.

NOTE THE SAMPLE SIZE, DUMMY!

> This is where the spinal cord has not been entirely severed, but the
> patient has still lost the ability to move or feel properly below the
> injury point.
>
> Brain signals
>
> Researcher Dr Nick Davey said: "Through rTMS we may be able to
> help people who have suffered partial injuries to the spinal cord recover
> some of their movement and feeling.
>
> "We think it works by strengthening the information leaving the brain
> through the undamaged neurons in the spinal cord. It may work like
> physiotherapy but instead of repeating a physical task, the machine
> activates the surviving nerves to strengthen their connections."
> ....... '
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3701365.stm

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.

"Jim Carver" > wrote in message
<snip>
>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.

Diet (40 calorie) bread, high glycemic, or low glycemic? Apple, high
glycemic or low glycemic? What about potatoes? Green peas?

Is there a list I can get somewhere?

-Rubystars

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>>I would bet money on the hunch that people even offer
> >>>"reflexology" for weight loss.
> >>
> >>Sure enough, I found a site:
> >>http://www.holistic-online.com/Remed...eflexology.htm
> >>
> >>More BS:
> >>http://www.bodyandhealthessentials.c...m_slippers.htm
> >>
> >>"Using reflexology science, magnets, and laws of gravity to get slim!"
> >
> > Interestingly;
> >
> > Magnetic Therapy May Help People With Spinal Cord Injuries
> > BBC News
> > 5-13-4
> >
> > Doctors at Imperial College London administered magnetic stimulation
> > to the brains of people with partial damage to their spinal cord.
> >
> > The therapy led to improved muscle and limb movement, and increased
> > ability to feel sensations.
> >
> > Details of the technique - known as repetitive transcranial magnetic
> > stimulation (rTMS) - are published in the journal Spinal Cord.
> >
> > It works by using an electromagnet placed on the scalp to generate
> > brief magnetic pulses, about the strength of an MRI scan.
> >
> > These pulses stimulate the part of the brain called the cerebral cortex.
> >
> > The technique was tested on four patients with what are known as
> > incomplete spinal cord injuries.
>
> NOTE THE SAMPLE SIZE, DUMMY!

Everyone reading it can, dummy.

> > This is where the spinal cord has not been entirely severed, but the
> > patient has still lost the ability to move or feel properly below the
> > injury point.
> >
> > Brain signals
> >
> > Researcher Dr Nick Davey said: "Through rTMS we may be able to
> > help people who have suffered partial injuries to the spinal cord recover
> > some of their movement and feeling.
> >
> > "We think it works by strengthening the information leaving the brain
> > through the undamaged neurons in the spinal cord. It may work like
> > physiotherapy but instead of repeating a physical task, the machine
> > activates the surviving nerves to strengthen their connections."
> > ....... '
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3701365.stm
>
> 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! Thank goodness scientific researchers know better.

Boob Ward wrote:
>>No. My claims were predicated on what's healthful for normal people. I reject
>>that low-carb dieting is ever appropriate for normal people. What part of that
>>do you not comprehend?
>
> What are your medical credentials for making that diagnosis? What
> research can you point to that supports your assertion or opinion?

I'll qualify my remark by adding that it can be quite unhealthy even for
abnormal people, such as those with diabetes:
http://www.hopkinsafter50.com/html/s...ICLE_diets.php

Also:
------
Low Carbohydrate Diets: Take Them With a Grain of Salt, Part 1

James J. Kenney, Ph.D., R.D.
American Council on Science and Health
Date Published: Jan. 29, 2000

Does the relative ability of individual foods and diets to raise blood glucose
have a unique or tremendous influence on human health?

According to four of the most popular diet books of recent years -- "The Zone"
(1995), whose primary author is Barry Sears, Ph.D.; "Protein Power" (1997), by
medical doctors Michael R. Eades and Mary Dan Eades; "Dr. Atkins' New Diet
Revolution" (1997), by Robert C. Atkins, M.D.; and "Sugar Busters! Cut Sugar to
Trim Fat" (1998), by H. Leighton Steward and associates -- diets high in
carbohydrate, or CHO, are responsible for insulin increases that inhibit
fat-burning and lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes (noninsulin-dependent diabetes
mellitus) and atherosclerosis (specifically, coronary heart disease, or CHD).
More recently, actress Suzanne Somers has joined the anti-CHO bandwagon, with
"Suzanne Somers' Get Skinny on Fabulous Food" (1999).

A glycemic index, or GI, is the degree to which a food ingested alone increases
the concentration of glucose in the blood comparative to a standard, such as
white bread. The authors cited above profess that foods with high glycemic
indexes -- foods whose ingestion rapidly results in high glucose concentrations
- are the most dangerous foods, primarily because of the insulin response their
digestion elicits. They further contend that diets relatively high in protein
and/or fat are the key to reducing blood insulin, losing weight and improving
health.

There is a grain of truth to what these authors say. The trend of scientific
evidence from CHO research suggests that, at least for some individuals, both
the total quantity and the proportion of the various carbohydrates in a diet may
play a complex role in feeding behavior, metabolism and health. But consumers
who entertain the assertions of diet-book authors must consider those assertions
with more than a grain of salt. For example, the authors named above affirm that
beets and carrots are fattening, which is absurd.

The Basis of the Glycemic Index
Glycemic indexes are based on the human physiologic response, in terms of plasma
glucose concentrations, to ingestion of a food specimen that contains 50 grams
of digestible CHO, comparative to the response to an equivalent intake of either
glucose or white bread. The larger the blood-glucose increase, the higher the
GI. GIs have been assigned to more than 600 foods, but the typical American
supermarket carries over 6,000 foods. So it is likely that many people are
regularly consuming many foods that have not been tested regarding GI. Moreover,
cooking or otherwise preparing a food can alter its potential blood-glucose
effects. As a rule, processing a nonprocessed food amplifies its ability to
increase plasma glucose concentrations. In any case, the relationship of high-GI
foods and/or a high-CHO diet to the development of obesity, type 2 diabetes and
cardiovascular disease has yet to be determined.

The Pima Paradox
Epidemiological studies have not lent much credence to the notion that high-CHO
diets in general, or those consisting mostly of high-GI foods, lead to obesity,
diabetes and CVD. The contention that the quantity or percentage of CHO in a
diet, or the relative ability of individual foods or diets to increase plasma
glucose concentrations, is the primary determinant in the development of
obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes is inconsistent with some
observations of human populations. For example, although the diet of the Pima
Indians living in northern Mexico consists largely of potatoes and corn
tortillas -- both high-CHO, high-GI foods -- the Pimas weigh 60 to 65 pounds
less than the Pima residents of Arizona, who consume much more protein and fat
than do their Mexican cousins.

Foods high in protein and/or fat tend to have GIs below those of high-CHO foods.
But by age 50 more than half of the Arizona Pimas become obese and develop type
2 diabetes, whereas among the Mexican Pimas type 2 diabetes is rare and occurs
mostly among the elderly. Because the Mexican Pimas and the Arizona Pimas are of
the same genetic stock, it is unlikely that genetic factors can account for this
disparity. That the Mexican Pimas are much more physically active than their
Arizonan counterparts is probably a crucial factor both in the diabetes
disparity and in the body-weight disparity.

Scientific findings have positively associated diets high in fat, especially
saturated fat, and in refined CHOs, particularly sugars, and the development of
insulin resistance. On the other hand, high-complex CHO diets and improvement of
sensitivity to insulin appear associated.

Priorities
On Sept. 1, 1998, the American Heart Association released a report stating that
diets very low in fat -- diets in which less than 15 percent of calories come
from fat -- may carry serious health risks for some people and are not
recommended for the public. The authors noted that, according to many research
findings, very high CHO diets reduce blood HDL-cholesterol (a compound that
tends to retard heart disease) and increase blood triglycerides more than do
diets relatively high in unsaturated fat.

But in every study that has shown adverse effects of high-CHO diets on blood
lipid concentrations, the high-CHO diet and the diet higher in fat were
isocaloric, that is, equally restricted calorically. In similar studies without
calorie controls, adverse effects have been minimal -- because for most people,
calorie intakes on reduced-fat diets tend to be lower than those on diets with
unmodified fat intakes. And in one study in which isocaloric diets were used,
following the high-CHO diet, which had a low GI, did not result in a decrease in
blood HDL-cholesterol or in an increase in blood triglycerides. Therefore, it is
possible that high-CHO diets adversely affect blood lipid concentrations only
when they consist largely of processed high-CHO, high-GI foods and one's calorie
intake is at least that which one would have on a diet relatively high in fat.

Last year the American Diabetes Association rescinded its advocacy of high-CHO
diets for all diabetics and took the stand that the composition of diabetic
diets should be individualized. Because body weight, activity level, endogenous
insulin output, degree of insulin resistance and risk factors for other
diet-related diseases vary widely among diabetics, that their diets should be
individualized almost goes without saying. The ADA's rescindment stemmed largely
from short-term studies that had associated high-CHO diets (relative to diets
higher in unsaturated fat), potentially adverse blood-lipid changes, and little
or no improvement in sensitivity to insulin and in blood-glucose concentrations.
But it was expected in these studies that the high-CHO diet intake would be
calorically equal to the high-fat diet intake. Furthermore, the high-CHO diets
in these studies consisted largely of highly processed CHO-rich foods, most of
them high-GI foods. It is too early to generalize from the findings of such
studies applicably to all type 2 diabetics.

The ADA does not recommend taking GIs into account in diabetic meal planning. It
also has maintained that the cumulative GIs of mixed meals cannot be
extrapolated reliably. The scientific evidence, however, suggests that such GIs
can be dependably extrapolated. In any case, the ADA advises giving top
precedence in the planning of diabetic diets to CHO quantity rather than to CHO
sources.

Diabetes mellitus increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, and
most type 2 diabetics in the United States are overweight. Thus, for most of
them, top precedence should probably be given to the calorie content of the diet
in conjunction with the diet's ability to satisfy the desire to eat. It appears
that reducing the intake of calories, saturated fat, trans fatty acids, salt and
cholesterol; and optimizing both fiber intake and exercising are each more
important in type 2 diabetes than are the CHO quantity, CHO percentage and
cumulative GI of the diet. With type 1 diabetics it is likely that regularity in
daily CHO consumption in terms of quantity and sources helps to limit blood
glucose concentrations.

The insulin score is a measure of bodily insulin output in response to ingestion
of a food specimen of a specified caloric value, usually 250 kilocalories. The
insulin scores and glycemic indexes, or GIs, of low-fat and low-protein foods
correspond. Because CHO is absorbed only in the small intestine and dietary fat
in the stomach slows gastric emptying, a mixed, high-fat meal will usually
reduce the GIs of the high-CHO foods in it to which fat has been added. But
while dietary fat tends to decrease the GIs of CHO-rich foods, it magnifies the
insulin-output response to rises in plasma glucose. Therefore, the insulin
scores of high-fat foods generally are much higher than those that their GIs
might suggest. For example, the GI of ice cream, which is high in fat, is below
that of carrots or potatoes, but the insulin scores of these three foods are
similar.

Dietary protein attenuates but prolongs the glycemic response to a meal. This
effect may be an advantage in cases of type 1 diabetes, in which large glycemic
swings can make effective treatment more difficult. In nondiabetics, ingestion
of protein and/or fat normally induces pancreatic emission of insulin. Ingestion
even of foods containing little or no CHO elicits a fairly substantial insulin
response despite having little effect on plasma glucose concentrations. It is
simplistic to say that increasing consumption of fat and protein and decreasing
CHO intake will dramatically reduce the need for insulin and/or reduce insulin
secretion.

In any event, diminishing insulin responses does not, as some authors claim,
prevent or diminish conversion of excessive energy from dietary CHO to fat or
the storage of such fat. Excessive dietary energy from any source can become
stored fat. In a six-week study of overweight type 2 diabetics, published in a
1992 issue of Diabetes Care, T. Wolever and colleagues found that following a
calorically restricted, high-GI diet had resulted in about as much weight loss
as had following an equally restricted low-GI diet.

The Satiety Index and GIs
In dietetics, "satiety" refers to the effects of a food or a meal on appetite
after eating has concluded. One possible predictor of the calorie-intake and
body-weight effects of the ingestion of various foods is how diminished one's
desire for food is after consuming various foods at specific caloric levels. One
such measure is the satiety index, or SI, which is based on subjects' grading of
post-meal appetite satisfaction and on their calorie intake two hours after a
standardized meal. Theoretically, a high-SI food would be likelier than low-SI
foods to satiate one's desire to eat, slow the development of hunger and
contribute to the prevention of excessive calorie intakes. It seems probable
that a diet composed of higher-SI foods would limit hunger and thus facilitate
limiting calorie intake and preventing weight gain.

The notion that a high-CHO, high-GI diet leads to obesity rests ultimately on
the assumption that SIs and GIs correspond. Whether or not following a
calorically unrestricted diet composed of higher-SI foods would have a long-term
effect in limiting calorie intake remains to be seen. But that the potato, which
is among the highest-GI foods, has the highest SI so far assigned is
incompatible with the claim that consuming high-GI foods causes insulin-output
excesses and thus leads to overeating. Indeed, other high-GI foods have SIs
higher than those of many low-GI, high-fat foods.

The insulin output in response to a meal corresponds much more with the caloric
value of the meal than with its cumulative GI or its ratio of CHO to fat or
protein. There are no credible-research findings suggesting, as some popular
diet book authors claim, that the consumption of beets, carrots, potatoes and
other high-GI foods is conducive to obesity while the consumption of bacon and
cheese omelets is not.

Energy Density, GIs and Satiety
In nutrition, the term "energy density" refers to the concentration of
physiologically releasable energy in a food or group of foods of a specified
weight. The energy density of the Arizona Pimas' diet is higher than that of the
diet of their Mexican cousins. This energy density difference is partly
responsible for the difference in the prevalence of obesity and type 2 diabetes
between the two groups. Experiments have shown that humans consume high-CHO
foods at caloric levels below those at which they consume fat-enriched versions
of those foods, even when the high-CHO foods and their fat-enriched counterparts
are equally palatable. But it has likewise been shown that, when the energy
density of a calorically unrestricted high-fat diet and that of a calorically
unrestricted diet higher in CHO are equal, calorie intakes do not necessarily
differ between them. Indeed, clinical research has shown that energy density is
primarily responsible for calorie-intake differences in calorically unrestricted
diets -- both those low in fat (diets about 20 percent of whose calories come
from fat) and those high in fat (diets about 40 percent of whose calories come
from fat).

Of course, because adding fat to any food always increases the item's energy
density and most naturally occurring high-fat foods have high energy densities,
following a high-fat, low-energy density diet would be very difficult. Such a
diet would consist largely of stir-fried vegetables and tofu.

The energy densities of fresh fruits and vegetables, nonfat dairy products, very
lean animal-protein foods and many whole-grain foods vary from very low (65
kilocalories per pound) to moderate (550 kilocalories per pound). It is
precisely because the energy densities of diets relatively high in fat are, in
general, higher than those of diets relatively high in CHO that, irrespective of
GIs, the former diets are greater contributors to calorie-intake excesses,
weight gain and metabolic problems.

Both the GIs and the energy densities of most highly processed CHO-rich foods
are high. Consuming CHO-rich foods whose energy densities are high is largely
responsible for lack of satisfaction of the desire to eat. In the United States,
high-GI foods -- for instance, "fat free" bakery products (most of whose energy
densities are high) -- tend to have low SIs.

Madison Avenue has tried to make foods labeled fat free look nonfattening. It is
reasonable to assume that experience with such products disillusioned many
chronic dieters and disposed them toward low-CHO diet gurus, who condemn
high-CHO diets across the board but particularly damn high-GI foods -- most of
which have high energy densities. But the SI of a diet is a more important
weight-control factor than is either GI or the percentage of calories from CHO.

There is some evidence that, at the same caloric level, dietary CHO, protein and
fat promote appetite satisfaction to different respective degrees. Of these
macronutrients, dietary fat has the least satiety value. But in a recent
randomized six-month study of obese subjects on calorically unrestricted, "fat
reduced" diets comparable in energy density, A. R. Skov and associates found
that substituting protein for some of the CHO in a diet had led to significantly
more weight loss than had nonsubstitution. This finding has not been replicated,
however.

Substituting low-fat animal products or other foods relatively high in protein
for some of the sugar and some of the highly processed CHO-rich foods in a diet
might turn out advantageous for some individuals. But substantially increasing
dietary protein can contribute to osteoporosis and reductions in kidney
function. Until scientific research uncovers substantially more about the
long-term effects of very-high-protein diets (diets at least 25 percent of whose
calories come from protein), it would be inappropriate to recommend such diets
for long-term weight management.

In a study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, K. H. Duncan
and colleagues compared the respective effects of two calorically unrestricted
diets on obese and non-obese subjects: a low-energy density (318 kilocalories
per pound), high-fiber diet consisting primarily of minimally processed plant
foods, and a high-energy density (681 kilocalories per pound), high-fat,
low-fiber diet. The researchers found that, while both food acceptance and
satiety ratings on the low-energy density diet had been equivalent to such
acceptance and ratings on the high-energy density diet, calorie intake on the
low-energy density diet had been about half of that on the high-energy density diet.

Exercise
Exercising even relatively briefly can moderate insulin resistance for about 24
hours. Exercising reduces liver and muscle supplies of glycogen, the main form
in which carbohydrates are stored in humans, and thus results in rapid uptake of
blood sugar by these tissues. The muscles of sedentary persons are full of
glycogen and thus resist insulin. Research has also shown that, on unrestricted
diets, activity increases do not automatically lead to corresponding increases
in calorie intake. This may be the main reason that relatively active persons
are less likely to gain weight or to develop insulin resistance or type 2
diabetes than are relatively sedentary persons.

High-CHO Diets, High-GI Diets and CHD
Solid scientific research has linked hyperinsulinemia due to insulin resistance
and an increase in the risk of developing ischemic heart disease, or IHD,
characterized by atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries. Such research has led
to speculation that high-GI foods may promote IHD. The Nurses' Health Study has
uncovered a positive correlation of high GIs and women's risk of having a heart
attack. Another study, published last year in The Lancet, associated a diet
relatively high in high-GI foods and relatively low serum HDL-cholesterol
concentrations.

However, it is simplistic to claim that consumption of high-GI foods results in
hyperinsulinemia and thus leads to adverse changes in blood lipid concentrations
and to atherosclerosis. For example, findings from a study published in The
Journal of the American College of Cardiology in 1998 suggest that large insulin
outputs promote coronary atherosclerosis only when they are very
disproportionate to increases in blood glucose levels -- as occurs, largely
because of insulin resistance, in type 2 diabetes and syndrome X (a combination
of hyperlipidemia, hypertension, obesity and type 2 diabetes). The researchers
found that insulin resistance is a risk factor for IHD. They also found,
however, that without insulin resistance, relatively high blood insulin
concentrations were not associated with an increase in the risk of developing IHD.

In a study published in 1997 in a supplement to The Canadian Journal of
Cardiology, researchers found that even without weight loss, following a
calorie-controlled, high-CHO diet composed largely of minimally processed,
high-fiber foods -- comparative to following a calorically equal diet
characterized by more processed foods -- had resulted in a decrease in blood
triglyceride concentrations. They concluded: "[T]here appear to be important
cardiovascular benefits from choosing a plant based diet over a convenience-food
based diet for meeting national dietary guidelines. ..."

Unlike most simple sugars, fructose, a very sweet sugar that occurs especially
in fruit juices and honey, has a low GI, but research has shown that, compared
to starch (whose GI is high), dietary fructose raises blood LDL-cholesterol, an
excess of which is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There is also
scientific evidence that sucrose (commonly used as table sugar), whose GI is
lower than the GIs of many high-starch foods, increases blood concentrations of
cholesterol and triglycerides when it replaces dietary starch; and that, when
they replace dietary sucrose, vegetables and whole grains improve blood lipid
concentrations.

Nutrition scientists recognize that GI is not the only characteristic of
high-CHO foods responsible for how they affect blood lipid concentrations and
cardiovascular disease risk.

The Bottom Line
Credible scientific evidence is absent for the claim that a diet relatively high
in protein and fat and consisting only of low glycemic-index foods is the key to
preventing and treating obesity, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. It
has, however, become increasingly apparent that the types of carbohydrate are
ample in one's diet can affect the desire to continue eating; calorie intake;
body weight; and blood concentrations of glucose, insulin and lipids -- and
probably the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and IHD.

Taking GIs into account may be somewhat useful, particularly in planning meals
for diabetics. But in general it appears that the best diet for preventing and
treating obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease is one that:


* Is high in minimally processed whole-grain foods -- for example, brown
rice, cooked whole-grain cereals, corn and whole-wheat pasta;


* Is high in fruits, vegetables and starchy foods such as beans, lentils,
peas and potatoes;


* Includes nonfat dairy products in moderate quantities; and


* Includes, in small quantities, seafood and/or very lean poultry or meat.

------

As for normal people:
http://weightloss.about.com/cs/healthrisks/

As for medical credentials, show me yours and I'll show you mine...

Rubystars wrote:
>>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.
>
> Diet (40 calorie) bread, high glycemic, or low glycemic? Apple, high
> glycemic or low glycemic? What about potatoes? Green peas?
>
> Is there a list I can get somewhere?

There are MANY such lists, and some of them even agree with each other. GI is a
pretty silly tool upon which to base a healthful diet. Its best use is for those
with genuine metabolic disorders like diabetes, but glycemic load (GL) is a
better measure since it accounts for serving size.

If you look at tables of glycemic index, you will see things that should
bother an intelligent person. A carrot has almost the same glycemic
index as sugar does. That is ridiculous. You know that a carrot is far
safer for diabetics than table sugar. So scientists developed a new
measure to rank foods called glycemic load. It tells you how much sugar
is in the food, rather than just how high it raises blood sugar levels.
To calculate glycemic load, you multiply the grams of carbohydrate in a
serving of food by that food's glycemic index.

Carrots and potatoes both have a high glycemic index, but using the new
glycemic load (GL), carrots dropped from high GI of 131 to a GL of 10.
Potatoes fall from a GI of 121 to a GL of 45. Air-popped popcorn, with a
glycemic index of 79, has a GL of 4.

Foods that are mostly water or air will not cause a steep rise in your
blood sugar even if their glycemic index is high. That's why the new
measure, Glycemic Load, is more useful. However, all of these tools
should be used for research and not for your daily selection of foods.
Use your own common sense and eat plenty of fruits, vegetables, whole
grains, beans and other seeds. If you are diabetic, you can eat root
vegetables and fruits with other foods to slow the rise in blood sugar
they may cause.
http://www.drmirkin.com/nutrition/9566.html

You can find various GI and GL lists by using Google. The following link has a
chart which breaks foods down into both GI and GL.
http://www.mendosa.com/common_foods.htm


----
Obesity's not a problem to people who eat a lot of carrots. It's a problem to
people who don't eat them.

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.... 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