 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004When does it cease to be a "fad"
Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of eating. See, unlike the folks with PETA, us LC'ers are not bent on making the entire world conform to our WOE and philosophy on life, but the diet we follow is still considered a "fad". I suppose the only way that we can ever have our WOE vindicated is to have a huge government body such as the Centre for Disease Control come out and say that it is an acceptable way to eat. Since that will never happen, perhaps when there are a strong selection of national brands (Heinz, bryers, subway, etc) out there, people will stop and think twice before labeling everyone who eats LC as eating a fad diet. I happened to see a little of Richard Simmons on HSN the other day promoting his tapes and food mover and was waiting for him to bash low carbing, as he generally does, but amazingly he didn't say a word about it. >I happened to see a little of Richard Simmons on HSN the other day promoting >his tapes and food mover and was waiting for him to bash low carbing, as he >generally does, but amazingly he didn't say a word about it. I saw him do it once on the Wayne Brady show but he did it rather indirectly. >>I happened to see a little of Richard Simmons on HSN the other day promoting >>his tapes and food mover and was waiting for him to bash low carbing, as he >>generally does, but amazingly he didn't say a word about it. > >I saw him do it once on the Wayne Brady show but he did it rather >indirectly. Well considering the tubby source, I wouldn't sweat Richard Simmons too much. -- =-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-= Pink Floyd on Video - http://pfov.frostwarning.com/ To e-mail me, nevermind the BOLLOCKS | Yar. FOAD. =-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-=-==-=-==-=-= "A planet where APES evolved from MEN ?!?" Floyd Code : v1.2a r FU 0/0/r FD 0- 0 Animals/WYWH 49 391 28.3% <12oct03 >Well considering the tubby source, I wouldn't sweat Richard Simmons >too much. I happen to *like* Richard Simmons but that doesn't mean I have to agree with SOME of his advice though. :-) Seems to me it's not a fad anymore when major restaurants are adopting the Aktins name directly into their menus (e.g., Subway's "Atkins Friendly" wraps). ~Stretch~ "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1i6Kb.162634$ss5.159769@clgrps13 > Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading > about will cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > people will stop and think twice before labeling everyone who eats LC > as eating a fad diet. >Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will >cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >national brands (Heinz, bryers, subway, etc) out there, people will stop and >think twice before labeling everyone who eats LC as eating a fad diet. You know what is amusing. When you tell dieticians what you eat.....meat, fish, chicken, green veggies, eggs, good fats such as as olive oil and avocadoes and berries and sometimes some nuts and lots of water they tell you it is a good way of eating but the *second* you stick the low carb or Atkins name to it they berate you for not eating properly and claim you *need* brown rice and whole wheat and I should not be using a fad diet. I had that problem myself with a dietician at the Y recently and wanted to tell her to **** off. What is so *faddish* about the foods I listed above??? They have been around forever. > You know what is amusing. When you tell dieticians what you > eat.....meat, fish, chicken, green veggies, eggs, good fats such as as [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > What is so *faddish* about the foods I listed above??? They have been > around forever. If you read old news reports about Marilyn Monroe, when she needed to drop some extra weight shed ALWAYS "cut out the bread and potatoes"! They all did back then. Sodas were once a week "treats"! My Gramma used to make me Mrs Ts Pierogies and then cut the "rind" off "Preesi! Thats too much dough" Back then the MEAT (or as my gramma called any large roast animal 'THE FAT BOY') was the main part of the meal! And we drank water only and full fat milks. We played outside all day! And sat on the porch and talked.  Signaturepreesi ~~~My Mom and her Sister skip cheerily, arm and arm thru the crowded Mall loudly singing "Sisters, Sisters" from the movie 'White Christmas' and you wonder why Im a weirdo?~~~ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/preesi/Portal.htm (All 5 Of My Sites Under One Easy To Use Link) http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Splenda1/petition.html (Sign the Low Carb Splenda Petition-Get Liquid Splenda on the Market!) >f you read old news reports about Marilyn Monroe, when she needed to drop >some >extra weight shed ALWAYS "cut out the bread and potatoes"! They all did back >then. Course we did, and whats more, there weren't nearly as many fat people around then. Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: > Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will > cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of > eating. Are you being sarcastic, or are you really upset? When it comes to deciding whether it is a fad or not, who cares? Anyway, the answer is it's a fad because it has suddenly become wildly popular. It will stop being a fad when it either stops being wildly popular or when it has been wildly popular for a long time and remains popular. Acceptable way of eating to whom? If you mean acceptable to the scientific community, then it will become acceptable, when the scientific community proves that it safe over the long term and declares it proved. martin :: Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: :: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] :: when the scientific community proves that it safe over the :: long term and declares it proved. What a crock....who cares if/when the scientific community "proves that it safe over the long term and declares it proved." Do we need the scientific community to tell us what to eat? It was their bullshit that made many of us fat in the first place.... Blind worship of science is very, very unhealthy. In fact, it can kill you dead. :: martin >What a crock....who cares if/when the scientific community "proves that it >safe over the long term and declares it proved." > >Do we need the scientific community to tell us what to eat? It was their >bullshit that made many of us fat in the first place.... Two questions. 1) When you ate too much of <fill in>, was it the scientific communities fault that you were a glutton? 2) How do you determine what science you accept and what you don't? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031111.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. :: On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 09:15:54 -0500, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] :: 1) When you ate too much of <fill in>, was it the scientific :: communities fault that you were a glutton? No. However, they should have determined the role of excessive carbs on blood chemistry before placing a near complete ban on fat. Also, they should have studied LC nutrition before giving their collective blessing to low fat. :: 2) How do you determine what science you accept and what you don't? They have a track record as far as nutrition is concerned, and it aint' good. :: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031111.html :: Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >::: Do we need the scientific community to tell us what to eat? It was >::: their bullshit that made many of us fat in the first place.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >should have studied LC nutrition before giving their collective blessing to >low fat. that's debatable but the point remains this. I am sick and tired of hearing "It was their bullshit that made many of us fat in the first place...." when no matter what the scientific community may or may not have (erroneously) claimed, people got fat because they ate too much. That has nothing to do with science. That has to do with gluttony. >:: 2) How do you determine what science you accept and what you don't? > >They have a track record as far as nutrition is concerned, and it aint' >good. Didn't answer the question, Roger. You want to accept this science, not accept that science and on what criteria do you personally have to make these decisions? What criteria do you use to accept one science and reject another? Not speaking directly to you, unless the shoe fits, but I read these Usenet groups frequently and I constantly, daily see people selecting science which, as unbelievable as it might seem <gasp>, support their WOE or thinking. These same people, somehow, have accredited themselves with the ability to discern research. When questioned, the vast majority don't read any research citations (abstracts only) and, when quizzed, have no significant interaction with the research community much less an educational background that would, at least, partially qualify them to read a citation. Amazing, huh? They are full of opinions and full of it too. So if you are going to be critical of science, fine. Get yourself, as I have, to the scientists, the researchers, the people who actually live and breathe it and ask THEM what's the scoop. Until then, it's nothing more than babbling and pontificating and it's worth about that much. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031111.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >>::: Do we need the scientific community to tell us what to eat? It was >>::: their bullshit that made many of us fat in the first place.... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have (erroneously) claimed, people got fat because they ate too much. > That has nothing to do with science. That has to do with gluttony. I'm certainly not going to say that it was others who fattened America. The people eating did it and should certainly have noticed it when it was happening. If they choose to do something about it, great. If not, it's still their choice. Nobody *made* anybody else get fat. But it also has *does* have to do with bad advice from credentialed people who were (and seem to be steadfastly insisting that they still are correct) simply wrong. The food pyramid is a plan for weight increase. Low fat, in and of itself, creates more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Research has been encouraged along the lines of orthodox, conventional thinking and neglected the unconventional questions until very recently. The visible failure of the core of nutritional advice of the past several decades walks the streets of the developed countries. Nowhere enough research has been conducted into our instinctual and glandular impulsions. Not enough data on *why* we eat as we do. That "feast or famine" evolutionary compensation issue is still open for research. Lacking that kind of information, any dietary program is guesswork as applied to this specific person. And any dietary program that works in the best one for *that person.* Too many are one-size-fits-all and that's one of my major objections to 2PoundDiet. There are others just as superficial. Many, many sincere people followed dietitians and other nutrition "experts" into trouble. The advice they've been dispensing for several decades now, coupled with our hard-wired behaviors, has led to the current situation in the US. And if you look around the world, it's happening in most other first-world countries. Italian children are now more obese than Americans of the same ages. On the "Mediterranean" diet. >>:: 2) How do you determine what science you accept and what you don't? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > criteria do you personally have to make these decisions? What criteria > do you use to accept one science and reject another? There's not "one science" versus another. It's the quality of the research behind the position/conclusion and the subsequent results of its application. Has it been looked at enough that careful researchers have examined the questions from enough angles and for enough time to assert a solid or even likely conclusion? Are the conclusions logical from the conditions set for study? are the conclusions possible in the real world or do they demand too much from those affected? All those criteria are value judgements until the results are tabulated. There are few truly objective criteria to apply until lengthy study takes place. Until then, everybody has to work on incomplete data, just like everything else in life demands. We can *never* know everything about any complex question. > Not speaking directly to you, unless the shoe fits, but I read these > Usenet groups frequently and I constantly, daily see people selecting > science which, as unbelievable as it might seem <gasp>, support their > WOE or thinking. These same people, somehow, have accredited > themselves with the ability to discern research. You don't mean "discern research." You mean "interpret research." And you haven't demonstrated your capacity to interpret research. No education indicated, no practical experience that can be authenticated, no posts that support your implication that you are capable. Most people will accept information that supports what they already believe more readily than that which will cause them to change their minds. Human nature. > When questioned, the > vast majority don't read any research citations (abstracts only) and, > when quizzed, have no significant interaction with the research > community much less an educational background that would, at least, > partially qualify them to read a citation. You don't mean citations. A citation is merely a point of reference. You mean articles, papers, presentations or some other formal publication of research results. You don't sound very knowledgeable in researching the research. You don't sound experienced in the forms and language of academic study. You don't sound very knowledgeable in the background necessary to deal with such publications. I can't recall any research done by others and published in a responsible venue that you've quoted. Washing test tubes doesn't make one a scientist. > Amazing, huh? > > They are full of opinions and full of it too. Unfortunately, you're describing yourself here. You've never offered so much as one reliable bit of information from any third-party source about the 2PoundDiet or your credentials or your experience. Everything you've offered has been your opinion. > So if you are going to be critical of science, fine. Get yourself, as > I have, to the scientists, the researchers, the people who actually > live and breathe it and ask THEM what's the scoop. This is all well and good as advice to others, but you don't do this with either the one hard promotion you've offered, or your background and expertise in training. The 2PoundDiet? No science. No support. Not even anecdotal information that could be accepted by a reasonable person. Your credentials? None in evidence. It's all well and good for you to assert the things you do about training and weight control, but without offering a reason to believe you (and while offering so many trolling reasons not to), there's no reason to believe you. You sound, on those occasions when you aren't merely mocking, as though you know *something* about the field. "How much" is the question. And "how objective" is another. If your posts supporting Chung are any indication, the amount of information you carry is of secondary import to the rigidity of your viewpoint. > Until then, it's nothing more than babbling and pontificating and it's > worth about that much. Exactly so. Like the 2PoundDiet. Babbling and pontificating with *nothing* objective to support it. Same with trainer credentials and skill. I've tried to keep the sarcasm and poking to a minimum here just to let the points of discussion make their own weight felt. The simple fact of the matter is that you're not a reliable source of information for all the reasons you've heard for a long time. For the same reasons, your opinions about essentially everything (including those areas where you could be genuinely knowledgeable) will be suspect if not openly dismissed because of what else you do. It's all of a piece; all part of the persona you offer here. Pastorio > No. However, they should have determined the role of excessive carbs on > blood chemistry before placing a near complete ban on fat. Also, they > should have studied LC nutrition before giving their collective blessing to > low fat. Saying "not more than 30% of calories from fat" = a near complete ban? Signaturejmk in NC >Saying "not more than 30% of calories from fat" = a near complete ban? Yes, in light of the recommendations to keep protein so low at the same time. I've read remarks from lipids researchers who say that with a 30% fat diet, it's impossible to include the amount of EFAs in the diet necessary for good health. Susan > > No. However, they should have determined the role of excessive carbs on > > blood chemistry before placing a near complete ban on fat. Also, they > > should have studied LC nutrition before giving their collective blessing to > > low fat. > > Saying "not more than 30% of calories from fat" = a near complete ban? No. Truth is simple. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > 1) When you ate too much of <fill in>, was it the scientific > communities fault that you were a glutton? The psychology of people who target people they do not know to degrade, or harrass, is usually that they are the very thing that they pick on others for, IE the closet homosexual that targets others for their homosexual behavior. Thus Eclipsed is probably a 800 pound loser living in his parents basement who fails on diets... preesi > 1) When you ate too much of <fill in>, was it the scientific > communities fault that you were a glutton? >The psychology of people who target people they do not know to degrade, or >harrass, >is usually that they are the very thing that they pick on others for, IE the >closet homosexual >that targets others for their homosexual behavior. lol http://mywebpages.comcast.net/preesi/SexSexSex.html First, you claim to be a Anabaptist Mennonitical Bisexual Christian but your "not of loose morals". lol I have another nutcase you can play with, Preesi. http://www.mattbernsteinsycamore.com/ >Thus Eclipsed is probably >a 800 pound >loser living in his parents basement who fails on diets... Here is the diet that I did NOT fail on. http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031111.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > lol > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > lol Sorry but RESPONSIBLE MONOGAMOUS SEX (which is what I engage in, in the tiny chance I may find that perfect guy Im looking for and GET some) is NOT a Immoral act and therefore melds perfectly with a religious LIFE! Sex is always put at the top of the MORAL scale when people discuss religion but it shouldnt be. At the end of the day its how good and kind and helpful to ppl you were, how you treated OTHERS, and whether you are a druggie, sleeping around, mistreating your kids and stealing etc. NOT WHETHER OR HOW YOU HAVE FUN IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP IN BED! Signaturepreesi ~~~My Mom and her Sister skip cheerily, arm and arm thru the crowded Mall loudly singing "Sisters, Sisters" from the movie 'White Christmas' and you wonder why Im a weirdo?~~~ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/preesi/Portal.htm (All 5 Of My Sites Under One Easy To Use Link) http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Splenda1/petition.html (Sign the Low Carb Splenda Petition-Get Liquid Splenda on the Market!) >> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/preesi/SexSexSex.html >> >> First, you claim to be a Anabaptist Mennonitical Bisexual Christian >> but your "not of loose morals". >> >> lol >Sorry but RESPONSIBLE MONOGAMOUS SEX (which is what I engage in, in the tiny >chance I may find that perfect guy Im looking for and GET some) >is NOT a Immoral act and therefore melds perfectly with a religious LIFE! In your perfectly delusional world, maybe. I suppose you mean you are monogamous with one sex partner per gender. May I quote from your website: "Describe Yourself, Preesi: I am THE Supreme SHE-ra Tomboy Diva submissive Woman! Able to lift heavy objects at her future Master's Orders and Look fabulous doing so! LOL! I am also Bisexual" Translation: You're a nutjob who will fornicate with damn near anything that has a hole. >At the end of the day its how good and kind and helpful to ppl you were, how >you treated OTHERS, and whether you are a druggie, sleeping around, >mistreating your kids and stealing etc. >NOT WHETHER OR HOW YOU HAVE FUN IN A COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP IN BED! You're "committed" alright. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031111.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/preesi/SexSexSex.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > You're "committed" alright. It is just the internet. If you CHOOSE to take everything that everyone says on the internet seriously, then you can do just that. Most people have an alter ego on the net, and until you get to know them, you cannot really claim to have them all figured out. >> You're "committed" alright. > >It is just the internet. It's Usenet. Learn the difference before you lecture me. Which is my biggest problem with you. You spout off a bunch of garbage, some of it dangerous, and you think you have a clue because you know Nintendo? Grow up. Btw, do you kow what a Xpost is? >If you CHOOSE to take everything that everyone says on the internet >seriously, then you can do just that. Puhleeeeeeeese, go do your homework, sonny. http://www.allthesky.com/eclipses/lunareclipse01a.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >>>You're "committed" alright. >>> >>It is just the internet. > > It's Usenet. Learn the difference before you lecture me. The difference isn't germane, M_usical chairs. The point is that it's an anonymous medium, as you well know because of your malicious exploitation of it. >>If you CHOOSE to take everything that everyone says on the internet >>seriously, then you can do just that. > > Puhleeeeeeeese, go do your homework, sonny. Love how shitwit Mu_zzy works. In post after post, he says that it's just a computer screen with dots on it and that it has no reality and then he gets all worked up and struts and swaggers and get his undies in a twist. Very funny exhibition for a guy who says it's unimportant. Boy gets right intense about things. For a fake with a fake name. Pastorio >>> You're "committed" alright. >> >>It is just the internet. > >It's Usenet. Learn the difference before you lecture me. Oooooo You're soooooo smart. I didn't know Usenet didn't use the Internet. Ummmm... How does it get here then? >Which is my biggest problem with you. You spout off a bunch of >garbage, some of it dangerous, and you think you have a clue because >you know Nintendo? Who's Nintendo? Sounds like a Mafia boss. You couldn't possibly like him. He's different. >Btw, do you kow what a Xpost is? How do you kow an Xpost? I'm SURE you must know. Is it one of your secret rituals? >>If you CHOOSE to take everything that everyone says on the internet >>seriously, then you can do just that. > >Puhleeeeeeeese, go do your homework, sonny. I'm reading the Chung FAQ. That was a good homework assignment. Thanks for giving it to us. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap043142.html Lift your leg, Eat like a dog, Walk on all fours, Live long and prosper. (Oops, wrong show) >Most people have an alter ego on the net, and until you get to know them, >you cannot really claim to have them all figured out. You're assuming he could figure it out even if he knew them. <g> Think about it. Matt "Eclipsed M_unlight" <nope@yahoo.com> wrote in message > In your perfectly delusional world, maybe. I suppose you mean you are > monogamous with one sex partner per gender. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > You're a nutjob who will fornicate with damn near anything that has a > hole. Actually The whole thing was meant to poke fun at myself and my whole loud attitude! LOL You dont actually believe that I wrote that in anything other than humor, do you? All my buds call me SHE-ra cause I pick up heavy objects like SHE_ra! And Im very monogamous and faithful and NEVER sleep around and havent acted on my bi-ness in 19 yrs, EVEN there Im too picky! Signaturepreesi ~~~My Mom and her Sister skip cheerily, arm and arm thru the crowded Mall loudly singing "Sisters, Sisters" from the movie 'White Christmas' and you wonder why Im a weirdo?~~~ http://mywebpages.comcast.net/preesi/Portal.htm (All 5 Of My Sites Under One Easy To Use Link) http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Splenda1/petition.html (Sign the Low Carb Splenda Petition-Get Liquid Splenda on the Market!) >> In your perfectly delusional world, maybe. I suppose you mean you are >> monogamous with one sex partner per gender. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> You're a nutjob who will fornicate with damn near anything that has a >> hole. >Actually The whole thing was meant to poke fun at myself and my whole loud >attitude! >LOL >You dont actually believe that I wrote that in anything other than humor, do >you? So it is all fantasy? You're not bisexual or an Anabaptist mennonite Freako? >All my buds call me SHE-ra cause I pick up heavy objects like SHE_ra! > >And Im very monogamous and faithful and NEVER sleep around >and havent acted on my bi-ness in 19 yrs, EVEN there Im too picky! Which parts are true, which aren't, where are there pics of you and do you live In Atlanta SMSA?? http://www.allthesky.com/eclipses/lunareclipse01a.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > You're a nutjob who will fornicate with damn near anything that has a > hole. Could somebody explain to M_ustiness about that hole/pole thing? He seems not to understand how it works with females and how they function sexually. Poor guy. Explains a lot. Pastorio >> You're a nutjob who will fornicate with damn near anything that has a >> hole. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Poor guy. Explains a lot. I agree. He has my pity. Let's pray for him. SignatureSteve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 >>>You're a nutjob who will fornicate with damn near anything that has a >>>hole. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I agree. He has my pity. Let's pray for him. Hey. Back off. I found him first. I get to pray for him first. Finders keepers. You can have him after I've thoroughly prayed for him. What's left. Pastorio >First, you claim to be a Anabaptist Mennonitical Bisexual Christian >but your "not of loose morals". Hey, great attack there. You sure scared them.. >I have another nutcase you can play with, Preesi. Watch what you say about nutcases. Remember my BenWas. I'm sensitive there. HUMBLY! HUMBLY!!! HUMBLY!!!!!! HUMBLY, damn it (just want to make sure you know I'm Humble) Prophet BenWa (I see into people's hearts) The Blessed BenWa Chung, PhD/HD/PRD/AD/ADD/PMS (and a few more too) Board-Certified Dick (Amateur Detective #4927467) http://www.heartsomethingorother.com/ (note the com part) >> 1) When you ate too much of <fill in>, was it the scientific >> communities fault that you were a glutton? > >The psychology of people who target people they do not know to degrade, or >harrass, >is usually that they are the very thing that they pick on others for, You should know you are talking to fanatics with a VERY narrow mind. Anyone who is even slightly different is attacked. Don't bother talking reason either. It will do NO good. Get ready for the wrath of Mu. <g> Best thing is to just have fun with it. Don't even BEGIN to take what they say seriously. Matt > :: Steven C (Doktersteve) wrote: > :: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > What a crock....who cares if/when the scientific community "proves that it > safe over the long term and declares it proved." That wasn't the question. The question was when will it become an acceptable way of eating? If the question refers to anything, it refers to the fact that the scientific community has not declared it acceptable. Otherwise you are calling Steven an idiot for asking the question. Since he asked the question for a reason, what I said isn't a crock. > Do we need the scientific community to tell us what to eat? It was their > bullshit that made many of us fat in the first place.... It was your overeating that made you fat. Nothing to do with the scientific community. No, you don't need their approval, but the question wasn't about your need. > Blind worship of science is very, very unhealthy. In fact, it can kill you > dead. True but not relevant. martin it stops being a fad when it is proven to work long term with not too many bad consequences. I am not trying to imply that Atkins diet does not work long term, but I am wishing for more long term studies. i Low carbing stops being a fad when significant numbers of people lose weight on it and keep it off for longer than a few months. Unfortunately, low carbing has the reputation among the medical people I've spoken to as a diet that works for a while but which people can't stick to. They've told me that when patients go off it, they tend to regain lost weight very quickly, perhaps because they've "educated" themselves that fat is good and keep eating a lot of fat along with the carbs that turn it into instant body fat. Only when there are significant numbers of long term low carbers around who have improved not only their weight but their health will the attitude towards this diet change. -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will > cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > national brands (Heinz, bryers, subway, etc) out there, people will stop and > think twice before labeling everyone who eats LC as eating a fad diet. > Low carbing stops being a fad when significant numbers of people lose weight > on it and keep it off for longer than a few months. Actually, I hold a slightly different view regarding that. Eating "lo-carb" was the way humans evolved--think Paleo. The "fad" is how we came to seek out and eat carbs in lieu of our original dietary complement. So if they wanna bandi about "fad", I remind them that it's their way of eating that's the most recent "fad..." DustyB Signature-= Remove CARBS to reply =- > -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, > hba1c 5.2. ... Actually it is more serious than that. Modern humans, that is from 100,00 years ago, have always been diversivores. What made us so successful was that we could adapt to whatever nutrition was around. Our physiology lends itself to a variety of foods. However we now live in times which are very different from anything that went before. We have food in plenty and we do not have to do manual work from sunup to sundown. So we have to adjust our diet accordingly. Nothing wrong with carbohydrate - much of the world lives on little else - unless we have insufficient physical activity to balance energy output and carb input. If we don't then blood glucose rises. If blood glucose rises the body homeostasis is threatened by a corresponding fall in sodium (serum osmolality defence) and we then suffer all kinds of conditions including loss of control of appetite. So to stay healthy in an advanced society blood glucose must not rise, i.e. a low carbohydrate diet. No fad - straightforward science. More at http://www.innatehealth.com > > Low carbing stops being a fad when significant numbers of people lose > weight [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DustyB > Unfortunately, low carbing has the reputation among the medical people I've > spoken to as a diet that works for a while but which people can't stick to. > They've told me that when patients go off it, they tend to regain lost > weight very quickly, perhaps because they've "educated" themselves that fat > is good and keep eating a lot of fat along with the carbs that turn it into > instant body fat. From what I have read, exactly same can be applied to low-fat diet (just replace 'fat' with 'carbohydrates'), still low-fat is not considered to be fad diet... Mirek it seems to me that we are going back to the SUGAR FREE world that was stressed when i was in high school in the 60's! Signatureread and post daily, it works! rosie "Hell they won't lie to me/ Not on my own damn TV/ But how much is a liar's word worth/ And whatever happened to peace on earth?" ....................................Willie Nelson REGIME CHANGE BEGINS AT HOME ****VOTE**** "Steven C (Doktersteve)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1i6Kb.162634$ss5.159769@clgrps13... > Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will > cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > national brands (Heinz, bryers, subway, etc) out there, people will stop and > think twice before labeling everyone who eats LC as eating a fad diet. > it seems to me that we are going back to the SUGAR FREE world that > was stressed when i was in high school in the 60's! That's right. The way I eat on Atkins is almost the same as we ate in my family when I was groing up, except we didn't have low-carb bread, and we ate potatoes. martin Steven - you are right. But what is needed is the scientific basis for not eating a high proportion of carbohydrate and thus raising blood sugar. You will find the science explained at http://www.innatehealth.com/obesity.htm It has long been known that a high carbohydrate diet decreases stomach acid production. This sounds good. It is not. One of my discoveries is that reduced stomach acid output in turn decreases the production of vasocative intestinal polypeptide (VIP), because one of the functions of VIP is to limit acid production. But VIP is required throughout the body to maintain function of the epithelial surfaces (including the skin and that of the gastrointestinal tract) and to maintain vasodilation, a marker of health. Reduced VIP is definitely bad news for health, because proper digestion depends on intestinal mucus which depends on VIP. Then proper digestion prompts very powerful hormones to give you the desirable full control of appetite and thus your body shape. No one seems to have thought of the importance of VIP - not even Dr. Atkins! Those quitting a high carbohydrate diet will benefit from two glasses of unsweetened grapefruit juice, cranberry juice or other acid drink each day for 2-4 weeks to get VIP back to optimum. Incidently this explains the health benefits of strange bitter tropical fruits which always seem to be discovered. It is not a mysterious secret ingredient - it is just that they are acidic! Best wishes, Warren > Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will > cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > national brands (Heinz, bryers, subway, etc) out there, people will stop and > think twice before labeling everyone who eats LC as eating a fad diet. > Steven - you are right. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Warren Warren, may I ask a question? I have been taking Prevacid for some years and now am LCing. One thing I have noticed is a vast aging of my skin. Is this perchance related to your comment re epithelial surfaces???? If so, what would you suggest? SignatureJean B. Jean, Now that you're low carbing and have elminated wheat and corn from your diet, you might not need prevacid at all. There might be a "rebound" effect for a few days when you go off it, but after that you may be fine. Check with your doctor if there is a reason other than garden variety heartburn why you take it. That said, the changes in skin are probably not due to the drug, but to the natural changes that occur around your age. I went from no wrinkles to prune face in one year in my mid forties. <sigh> Having light hair and light, freckly skin makes it worse as your skin tends to be thinner to start with. But hey, it really isn't the end of the world. I experienced the great romance of my life (which is still going on 8 years later) a couple years after getting all wrinkley. <g> -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > Steven - you are right. > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > -- > Jean B. > Jean, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > romance of my life (which is still going on 8 years later) a couple years > after getting all wrinkley. <g> Sigh. That's encouraging. Yes, I am 54, so age has something (a lot) to do with it. But this is just so sudden. There were no fine wrinkles and then practically the next day there were. That's why it bothers me so much. SignatureJean B. Jean, If you got to 54 without wrinkles, count your blessings! The "overnight" thing was what happened to me, too. I suspect that there might be some threshold level in your collagen, where it looks fine though it is thinning, but when it finally loses that last little bit of elasticity, everything collapses at once and you get the sudden wrinkles. But hey, you're still alive. So many people my age, including a few people in my personal circle are not. I have to keep that in mind when the whole health/age thing starts to get to me. And thank goodness for nearsighted men! <G> -- Jenny - Low Carbing for 4 years. At goal for weight. Type 2 diabetes, hba1c 5.2. Cut the carbs to respond to my email address! Low carb facts and figures, my weight-loss photos, tips, recipes and more at http://www.geocities.com/jenny_the_bean/ Looking for help controlling your blood sugar? Visit http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/Newly%20Diagnosed.htm > > Jean, > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > Jean B. > Jean, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And thank goodness for nearsighted men! <G> More sighing. You are most likely right--also I when I was plumper, my skin was obviously stretched out more. And even as I was writing about my wrinkles, I was thinking that was sort-of petty, given all the other problems I could have (and not even including the fact that I could be defunct). Maybe it's lucky we (and they) have more vision problems as we age!!!!! SignatureJean B. I am an aetiologist, not a doctor, so I should not advise you. Prevacid (Lansoprazole) can be prescribed for a number of different conditions. As far as skin quality is concerned it is known that the numbers of skin capillaries reduces with age. Since the skin quality depends on the oxygen exchange with these capillaries, their loss reduces the quality. This is what you are calling aging. This is explained in virtually the only skin quality manual of recent times Measuring the Skin: Non-invasive Investigations,Physiology,Normal Constants Pierre Agache (Editor), Philippe Humbert (Editor) Weathering of the skin of the face is unavoidable for those working outside, for example, but aging caused by loss of capillaries has remained a mystery until now. I have detailed my discovery in the article at http://www.innatehealth.com/hypertension.htm that blockage of sweat ducts, of which we all have between 2 and 4 million, causes sweat under pressure trapped in the skin to destroy the skin capillaries, which have walls only one cell in thickness. Fortunately this defect is easily reversible, and the capillaries regenerate within 1-2 weeks, as explained at http://www.innatehealth.com/cell-signalling.htm. This is all now published, although it took me sixteen years to work it out, discovering the aetiology of essential hypertension, the biggest killer disease of advanced societies, on the way. With best wishes, Warren > > Steven - you are right. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > aging of my skin. Is this perchance related to your comment re > epithelial surfaces???? If so, what would you suggest? > I am an aetiologist, not a doctor, so I should not advise you. > Prevacid (Lansoprazole) can be prescribed for a number of different [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Warren Thanks, Warren! :-) SignatureJean B. > "Steven C \(Doktersteve\)" <real_doktersteve@hotmail.com> wrote > > Well, I was just wondering when the low carb "fad" I keep reading about will > > cease to be a fad, and will actually start to become an acceptable way of > > eating. I would say it's well on the way to becoming mainstream now that the franchises are getting into the act and running tv commercials about low carb. Its what the people do that matters, not what uninformed doctors, tv talking heads and advocates of other diets tell them to do. nospamgotowebsite@innatehealth.com (Warren Ward) wrote > ... what is needed is the scientific basis for not eating a high > proportion of carbohydrate and thus raising blood sugar. Isn't weight-loss basis enough? (and the other benefits related to sleep, reflux, appetite suppression). There are actually two issues here: 1. convincing the general public - already happening 2. winning one-on-one arguments with skeptics - more difficult. On point 2: If there were serious health problems associated with low carb diets, why haven't they shown up in the last 30 years (indisputably the most health conscious and litigious 30 years in human history)? Do we really mean "low-carb"? Don't we actually mean "non-high carb"? Did out paleolithic ancestors eat potatoes, rice, pasta? (I won an argument with a calorie-counter using this one) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.