Why?  To miss out on the fun you're going to provide?

Bullshit.

It

Bullshit.

So, you intend to spread bullshit in this newsgroup. Ok.

SWarah,

You are the one with the "Agenda".

You are here to "Save" people from low carb. And, you make the mistake
of common ignorance in not being able to use the english terms Lose and
LOOSE correctly. You should be ashamed.

The body has no absolute need for carbohydrates... Source, Institute of
Medicine of the National Academy of Sciencesin thier reports titled
"Dietary Reference Intakes".  See below.......

You can read this stuff yourself, without resorting to some crappy
biased "diet guru".

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=275

The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently
is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.
However, the amount of dietary carbohydrate that provides for optimal
health in humans is unknown. There are traditional populations that
ingested a high fat, high protein diet containing only a minimal amount
of carbohydrate for extended periods of time (Masai), and in some cases
for a lifetime after infancy (Alaska and Greenland Natives, Inuits, and
Pampas indigenous people) (Du Bois, 1928; Heinbecker, 1928). There was
no apparent effect on health or longevity. Caucasians eating an
essentially carbohydrate-free diet, resembling that of Greenland
natives, for a year tolerated the diet quite well (Du Bois, 1928).
However, a detailed modern comparison with populations ingesting the
majority of food energy as carbohydrate has never been done.

It has been shown that rats and chickens grow and mature successfully on
a carbohydrate-free diet (Brito et al., 1992; Renner and Elcombe, 1964),
but only if adequate protein and glycerol from triacylglycerols are
provided in the diet as substrates for gluconeogenesis. It has also been
shown that rats grow and thrive on a 70 percent protein,
carbohydrate-free diet (Gannon et al., 1985). Azar and Bloom (1963) also
reported that nitrogen balance in adults ingesting a carbohydrate-free
diet required the ingestion of 100 to 150 g of protein daily. This, plus
the glycerol obtained from triacylglycerol in the diet, presumably
supplied adequate substrate for gluconeogenesis and thus provided at
least a minimal amount of completely oxidizable glucose.

The ability of humans to starve for weeks after endogenous glycogen
supplies are essentially exhausted is also indicative of the ability of
humans to survive without an exogenous supply of glucose or
monosaccharides convertible to glucose in the liver (fructose and
galactose). However, adaptation to a fat and protein fuel requires
considerable metabolic adjustments.

The only cells that have an absolute requirement for glucose as an
oxidizable fuel are those in the central nervous system (i.e., brain)
and those cells that depend upon anaerobic glycolysis (i.e., the partial
oxidation of glucose to produce lactate and alanine as a source of
energy), such as red blood cells, white blood cells, and medulla of the
kidney. The central nervous system can adapt to a dietary fat-derived
fuel, at least in part (Cahill, 1970; Sokoloff, 1973). Also, the
glycolyzing cells can obtain their complete energy needs from the
indirect oxidation of fatty acids through the lactate and
alanine-glucose cycles.

In the absence of dietary carbohydrate, de novo synthesis of glucose
requires amino acids derived from the hydrolysis of endogenous or
dietary protein or glycerol derived from fat. Therefore, the marginal
amount of carbohydrate required in the diet in an energy-balanced state
is conditional and dependent upon the remaining composition of the diet.
Nevertheless, there may be subtle and unrecognized, untoward effects of
a very low carbohydrate diet that may only be apparent when populations
not genetically or traditionally adapted to this diet adopt it. This
remains to be determined but is a reasonable expectation.

And your credentials would be? If you are going to blast your information as
if it is the ONLY correct thing around let us know what gives you the
ability to be the bearer of such information?
Have you read any of the latest studies?
Have you read the books? What exactly do you KNOW about the Low Carb Diet?
Have  you had any experience with low carb yourself? How well did you follow
the diet? Did you do it exactly the way it was written or did you make up
your own plan along the way and then fail?
We are waiting with baited breath to find out what makes you right and us so
wrong?

"Sarah" <sarahpa1980@yahoo.com> babbled:
I intend to greatly increase my presence here to make the newbie's aware
that low-carbing can cause problems and may be dangerous to their health. It
may be justified to manage diseases like diabetes and epilepsy but should
not be used just for weight loss. It don't lead to long term weight loss
anyway.

Sarah

She's just here to troll.

She says *here* that low-carb is justified to manage diabetes, but she
began the anti-low-carb argument over on alt.support.diabetes a few days
ago.

After being called on lots of dumb arguments by a lot of folks, and
changing her story again and again about what the problem with low-carb
is, she finally just wound up flaming the heck out of Susan for matters
having nothing to do with diet.

Since she couldn't argue convincingly with diabetics about low-carb, she
decided to come play here, probably following Susan.

It's obvious to me that she's purposely trolling.

And your credentials would be? If you are going to blast your information as
if it is the ONLY correct thing around let us know what gives you the
ability to be the bearer of such information?
Have you read any of the latest studies?
Have you read the books? What exactly do you KNOW about the Low Carb Diet?
Have  you had any experience with low carb yourself? How well did you follow
the diet? Did you do it exactly the way it was written or did you make up
your own plan along the way and then fail?
We are waiting with baited breath to find out what makes you right and us so
wrong?

"Sarah" <sarahpa1980@yahoo.com> babbled:
I intend to greatly increase my presence here to make the newbie's aware
that low-carbing can cause problems and may be dangerous to their health. It
may be justified to manage diseases like diabetes and epilepsy but should
not be used just for weight loss. It don't lead to long term weight loss
anyway.

Sarah

Only if you're an idiot.

Doesn't, not don't.

Perhaps you should sign up for one of those English as a Second Language
classes at your local community college.

Idiot.

And how exactly would that contribute to the support of low carb
dieters?

Your information about glycogen stores completely ignores metabolic
processes
for rendering glycogen with minimal dietary carb from the fat stores,
the
break down of triglyercerides (that's a glycerine at the core), and
protein.
It also ignores ketones as fuel, the ATP/CP muscle energy metabolism
(which
probably works better on an adequate protein LC diet due to high
levels of
dietary creatine), or standard aerobic energy requirements.

You do yourself as large a disservice as you do others with your wives
tales
about depleted energy. High carbs suck the energy right out of me. Low
magnesium as well. Good protein and fat make me want to jump and
shout. And
then I go hit the weights. It's great. You might look into it for
experience
rather than blathering about what you clearly don't really know.

Prepare to be attacked.  And countered with facts, there are a number of
people here whose personal experience is contrary to your last statement.

Sarah, grow up!!! Sarah has followed a few people over from the diabetes
group. She has her knickers in a big twist. She claimed that in her opinion
low carb is the best treatment for type 2 diabetics then proceeded to bring
up every "bad" thing about low carbing within the same thread.
Contradictory? I thought so at first, now I think she is a total nut case.
Sorry you guys had to inherit her.

I think "Sarah" is one of Anons' many children.

Cheri

So, then, she just bounces from group to group trying to give people poor
health information? Well, I guess she's no danger as she certainly looks a
fool.

Maybe she doesn't get enough protein.